Experimental implantation of posterior chamber prototype intraocular lenses for the feline eye

American Journal of Veterinary Research

Volumn 59, Issue 10, 1998, Pages 1339-1343

  Gilger, Brian C ^a   Davidson, Michael G ^a   Colitz, Carmen M H ^a  

^a NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; ANIMAL DISEASE; ANTERIOR EYE CHAMBER; ARTICLE; BIOMETRY; CAT; CORNEA; DOG; ECHOGRAPHY; EYE REFRACTION; HISTOLOGY; LENS IMPLANTATION; METHODOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY; STATISTICAL MODEL; VISUAL ACUITY;

ANIMALS; ANTERIOR CHAMBER; BIOMETRY; CATS; CORNEA; DOGS; LENS IMPLANTATION, INTRAOCULAR; LINEAR MODELS; REFRACTION, OCULAR; VISUAL ACUITY;

EID: 0032176261     PISSN: 00029645     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Gilger BC, Davidson MG, Howard PB. Keratometry, ultrasonic biometry, and prediction of intraocular lens power in the feline eye. Am J Vet Res 1998;59:131-134.
2. Alpar J, Fechner P. The determination of intraocular lens power In: Alpar J, Fechner P, eds. Fechner's intraocular lenses. New York: Thieme Inc, 1986;70-98.
3. Davidson MG, Murphy CJ, Nasisse MP, et al. Refractive state of aphakic and pseudophakic eyes of dogs. Am J Vet Res 1993;54:174-177.
4. Gaiddon J, Bouhana N, Lallement P. Refraction by retinoscopy of normal, aphakic, and pseudophakic canine eyes: advantage of a 41-diopter intraocular lens? Vet Comp Ophthalmol 1996;6:121-124.
5. Barbeito R, Herse PR. Problem of between-eye correlation for statistical hypothesis testing: rabbit corneal thickness. Opt Vis Sci 1991;68:73-76.
6. Glantz S. Experiments when subjects are observed before and after a single treatment. In: Jeffers JD, Englis MR, eds. Primer of biostatistics. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Inc, 1992; 278-319.
7. Binkhorst CD. Power of the prepupillary pseudophakos. Br J Ophthalmol 1972;56:332-337.
8. Thompson J. Intraocular lens power calculation In: Stark W, Terry A, Maumenee A, eds. Anterior segment surgery. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins Co, 1987;31-36.
9. Retzlaff J. A new intraocular lens calculation formula. J Am Intraoc Implant Soc 1980;6:148-152.
10. Davidson M, Nasisse M, Olivero D. Phacoemulsification and intraocular lens implantation in dogs: a study of technique in 182 dogs. Prog Vet Comp Ophthalmol 1991;1:233-238.
11. Binkhorst R. The optimal design of intraocular lens implants. Ophthalmic Surg 1975;6:17-31.
12. Gaiddon J, Rosolen SG, Steru L, et al. Use of biometry and keratometry for determining optimal power for intraocular lens implants in dogs. Am J Vet Res 1991;52:781-783.
13. Cottrill NB, Banks WJ, Pechman RD. Ultrasonographic and biometric evaluation of the eye and orbit of dogs. Am J Vet Res 1989;50:898-903.
14. Mutti D, Zadnik K, Adams A. Myopia: the nature versus nurture debate goes on. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1996;37:952-957.
15. Schaeffel F, Glasser A, Howland HC. Accommodation, refractive error, and eye growth in chickens. Vision Res 1988;28: 639-657.
16. Norton TT. Experimental myopia in tree shrews. Ciba Found Symp 1990;155:178-194.
17. Norton TT, Siegwart JT Jr. Animal models of emmetropization: matching axial length to the focal. J Am Optom Assoc 1995;66:405-414.
18. Troilo D, Judge SJ. Ocular development and visual deprivation myopia in the common marmoset. Vision Res 1993;33: 1311-1324.