[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.205.209.213. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
May 1989

Refractive Results of Hyperopic Hydrogel Intracorneal Lenses in Primate Eyes

Author Affiliations

From the Departments of Ophthalmology, Emory University, Atlanta (Dr McCarey), Louisiana State University, New Orleans (Drs McDonald and Salmeron), and Erasmus University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (Dr van Rij); and Allergan Medical Optics, Irvine, Calif (Mr Pettit and Dr Knight).

Arch Ophthalmol. 1989;107(5):724-730. doi:10.1001/archopht.1989.01070010742038
Abstract

• Hyperopic hydrogel intracorneal lenses were successfully implanted into 27 of 33 primate eyes. All eyes were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively at monthly intervals for clinical appearance and refractive alteration. In a preliminary surgical series, several factors, such as tight sutures and implant design, resulted in a poor refractive yield. The final surgical series used a microkeratome with a pediatric microkeratome ring for smooth interface cuts, interrupted suturing with sufficient tension to align the wound without compression, a suture through the lens to prevent its dislocation, and intraoperative keratometry to reduce postoperative cylinder. The predicted vs measured refractive alteration for a range of 6 to 20 diopters had a correlation coefficient of.95. Keratometry changes correlated to the refractive changes with a coefficient of.97 but understated the change in refraction created by the surgery.

References
1.
Watsky MA, McCarey BE, Beekhuis WH:  Predicting refractive alterations with hydrogel keratophakia . Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1985;26:240-243.
2.
Werblin TP, Peiffer RL, Fryczkowski AW:  Myopic hydrogel keratophakia: Preliminary report . Cornea 1984/1985;3:197-204.
3.
Beekhuis WH, McCarey BE, Waring GO, et al:  Hydrogel keratophakia: A microkeratome dissection in the monkey model . Br J Ophthalmol 1986;70:192-198.Article
4.
Binder PS, Deg JK, Zavala EY, et al:  Hydrogel keratophakia in non-human primates . Curr Eye Res 1981/1982;1:535-542.Article
5.
McCarey BE, Wilson LA: pH,  osmolarity and temperature effects on water content of hydrogel contact lenses . Contact Intraocul Lens Med J 1982;8:158-167.
6.
Maguire LJ, Singer DE, Klyce SD:  Graphic presentation of computer-analyzed keratoscope photographs . Arch Ophthalmol 1987;105:223-230.Article
7.
McCarey BE, van Rij G, Beekhuis WH, et al:  Hydrogel keratophakia: A freehand pocket dissection in the monkey model . Br J Ophthalmol 1986;70:187-191.Article
8.
Barraquer JI:  Keratomileusis for the correction of aphakia . Trans New Orleans Acad Ophthalmol 1980;450-479.
9.
Beekhuis WH, McCarey BE:  Hydration stability of intracorneal hydrogel implants . Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1985;26:1634-1636.
10.
Werblin TP, Blaydes JE, Fryzkowski AW, et al:  Stability of hydrogel intracorneal implants in non-human primates . CLAO J 1983;9:157-161.
11.
Arffa RC, Klyce SD, Busin M:  Keratometry in epikeratophakia . J Refractive Surg 1986;2:61-64.
12.
Swinger CA, Barker BA:  Prospective evaluation of myopic keratomileusis . Ophthalmology 1984;91:785-792.Article
13.
Kornmehl EW, Swinger CA, Pugh IW, et al:  Corneascope evaluation of myopic keratomileusis . Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1985;26( (suppl) ):203.
14.
Rowsey JJ, Balyeat HD:  Preliminary results and complications of radial keratotomy . Am J Ophthalmol 1982;93:437-455.
15.
Barraquer JI:  Keratomileusis for myopia and aphakia . Ophthalmology 1981;88:701-708.Article
×