- Email: [email protected]
Survey of Secondary Lens Implantation
survey of secondary lens implantation John J. Darin, M.D . Westlake Village, California
YEAR TOTAL STARTED 1.0.L.
S.I.
%S .1.
POST POST I.C .C.E . E.C.C.E.
CORNELIUS D. BINKHORST, M.D .* Terneuzen, Holland
1952
2000
D.P. CHOYCE, M.S., F .R .C.S.* London, England
1953
1250
1200 95 .1%
960
240
TURGUT N. HAMDI, M.D. Philadelphia, Penn.
1953
470
150 32.5%
6
147
MILES A. GALIN, M.D. New York, New York
1959
1800
12
0 .6%
HERVE M . BYRON, M.D. Englewood, New Jersey
1966
300
2
0.6%
MARVIN L. KWITKO, M.D. Montreal, Canada
1966
238
12
5.0%
6
6
J.G.F. WORST, M .D. Groningen , Holland
1967
2250
50
2.2%
7
43
HENRY HIRSCHMAN, M.D. Long Beach, California
1967
1800
83
4 .1%
49
34
NORMAN S. JAFFE, M.D. Miami Beach, Florida
1967
1500
BRYAN CRUICHSHANKS, M.D. Sarnia, Ontario, Canada
1967
549
17
3.1%
CHARLES H . BECHERT II , M.D . Fort Lauderdale, Florida
1968
800
10
1.2%
DONALD L. PRAEGER, M.D. Poughkeepsie, New York
1968
750
3
0.4%
MURRY K. WEBER, M.D. Canoga Park, California
1968
300
8
2.6%
RALPH D. ANDERSON, M.D. San Diego, California
1968
200
0
DENNIS D. SHEPARD, M.D., F.A.C.S. Santa Maria, California
1971
700
19
2.7%
18
BRUCE COHEN , M.D . Ann Arbor, Michigan
1971
335
8
2.4%
8
HENRY M . CLAYMAN, M.D. Miami Beach, Florida
1972
400
2
0.5%
2
JACK HARTSTEIN, M.D. St . Lou is, Missouri
1972
350
28
9 .0%
25
3
JOHN J. ALPAR, M.D. Amarillo, Texas
1972
332
12
3.6%
2
10
FRANCIS C. HERTZOG, JR., M.D. Long Beach, California
1972
300
10
3.3%
RONALD W. BARNET, M.D. Sun City , Arizona
1973
1000
101
10.1%
43
58
150
7.5%
0.06%
3 4
4
0%
31
YEAR TOTAL STARTED 1.0.L.
POST
JERALD L. TENNANT, M.D. Dallas, Texas
1973
500
26
5.2%
STANLEY P. OLEKSY, M.D. Jackson, Michigan
1973
327
3
0.9%
3
MARY MICHAELES, M.D. Long Beach, California
1973
264
11
4.1%
9
JOSEPH DARR, M.D. Indio, California
1973
250
3
1.2%
ROBERT C. DREWS, M.D. Clayton, Missouri
1973
212
2
0.9%
KENNETHJ.HOFFER Santa Monica, California
1974
100
3
3%
JAMES H. LITTLE, M.D. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
1974
1350
36
2.8%
31
5
JOHN H. SHEETS, M.D. Odessa, Texas
1974
1200
23
1.9%
13
10
RICHARD P. KRATZ, M.D. Van Nuys, California
1974
565
6
1.6%
ALLEN G. PARELMAN, M.D. Kansas City, Missouri
1974
475
20
4.2%
MALCOLM A. MC CANNEL, M.D. Minneapolis, Minnesota
1974
350
15
4.2%
FIRMON E. HARDENBERGH, M.D. Boulder, Colorado
1974
300
64 21.3%
JOHN E. GILMORE, M.D. Santa Monica, California
1974
150
8
5.3%
LAWRENCE D. CASTLEMAN, M.D. Lincoln Park, Michigan
1974
120
4
3.3%
HERBERT GOULD, M.D. White Plains, New York
1974
115
DONALD E. DICKERSON, M.D. Santa Monica, California
1974
100
3
3.0%
ROBERT F. AZAR, M.D. New Orleans, Louisiana
1975
460
24
5.2%
23
DOUGLAS E. WILLIAMSON, M.D. Venice, Florida
1975
360
12
3.3%
12
JOHN W. MC TIGUE, M.D. Washington, D.C.
1975
300
17
5.6%
GUY KNOLLE, M.D. Houston, Texas
1975
112
5
4.5%
*Figures Approximate TOTAL
32
POST
% S.1. I.C.C.E. E.C.C.E.
S.1.
25,234
2
2 2
0.9%
-----2,164 11.66% 1 ,224
5
574
Conclusions 1. Everyone agrees that if a patient is wearing a contact lens
the patient should not undergo secondary lens implantation. 2. It is well agreed upon that it is much safer to perform a secondary lens implantation in an eye with an intact posterior capsule than in an eye which has undergone prior intracapsular surgery. 3. Many, if not most implant surgeons, will not do a secondary lens implantation in an eye with vitreous in the anterior chamber. 4. Some implant surgeons, judging by their statistics and comments, are strongly opposed to secondary lens implantation. 5. There is a recent trend for surgeons who do secondary lens implantation to use the Choyce Mark VIII Lens. 6. There are extremely wide differences of opinions among implant surgeons concerning indications, techniques, lenses, and complications. References 1. Darin, }.}.: Survey on Secondary Lens Implantation, Amer.
