Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Supplementary IOLs: Monofocal and Multifocal, Their Applications and Limitations

Supplementary IOLs: Monofocal and Multifocal, Their Applications and Limitations 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 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png The Asia-Pacific Journal of Ophthalmology Wolters Kluwer Health

Supplementary IOLs: Monofocal and Multifocal, Their Applications and Limitations

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wolters-kluwer-health/supplementary-iols-monofocal-and-multifocal-their-applications-and-ZLOPUWtPEi
Publisher
Wolters Kluwer Health
Copyright
© 2017 by Asia Pacific Academy of Ophthalmology
ISSN
2162-0989
eISSN
2475-5028
DOI
10.22608/APO.2017110
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

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

Journal

The Asia-Pacific Journal of OphthalmologyWolters Kluwer Health

Published: Jul 1, 2017

Keywords: piggyback

There are no references for this article.