scholarly journals Laser-intraocular lenses interaction: Aspects to consider for in situ vision correction

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
G Kareliotis ◽  
E Drakaki ◽  
C Bacharis ◽  
M Makropoulou ◽  
AA Serafetinides
Cornea ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 35 (11) ◽  
pp. 1404-1409 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcony R. Santhiago ◽  
Bruna V. Ventura ◽  
Ramon C. Ghanem ◽  
Newton Kara-Junior ◽  
Haroldo V. Moraes ◽  
...  

2011 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 826-829 ◽  
Author(s):  
César Albarrán-Diego ◽  
Gonzalo Muñoz ◽  
Teresa Ferrer-Blasco ◽  
Santiago García-Lázaro

Purpose. Three cases of patients who developed a similar hyperopic defect in refraction following laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) after multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantation are described. Methods. Ophthalmologic evaluation including refractive status, corrected and uncorrected visual acuity (both at far and near), and corneal topography in patients presenting similar hyperopic refractive surprise in one eye as a result of LASIK refinement of residual ametropia after refractive multifocal IOL implantation. Results. Laser in situ keratomileusis enhancement for residual ametropia of −1.00 to −1.50 D in patients with a prior implantation of refractive multifocal IOL resulted in a refractive surprise of +2.25 to +2.50 D. After excluding other possible sources of error, an explanation for such a refractive surprise is suggested, and a simple method for avoiding this error is presented. Conclusions. Proper knowledge of the defocus curve and the use of a systematic method for determining subjective refraction in patients implanted with refractive multifocal IOLs will reduce the possibility of refractive surprise after LASIK enhancement in a bioptics procedure.


2008 ◽  
Vol 222 (2) ◽  
pp. 69-73 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Meltendorf ◽  
Magdalena Cichocki ◽  
Thomas Kohnen

2011 ◽  
Vol 2011 ◽  
pp. 1-4
Author(s):  
Ming Chen

This 48-year-old white female with chronic optic disc edema is reported for the discussion of the management for the laser vision correction. Two procedures were considered, one was PRK (photorefractive keratectomy) and the other was LASIK (laser-assisted in-situ keratomileusis). A search strategy was developed to search evidence in the literature to support the decision in the selection of the better procedure for this patient. The evidences also were rigorously appraised for the validity. PRK was selected and performed on the patient with good outcome.


2003 ◽  
Vol 136 (3) ◽  
pp. 490-499 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gonzalo Muñoz ◽  
Jorge L. Alió ◽  
Robert Montés-Micó ◽  
José I. Belda

2011 ◽  
Vol 05 (01) ◽  
pp. 50 ◽  
Author(s):  
Usama Fares ◽  
Mouhamed Ali Al-Aqaba ◽  
Ahmad Muneer Otri ◽  
Harminder S Dua ◽  
◽  
...  

Refractive surgery has become the most rapidly developing field in ophthalmology over the last two decades. Several modern refractive procedures have become available over the last 10 years including phakic intraocular lenses (pIOLs), epithelial laser-assistedin situkeratomileusis (epi-LASIK), wavefront-guided (WG) laser treatments and a few others. Laser and non-laser refractive surgical procedures are currently used to address refractive errors. No single procedure works best for everyone; each one has its own set of advantages and disadvantages. Careful patient selection is the key for optimum visual outcomes. Treatment algorithms have been refined over the years, improving accuracy. Laser technology and delivery platforms are under continuous improvement, leading to increasingly precise results. Further modifications and refinements are ongoing, offering expanding surgical options in this rapidly evolving field.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document