Intra-Ocular Implant. Soc. Newsltr. 1:32-36, Sept. 1975.
33
YEAR TOTAL STARTED 1.0.L.
S.I.
%S .1.
POST POST I.C .C.E . E.C.C.E.
CORNELIUS D. BINKHORST, M.D .* Terneuzen, Holland
1952
2000
D.P. CHOYCE, M.S., F .R .C.S.* London, England
1953
1250
1200 95 .1%
960
240
TURGUT N. HAMDI, M.D. Philadelphia, Penn.
1953
470
150 32.5%
6
147
MILES A. GALIN, M.D. New York, New York
1959
1800
12
0 .6%
HERVE M . BYRON, M.D. Englewood, New Jersey
1966
300
2
0.6%
MARVIN L. KWITKO, M.D. Montreal, Canada
1966
238
12
5.0%
6
6
J.G.F. WORST, M .D. Groningen , Holland
1967
2250
50
2.2%
7
43
HENRY HIRSCHMAN, M.D. Long Beach, California
1967
1800
83
4 .1%
49
34
NORMAN S. JAFFE, M.D. Miami Beach, Florida
1967
1500
BRYAN CRUICHSHANKS, M.D. Sarnia, Ontario, Canada
1967
549
17
3.1%
CHARLES H . BECHERT II , M.D . Fort Lauderdale, Florida
1968
800
10
1.2%
DONALD L. PRAEGER, M.D. Poughkeepsie, New York
1968
750
3
0.4%
MURRY K. WEBER, M.D. Canoga Park, California
1968
300
8
2.6%
RALPH D. ANDERSON, M.D. San Diego, California
1968
200
0
DENNIS D. SHEPARD, M.D., F.A.C.S. Santa Maria, California
1971
700
19
2.7%
18
BRUCE COHEN , M.D . Ann Arbor, Michigan
1971
335
8
2.4%
8
HENRY M . CLAYMAN, M.D. Miami Beach, Florida
1972
400
2
0.5%
2
JACK HARTSTEIN, M.D. St . Lou is, Missouri
1972
350
28
9 .0%
25
3
JOHN J. ALPAR, M.D. Amarillo, Texas
1972
332
12
3.6%
2
10
FRANCIS C. HERTZOG, JR., M.D. Long Beach, California
1972
300
10
3.3%
RONALD W. BARNET, M.D. Sun City , Arizona
1973
1000
101
10.1%
43
58
150
7.5%
0.06%
3 4
4
0%
31
YEAR TOTAL STARTED 1.0.L.
POST
JERALD L. TENNANT, M.D. Dallas, Texas
1973
500
26
5.2%
STANLEY P. OLEKSY, M.D. Jackson, Michigan
1973
327
3
0.9%
3
MARY MICHAELES, M.D. Long Beach, California
1973
264
11
4.1%
9
JOSEPH DARR, M.D. Indio, California
1973
250
3
1.2%
ROBERT C. DREWS, M.D. Clayton, Missouri
1973
212
2
0.9%
KENNETHJ.HOFFER Santa Monica, California
1974
100
3
3%
JAMES H. LITTLE, M.D. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
1974
1350
36
2.8%
31
5
JOHN H. SHEETS, M.D. Odessa, Texas
1974
1200
23
1.9%
13
10
RICHARD P. KRATZ, M.D. Van Nuys, California
1974
565
6
1.6%
ALLEN G. PARELMAN, M.D. Kansas City, Missouri
1974
475
20
4.2%
MALCOLM A. MC CANNEL, M.D. Minneapolis, Minnesota
1974
350
15
4.2%
FIRMON E. HARDENBERGH, M.D. Boulder, Colorado
1974
300
64 21.3%
JOHN E. GILMORE, M.D. Santa Monica, California
1974
150
8
5.3%
LAWRENCE D. CASTLEMAN, M.D. Lincoln Park, Michigan
1974
120
4
3.3%
HERBERT GOULD, M.D. White Plains, New York
1974
115
DONALD E. DICKERSON, M.D. Santa Monica, California
1974
100
3
3.0%
ROBERT F. AZAR, M.D. New Orleans, Louisiana
1975
460
24
5.2%
23
DOUGLAS E. WILLIAMSON, M.D. Venice, Florida
1975
360
12
3.3%
12
JOHN W. MC TIGUE, M.D. Washington, D.C.
1975
300
17
5.6%
GUY KNOLLE, M.D. Houston, Texas
1975
112
5
4.5%
*Figures Approximate TOTAL
32
POST
% S.1. I.C.C.E. E.C.C.E.
S.1.
25,234
2
2 2
0.9%
-----2,164 11.66% 1 ,224
5
574
Conclusions 1. Everyone agrees that if a patient is wearing a contact lens
the patient should not undergo secondary lens implantation. 2. It is well agreed upon that it is much safer to perform a secondary lens implantation in an eye with an intact posterior capsule than in an eye which has undergone prior intracapsular surgery. 3. Many, if not most implant surgeons, will not do a secondary lens implantation in an eye with vitreous in the anterior chamber. 4. Some implant surgeons, judging by their statistics and comments, are strongly opposed to secondary lens implantation. 5. There is a recent trend for surgeons who do secondary lens implantation to use the Choyce Mark VIII Lens. 6. There are extremely wide differences of opinions among implant surgeons concerning indications, techniques, lenses, and complications. References 1. Darin, }.}.: Survey on Secondary Lens Implantation, Amer.
Intra-Ocular Implant. Soc. Newsltr. 1:32-36, Sept. 1975.
33