Artisan Phakic Intraocular Lens

Abstract

We read with great interest the article by Tahzib et al,1Tahzib N.G. Nuijts R.M. Wu W.Y. Budo C.J. Long-term study of Artisan phakic intraocular lens implantation for the correction of moderate to high myopia.Ophthalmology. 2007; 114: 1133-1142Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (130) Google Scholar in which we were surprised to find several mistakes.In Figure 1, the standard deviation (SD), before implantation, plotted on the graph does not correspond with the numbers indicated in the caption (−10.36±4.69).In Figure 2, the lines that should represent ±1 diopter (D) are shown incorrectly on the graph, as the equality line should pass through −25 D, −25 D (the point intersected by the superior line in the published graph) and −5 D, −5 D (the point intersected by the inferior line in the published graph); the 2 lines representing ±1 D should be parallel to it.In Figure 4, the mean and SD plotted on the graph do not correspond with the numbers indicated in the caption.Moreover, we were surprise to read in Figure 4’s caption that there was an increase in endothelial cell density after phakic intraocular lens implantation. Later on in “Results,” the authors, assuming a linear physiologic loss of 0.6% per year for the preoperative value, after adjustment, found a significant decrease of −9.39±18.56% (P = 0.002). In our opinion, this is a contradiction, as with this adjustment not a decrease but an even greater increase should be expected.We hope that authors take greater care, reviewers pay more attention to detail, and that editors might have caught errors such as these. We read with great interest the article by Tahzib et al,1Tahzib N.G. Nuijts R.M. Wu W.Y. Budo C.J. Long-term study of Artisan phakic intraocular lens implantation for the correction of moderate to high myopia.Ophthalmology. 2007; 114: 1133-1142Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (130) Google Scholar in which we were surprised to find several mistakes. In Figure 1, the standard deviation (SD), before implantation, plotted on the graph does not correspond with the numbers indicated in the caption (−10.36±4.69). In Figure 2, the lines that should represent ±1 diopter (D) are shown incorrectly on the graph, as the equality line should pass through −25 D, −25 D (the point intersected by the superior line in the published graph) and −5 D, −5 D (the point intersected by the inferior line in the published graph); the 2 lines representing ±1 D should be parallel to it. In Figure 4, the mean and SD plotted on the graph do not correspond with the numbers indicated in the caption. Moreover, we were surprise to read in Figure 4’s caption that there was an increase in endothelial cell density after phakic intraocular lens implantation. Later on in “Results,” the authors, assuming a linear physiologic loss of 0.6% per year for the preoperative value, after adjustment, found a significant decrease of −9.39±18.56% (P = 0.002). In our opinion, this is a contradiction, as with this adjustment not a decrease but an even greater increase should be expected. We hope that authors take greater care, reviewers pay more attention to detail, and that editors might have caught errors such as these. Long-term Study of Artisan Phakic Intraocular Lens Implantation for the Correction of Moderate to High Myopia: Ten-Year Follow-up ResultsOphthalmologyVol. 114Issue 6PreviewTo determine the long-term performance of the Artisan phakic intraocular lens (PIOL) for the correction of myopia. Full-Text PDF Author replyOphthalmologyVol. 115Issue 4PreviewWe thank Rosa et al for their letter. Full-Text PDF