This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.
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
Dyson C. Implantation vs Exploitation. Arch Ophthalmol. 1977;95(12):2231. doi:10.1001/archopht.1977.04450120137026
Monkeypox Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.