[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.211.179.232. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
December 1977

Implantation vs Exploitation

Author Affiliations

London, Ontario

Arch Ophthalmol. 1977;95(12):2231. doi:10.1001/archopht.1977.04450120137026

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.

Abstract

To the Editor.–I have read with interest Dr Paul Henkind's letter in the June 1977 Archives, entitled: "Tilting at Windmills" (95:1083-1084). In this letter, Dr Henkind surveys the ethical and surgical problems that are associated with lens implantation and, to a lesser extent, with phacoemulsification.

Although he asserts: "I am opposed neither to the concept of intraocular lenses nor to their use in selected cases," Henkind's letter suggests that he has at least a negative bias toward this procedure. Most of his criticisms about the lack of investigational background to implantation are quite valid. Perhaps to link, as he does, the bad results from use of "the initial lenses" (presumably those of Ridley and early pioneers in the field) with the results of the present generation of lenses is unfair. Certainly, if Henkind cannot identify more than a handful of patients who would require intraocular lens implantations among his

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
×