Talk:Intraocular lens/Archive 1

Archive 1

Article Improvement Drive

Contact lens is currently nominated to be improved on Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive. Please support the article with your vote. --Fenice 10:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Verisyse versus Artisan

The "Artisan lens" has been renamed to 'Verisyse' and has been FDA approved http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/mda/docs/p030028.html I'm also considering a cleanup with a clear distinction between the Phakic version (normally used as a replacement for contact lenses) and the ... uh... non-phakic version, where the natural lens is replaced -- to treat clouding of the lens. --Mdwyer 21:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The commonly used phrase for "non-phakic" is aphakic, as in "aphakic IOL" or "aphakic intraocular lens" :-) Don't know if there is a commonly used abbrevation for aphakic IOLs, though? When you say IOL, you normally mean aphakic IOLs, because the number of cataract surgeries are currently much higher than surgeries for correcting refractive errors. Though this might change in the future (10 years?)...

-- di92jn

Hmmm... Apparently "pseudophakic" is used for IOLs when you replace the natural crystalline lens with an artificial one. If you want to be precise, "aphakic" means the absence of a lens in the eye, and "phakic" means that there is a lens present. Don't know if this should be part of the article? Guess it should...

-- di92jn

The FDA documents suggest that Artisan and Verisyse are the same thing "Verisyse (Model VRSM5US and VRSM6US) also known as ARTISAN (Model 206 and 204) Phakic Intraocular Lens (IOL)", but the artical lists one as silicone and the other as acrylic. PMMA is the same as Acrylic. --Mdwyer 21:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Acrylic:

• Ophtec produced the Artisan® lensacrylic IOLs.

Silicone:

• AMO (Advanced Medical Optics) produces the Verisyse™ lens.

Structure of Intro

The current intro has a short para on was an IOL is and what it is used for. It then moves onto a para on the procedure for insertion, before returning to three short and confusing paragraphs on the different types. I have restructured this into two paragraphs by moving and reflowing paras 3-5 into para 1m so that para talks about the IOL and its use, Para 2 talks about the procedure, and Para 3 the risks.

Also the intro should be crisp and avoid drilling into detail that is covered later.

More improvements to readability than a material content change,

However the statement "Newer bifocal intraocular lenses give distance vision in one area and near vision in another area of the vision field" is just wrong. You do not have different fields as with bifocal glasses, so the new wording avoids this misleading statement. TerryE 23:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Material removed from another article

I removed the following from Toric lens. It's too detailed and unbalanced for that article. It needs to be gone over, cleaned up and de-POVed. Perhaps there is detail that can be used in this article, however.--Srleffler (talk) 19:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

TICL Toric Implantable Contact Lens

is a phakic lens and an alternative for laser vision correction. The TICL is distributed by Staar Surgical, Switzerland. 1999 first successful implantations were performed by Neuhann, Munich Germany. The TICL function similar to a contact lens, except the lens is implanted into the eye, not placed over it. Because of the similarities between the phakic intraocular lens and contact lenses, many replace the word "Collamer" in the ICL acronym and call the lenses "implantable contact lenses." (This term is widely accepted in international markets.)The TICL is an intraocular implant manufactured from a proprietary, hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA)/porcine-collagen based biocompatible polymer material. The TICL contains a UV absorber made from a UV absorbing material. The Visian TICL features a plate-haptic design with a central convex/concave optical zone and incorporates a forward vault to minimize contact of the Visian TICL with the central anterior capsule. The TICL features an optic diameter with an overall diameter that varies with the dioptric power: the smallest optic/overall diameter being 5 mm/12.1 mmn and the largest 5.8 mm/13.7 mmn. All descriptions of optic diameter-, overall diameter or TICL power refer measuremrents in BSS unless otherwise noted. The lenses are capable of being, folded and inserted into the posterior chamber through an incision of 2.5 mm or

less. The Visian TICL is intended to be placed entirely within the posterior chamber.

