You are here

  • Home
  • Online First
  • Histomorphological analysis of a Ridley intraocular lens implanted 45 years ago

Article Text

Article menu

other Versions

Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Letter
Histomorphological analysis of a Ridley intraocular lens implanted 45 years ago
  1. Alfonso L Sabater,
  2. Adriano Guarnieri,
  3. Javier Moreno-Montañés
  1. Department of Ophthalmology, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain
  1. Correspondence to Dr Alfonso L Sabater, Department of Ophthalmology, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona 31008, Spain; alfonso.sabater{at}gmail.com

https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2014-304909

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Sir Harold Ridley is recognised today as the inventor of intraocular lens (IOL) implantation. The first surgery in a human eye was performed in 1949, and approximately 1000 lenses have been implanted worldwide.1 ,2 Since then, significant changes in IOL technology have allowed ophthalmic surgeons to correct not only aphakia, but also other refractive errors such as astigmatism or presbyopia. To date, only a few cases with a Ridley IOL and a long postoperative follow-up of 30–40 years have been reported.3 Sixty-four years after the first IOL implantation, we have had the opportunity to analyse a Ridley IOL implanted 45 years ago, following its explantation. To our knowledge, this is one of the longest reported explantations of this type of IOL.

    A 30-year-old man underwent surgery for a traumatic cataract in the right eye and a Ridley IOL was implanted. Forty-five years later, the patient suffered a car accident that caused an …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors ALS prepared the manuscript, AG was in charge of the microscopic analysis, and JM-M performed the surgery and reviewed the final manuscript.

    • Competing interests None.

    • Patient consent Obtained.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.