This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (14)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

ROBERT J. SCHILLINGER, M.D.; ROBERT V. SHEARER, M.D.; O. ROBERT LEVY, B.S.

AMA Arch Ophthalmol. 1958;59(3):423-434.

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

The implantation of a plastic lenticulus after removal of a cataract has been a controversial subject from the very beginning. Kirby¹ lists his objections to the Ridley technique as follows: (1) the chemical reaction of a foreign body; (2) the reaction between the lens and the posterior surface of the iris; (3) the pathology which may result from the repeated movement of the lens; (4) the effect of volume and weight of the lens with the eye in motion; (5) the inferior visual results; (6) the protracted inflammatory period.

He further states that, although he prefers not to use the technique at present, he would urge others to continue research on suitable animal eyes. A recent report by Redmond Smith² on nine human eyes removed because of intense anterior chamber reaction after Ridley operations also suggests that more animal trials are desirable.

This is a report on experimental . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
Los Angeles

From the Department of Ophthalmology, College of Medical Evangelists.

Footnotes
Received for publication June 15, 1957.

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