Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Hatem Awady, Asaad Ghanem (2013)
Secondary piggyback implantation versus IOL exchange for symptomatic pseudophakic residual ametropiaGraefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, 251
J. Gills (1998)
Piggyback minus‐power lens implantation in keratoconusJournal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, 24
S. Masket (1998)
Piggyback intraocular lens implantationJournal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, 24
L. Werner, N. Mamalis, S. Stevens, B. Hunter, J. Chew, L. Vargas (2006)
Interlenticular opacification: Dual‐optic versus piggyback intraocular lensesJournal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, 32
Z. Habot-Wilner, D. Sachs, M. Cahane, A. Alhalel, H. Desatnik, Emanuel Schwalb, I. Barequet (2005)
Refractive results with secondary piggyback implantation to correct pseudophakic refractive errorsJournal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, 31
Terrence Spencer, N. Mamalis, S. Lane (2002)
Interlenticular opacification of piggyback acrylic intraocular lenses.Journal of cataract and refractive surgery, 28 7
L. Mejía (1999)
Piggyback posterior chamber multifocal intraocular lenses in anisometropia.Journal of cataract and refractive surgery, 25 12
J. Shugar, Thomas Schwartz (1999)
Interpseudophakos Elschnig pearls associated with late hyperopic shift: a complication of piggyback posterior chamber intraocular lens implantation.Journal of cataract and refractive surgery, 25 6
D. Perrone (1996)
Modified Intraocular Lens Power Formula in PolypseudophakiaJournal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, 22
(2011)
Duet implantation with the Sulcoflex
J. Narvaez, G. Zimmerman, D. Stulting, Daniel Chang (2006)
Accuracy of intraocular lens power prediction using the Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, and SRK/T formulasJournal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, 32
(2012)
Light adjustable lens outcomes : novel technology allows excellent refractive outcomes in challenging cases
P. Barry, D. Seal, G. Gettinby, F. Lees, M. Peterson, C. Revie (2006)
ESCRS study of prophylaxis of postoperative endophthalmitis after cataract surgery: Preliminary report of principal results from a European multicenter studyJournal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, 32
J. Shugar, Scott Keeler (2000)
Interpseudophakos intraocular lens surface opacification as a late complication of piggyback acrylic posterior chamber lens implantation.Journal of cataract and refractive surgery, 26 3
(2008)
Refractive enhancement with piggybacking IOLs
Christopher Sáles, E. Manche (2015)
Managing residual refractive error after cataract surgery.Journal of cataract and refractive surgery, 41 6
J. Holladay, J. Gills, Jane Leidlein, M. Cherchio (1996)
Achieving emmetropia in extremely short eyes with two piggyback posterior chamber intraocular lenses.Ophthalmology, 103 7
(1996)
Cataract Refract Surg
(2012)
The duet procedure — how and when to use supplementary IOLs
S. Masket, N. Fram (2011)
Pseudophakic negative dysphotopsia: Surgical management and new theory of etiologyJournal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, 37
(1999)
Degradation of retinal image quality due to tilt and decentration errors in polypseudophakia
J. Gayton, D. Apple, Q. Peng, N. Visessook, V. Sanders, L. Werner, S. Pandey, M. Escobar‐Gomez, D. Hoddinott, M. Karr (2000)
Interlenticular opacification: clinicopathological correlation of a complication of posterior chamber piggyback intraocular lenses.Journal of cataract and refractive surgery, 26 3
N. Reiter, L. Werner, J. Guan, J. Li, K. Tsaousis, N. Mamalis, S. Srinivasan (2017)
Assessment of a new hydrophilic acrylic supplementary IOL for sulcus fixation in pseudophakic cadaver eyesEye, 31
M. Amon (2012)
Sulcoflex : Design , results and indications
R. Donoso, A. Rodríguez (2001)
Piggyback implantation using the AMO array multifocal intraocular lens.Journal of cataract and refractive surgery, 27 9
J. Gayton, V. Sanders, M. Karr, M. Raanan (1999)
Piggybacking intraocular implants to correct pseudophakic refractive error.Ophthalmology, 106 1
G. Jin, K. Merkley, A. Crandall, Y. Jones (2008)
Laser in situ keratomileusis versus lens‐based surgery for correcting residual refractive error after cataract surgeryJournal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, 34
J. Gills (1997)
Cataract Surgery: The State of the Art
L. Brierley (2013)
Refractive results after implantation of a light-adjustable intraocular lens in postrefractive surgery cataract patients.Ophthalmology, 120 10
I. Kuo, T. O'brien, A. Broman, M. Ghajarnia, N. Jabbur (2005)
Excimer laser surgery for correction of ametropia after cataract surgeryJournal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, 31
H. Eleftheriadis, A. Sciscio, A. Ismail, C. Hull, Christopher Liu (2001)
Primary polypseudophakia for cataract surgery in hypermetropic eyes: refractive results and long term stability of the implants within the capsular bagBritish Journal of Ophthalmology, 85
J. Gayton, V. Sanders (1993)
Implanting two posterior chamber intraocular lenses in a case of microphthalmosJournal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, 19
T. Rückl, A. Dexl, A. Bachernegg, Veronika Reischl, W. Riha, J. Ruckhofer, P. Binder, G. Grabner (2013)
Femtosecond laser–assisted intrastromal arcuate keratotomy to reduce corneal astigmatismJournal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, 39
Shirley Chang, G. Lim (2004)
Secondary pigmentary glaucoma associated with piggyback intraocular lens implantation.Journal of cataract and refractive surgery, 30 10
T. Iwase, N. Tanaka (2005)
Elevated intraocular pressure in secondary piggyback intraocular lens implantation.Journal of cataract and refractive surgery, 31 9
Steele McIntyre, L. Werner, Stanley Fuller, Shaheen Kavoussi, Mark Hill, N. Mamalis (2012)
Assessment of a single‐piece hydrophilic acrylic IOL for piggyback sulcus fixation in pseudophakic cadaver eyesJournal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, 38
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/apjoo by BhDMf5ePHKbH4TTImqenVA+lpWIIBvonhQl60EtgtdlLYrLzSPu+hQedJnbNaXBf on 03/22/2021 REVIEW ARTICLE Supplementary IOLs: Monofocal and Multifocal, Their Applications and Limitations Bita Manzouri, MB BS, MRCP, FRCOphth, MD,*† Maria-Laura Dari, FMH, FEBO,* and Charles Claoué, MA (Cantab), MD, DO, FRCS (Eng), FRCOphth, FEBO‡ second scenario is where the refractive surprise has arisen be‑ Abstract: Supplemental intraocular lenses (IOLs) have been devel‑ cause of mislabeling of the original IOL implanted. This occurs oped to replace IOLs designed for in‑the‑bag placement being used as occasionally, although manufacturers have high levels of vigi‑ “piggy‑back” IOLs in the sulcus due to unacceptable complications. The lance. As an example, suppose the biometry for a RLE patient new IOLs have unique platform designs to avoid these complications. As shows a +21.0 diopter (D) IOL should be used; this is the power a result, a new nomenclature is needed to describe the 4 scenarios when implanted, but although the packaging states the IOL power to supplemental IOL use is now indicated. be +21.0 D, its true power is +27.0 D and a myopic refractive surprise results. The surgeon reviews the biometry, cannot see an Key Words: supplemental intraocular lenses, IOLs, piggyback error, and uses the original biometry and postoperative
The Asia-Pacific Journal of Ophthalmology – Wolters Kluwer Health
Published: Jul 1, 2017
Keywords: piggyback
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.