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?

Massimo Busin, MD
Bonn, Germany

Arch Ophthalmol. 1994;112(5):578.

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

In reply

I acknowledge Girard's reports on the use of a scleral tunnel for intraocular lens implantation. However, his claim that closing the tunnel with absorbable sutures might offer advantages over a sutureless tunnel does not seem justified. Traumatic wound ruptures, endophthalmitis, and a gradual drift of astigmatism toward "against the rule" are also seen after conventional cataract surgery with sutured corneoscleral wounds. Only a randomized study involving a large number of patients operated on by the same surgeon could show any statistically significant difference between sutureless and conventional catract surgery in regard to the incidence of these complications.

The only report by Girard and coworkers¹ available to me included a relatively small number of patients (36) with a mean follow-up of 6.6 months (range, 3 to 15 months). All patients underwent pars plana lensectomy, vitrectomy, and intraocular lens implantation through a scleral tunnel that was finally closed with . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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