[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
October 1992

Making Sense of Keratospeak IVClassification of Refractive Surgery, 1992

Author Affiliations

From the Department of Ophthalmology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Ga. The author has no proprietary interest in the research or materials presented within this article.

Arch Ophthalmol. 1992;110(10):1385-1391. doi:10.1001/archopht.1992.01080220047020

In 1985,I published in the Archives the first of a series of articles describing keratospeak—a classification and terminology of refractive corneal surgery.1 Two more recent articles on the terminology of corneal topography and laser corneal surgery have been published.2,3 Since then, refractive surgery has changed in three major ways. First, the number of techniques of refractive corneal surgery has increased markedly. Second, different procedures now ride the wave of popularity; epikeratoplasty has fallen off and excimer laser is riding high. Third, cataract surgery with intraocular lens (IOL) implantation has increasingly emphasized the reduction of postoperative spherical and astigmatic refractive errors, particularly with the introduction of multifocal IOLs and intraoperative transverse keratotomy. Intraocular lens implantation in phakic eyes is again under evaluation for the treatment of myopia (Table). Even the definition of a successful result is changing. Many consider a refractive result of ±1.00 diopter a useful yardstick,

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