We thank Schachar for his interest in our work, although he misleadingly makes some observations that we would like to clarify further. 1. Schachar has noted from Figure 7 in our article that the camera angle toward the implanted device was not aligned accurately between measurements. He therefore concluded that such misalignment would result in distortion of perspective and questionable value of these measurements. The attached Figure 1 shows graphically the maximal extent of optical distortion that the camera angle might induce. The pin distance from the plate edge is very short (50 μm), as can be assessed from the device picture (Figure 3 in our original article). Even complete transition of the camera from parallel to the plate to near vertical induces around 80 μm of perspective-related error. From the same image that Schachar mentioned in his letter, it is easy to see that the angle of photography that we used was within angle B as appeared in Figure 1 of this reply. The maximal perspective error induced by deviation within angle B range is less then 40 μm. If the total movement of the pin was at the 50 μm range, Schachar's criticism would have been accepted without hesitation. However, the pin movements were in the range of 300 μm to 500 μm; therefore, the effect of such perspective error is minimal for force calculations and insignificant at the conceptual level. The key issue is, therefore, a well-known fact that the significance of a measuring technique and consequential errors must always be related to the results magnitude.Figure 1: Spatial relation between the plate and the pin shows that maximal perspective error is limited to less than 40 μm.Figure 3: Three-dimensional construction of the lenses created in 3 principal conditions (cycloplegic, normal, and cyclospasm). The change in curvature is so large that it supports the principle mechanism of a strong secondary lens formation regardless of the scanning angle.2. Schachar further argues that the changes in corneal shape as appeared in Figure 8 of the article indicate that our ultrasound biomicroscopy (UBM) measurements were not taken from the same accurate position and are therefore responsible for significant artifactitious results. This is just more of the same. Figure 2 of this reply shows an eye 1 week postoperative and the same eye 3 weeks later. The UBM shows the significant change in the corneal architecture but only a minor effect on the flexible lens under similar ciliary muscles stimulation. Our UBM measurements were taken in radial sections to enable computer-assisted 3-dimensional construction of the findings. Because of the monkey's face morphology, it was possible to manipulate the probe only over the central 1.0 mm of the lens. No sharp angulations were possible even when attempted in an effort to demonstrate the lens haptics. Figure 3 of this reply shows the computer-assisted 3-dimensional construction of the lenses from Figure 8 of our article. The magnitude of change in lens curvature is very large; therefore, any cross section through the lens center (vertical or oblique) still strongly supports the concept of operation of the lens, which is the main message of this report.Figure 2: A: Corneal edema 1 week postoperative. B: Same eye 4 weeks postoperative. Although significant changes are documented on the cornea, no effect could be noticed on the lens.The only parameter from the known accommodation mechanism that we use for our design is the unarguably accepted fact of ciliary muscle contraction during the accommodative process. Regardless of the primate crystalline lens accommodative mechanism in the adult eye, the product is few diopters only. Measuring error within such small range of performances might prove critical. However, the magnitude of optical power generated by our design in the eyes of primates is 10 times higher and more. Our concept was only preceded by millions of years of evolution that enables waterfowls' eyes to generate 50 to 70 diopters of accommodation by localized deformation of the center of the natural crystalline lens to a secondary small but powerful lens through the pupil (Figure 4). We therefore see no contradiction in concluding that on the principle level, our design provides wide range of accommodation. Meanwhile, ongoing research and development of this new concept is proceeding to enable better understanding and construction of an efficient accommodating intraocular lens that is safe for human use.Figure 4: A: A waterfowl eye during diving creating a secondary high-power lens. B: Image processing of A imitating UBM imaging of the same eye. C: A UBM image of Nulens intraocular lens in the monkey's eye shows similarity of the mechanism that creates the secondary lens of the bird.
Read full abstract