[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
October 1994

Pseudophakic Bullous Keratopathy and Intraocular Lens FixationTo Suture or Not: That Is the Question!

Author Affiliations

Salt Lake City, Utah

Arch Ophthalmol. 1994;112(10):1289-1290. doi:10.1001/archopht.1994.01090220039018

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

Although IT may not rank with troop withdrawal from Somalia, Bosnian intervention, or the Clinton Health Care Plan, intraocular lens (IOL) fixation in patients without a capsule in association with a corneal transplantation is an important controversy nonetheless. Corneal specialists, in general, are a gentle group, so the call to battle has been soft and muted. Sides, however, have been taken, and battle lines have been drawn. There are three camps, each with a battle cry and undesirable baggage.

CAMP 1  Camp 1 consists of the flexible open-loop, anterior chamber IOL advocates.

Battle Cry  If it isn't broken, why fix it? Appropriate anterior chamber IOLs do just as good a job as other approaches, with immensely easier surgical gymnastics.

Undesirable Baggage  Reports such as the one by Brunette et al1 in this issue of the Archives suggest that anterior chamber IOLs do not achieve the same desirable results as

References
1.
Brunette I, Stulting RD, Rinne JR, Waring GO III, Gemmil M.  Penetrating keratoplasty with anterior or posterior chamber intraocular lens implantation . Arch Ophthalmol . 1994;112:1311-1319.Article
2.
Schein OD, Kenyon KR, Steinert RF, et al.  A randomized trial of intraocular lens fixation techniques with penetrating keratoplasty . Ophthalmology . 1993;100:1437-1443.Article
×