Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.
In reply We thank Dr Harris for his letter to the editor concerning our simplified mathematical model for corneal rotational autograft. We agree with Dr Harris that there are limitations to our simplified model, especially in clinical situations that differ from our stated assumptions. We also agree that moving the scar beyond the pupillary margin and relocating the center of the largest zone of clear cornea over the center of the entrance pupil is the goal of the surgery. To simplify our calculations, we limited our analysis to situations where the center of the pupil and the center of the cornea were in close proximity. In our patient, suturing the intraocular lens would have resulted in a relatively unpredictable shift in the pupil center relative to the corneal center. Another assumption that we made in our simplified model is the circular shape of the cornea. We are currently attempting to generate a more involved mathematical solution assuming a horizontally oval corneal shape and a distance separating the center of the cornea from the center of the pupil. We suspect that in these situations, the displacement may have to be in a direction other than the superior direction; temporal displacement may be more advantageous in some cases (such as the one presented by Dr Harris and as described in the classic article by Bourne and Brubaker). In our case report, the preoperative visual acuity did not improve with refraction. Of note, the patient had preoperative diplopia and triplopia. Postoperatively with secondary intraocular lens implantation and a clear visual axis, he could be refracted. We thank Dr Harris for his interest in our article and for his comments. We also thank Dr Jonas for his insightful comments and for his confirmation of our findings that for the average cornea (having an 11-mm diameter), the optimal corneal rotational autograft diameter would be 8 mm. We agree that the autograft diameter would have to be modified for corneal diameters outside the normal range. We look forward to incorporating his calculations in such cases, particularly those involving young children, and thank him for his interest in our work. Correspondence: Dr Afshari, Department of Ophthalmology, Duke University Medical Center, Box 3802, Durham, NC 27710 (afsha003@mc.duke.edu). Financial Disclosure: None reported. Funding/Support: This work was supported by Research to Prevent Blindness (Dr Afshari).
Archives of Ophthalmology – American Medical Association
Published: Jul 1, 2007
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.