This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Dennis M. Marcus, MD; Dimitri Azar, MD; Carol Boerner, MD; David G. Hunter, MD, PhD
Boston, Mass

Arch Ophthalmol. 1992;110(5):609.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

Flexible intraocular lenses and small-incision phacoemulsification cataract surgery may offer advantages over phacoemulsification with traditional polymethylmethacrylate lens insertion. These advantages may include a reduced magnitude of postoperative corneal astigmatism, iris prolapse, flat anterior chambers, epithelial down-growth, bleb formation, disturbance of preexisting filtering blebs, and vitreous adherence to the wound. As only a small number (relative to polymethylmethacrylate lens implantations) of flexible posterior chamber intraocular lens implantations have been performed, the type and incidence of less common complications of flexible lenses are still emerging.

Pupillary block is a rare complication of posterior chamber intraocular lens implantation, occurring in 0.3% of cases. Secondary pupillary block is rarely a consequence of pupillary capture of nonflexible posterior chamber intraocular lenses, with only five cases reported.^1,2 We report the first case, to our knowledge, of pupillary block secondary to pupillary capture of a flexible, silicone posterior chamber intraocular lens.

Report of a Case.

— . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?