Article title

Tempted to move this to intraocular lens implant --User:Chinasaur

Why? "Intraocular lens implant" returns 6430 hits on Google [1], while "intraocular lens" (without implant afterwards) returns 77100 hits [2]. I don't think your proposed move is a good idea, to my humble opinion. --Edcolins 21:30, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Although IOL is indeed the jargon, to the uninitiated that could be confusing, since the natural lens is logically also intraocular, so I could see why someone would propose such a move. Also, since intraocular lens implant contains "intraocular lens", searching for the latter would find the former (though I guess the ranking might be different). A-giau 07:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Revised Google search results: "intraocular lens": 533,000; "intraocular lens implant": 35,600; "intraocular lens" -"intraocular lens implant": 484,000; and of course "intraocular lens implant" -"intraocular lens": 0. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I typed "intraocular lens" to get here. Adding "implant" to the title would have only redirected me. I like that intraocular lens implant redirects here because the later article title is redundant: if it's intraocular, I don't know how it would get there if it was not implanted. (lens (anatomy) talks about the crystalline lens. I think this whole section should be removed (or hidden or something) from the discussion. (That's why I moved it to the bottom.) If someone agrees, knock this section out completely. Garvin (talk) 06:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Garvin, thanks for alerting me that you were removing this discussion. I've restored it because I still think the title is misleading, for exactly the reason A-giau explains. As a non-clinical vision scientist, I find "intraocular lens" a terrible term for an implanted lens replacement; to me the obvious meaning of "intraocular lens" is the natural, anatomical lens. I know Google results are typically used to resolve titling issues, but in this case they're not relevant. The important question is not how many people will have trouble finding this article; it's the number of people who want the article on the natural lens who will end up here instead and be confused. --Chinasaur (talk) 23:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Clearer Hierarchy

Seems to me that this article would be much improved by first clearly distinguishing between phakic and (psuedo)aphakic lenses. For anyone wanting to learn about these lenses (as opposed to a lens expert), these two are almost unrelated, and probably even belong in separate articles. For example, a phakic lens won't help a cataract, which isn't clear from the introductory paragraph.

Within aphakic lenses, the next important distinction is monofocal vs. multifocal/accommodating. Each of those should be discussed, along with links to monovision and mini-monovision. Type of material is a very minor point, I think. Kevinbsmith (talk) 13:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

URGENT: Vandalism

[Note will be removed.] Is the article vandalised?

• "most patents still rely on glasses for driving "
• "during Nd:YAG capsulotomy. "
• "Deducing that the transparent material was inert and useful for implantation in the eye, Ridley designed and implanted the first intraocular lens in a human eye."
• "...use of silicone acrylate which is a soft material. This allows the lens to be folded and inserted into the eye through a smaller incision. Acrylic lenses can also be used with small incisions and are ... ...Acrylic is not always an ideal choice due to its added expense.[repeated]"

--Connection (talk) 12:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the the whole "glasses for driving and reading" sentence was very misleading. I reworded that sentence to be more accurate. Please clarify your concerns about the 2nd and 3rd items.Kevinbsmith (talk) 13:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Desire Information on IOL the healing process

I would like more information on: How the eye heals in the sac created when the lens is removed. Are the 2 "wings" on the lens only for initial positioning or are they needed afterwards. The lens area after implantation is apparently filled by a saline solution. Does the eye replace this with something more structural. What are it's optics properties.? What function do the zonules have on the new area for fixed focus lenses. For the cases when the area around the lens becomes cloudy, is it in front or behind the lens? Why does it occur.

I would like more information on hings like this to complete the discussion of IOL's Thanks Davidspixx (talk) 21:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy of Ages

Just wondering about the accuracy of the statement about 'Before 1993, implantation was not allowed in people under the age of 19.' I received my Interocular Lens Implants following cataract surgery at the age of 17 in the summer of 1992. At the time I was one of the younger people to have this performed, with Victoria's surgery occurring the following year. What is the source of this information?Phalcomb (talk) 02:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

In 1952 in Johannesburg, South African eye surgeon Edward "Teddie" Epstein successfully implanted a 12 year girl with a Ridley-Rayner lens. This patient was examined in 2009 and the eye is in good health and the lens is clear and fully functional. There is a longer experience of IOL implantation in children than is suggested here. I recommend the statement is deleted. Raynerhistorian (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

NuLens Ltd. comment - no source and not NPV?

Currently reads: "NuLens Ltd. is currently in patient trials with a new Accommodative Intraocular Lens (IOL) technology with the potential to provide over 10 diopters of accommodative power. With an IOL that sits on top of the collapsed capsular bag, the NuLens Accommodative IOL may be the first intraocular lens to provide real, comfortable, and lasting accommodation for near, intermediate and far distances."

Sounds more like advertising to me. Anyone agree? Sweetman (talk) 10:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: I'm going to delete this bit. If anyone disagrees, please edit it back (it'd be great if you could provide a reason if doing so, thanks) Sweetman (talk) 10:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do delete it. It is advertising. Raynerhistorian (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Lack of sources, etc

I have come back to this article out of interest (as a patient who received multi-focal IOLs a couple of years ago), but now also as someone who is a lot more familiar with Wikipedia editorial processes. This article read like a student's essay on the subject. The first 5 sections do not contain a single reference so it entirely unclear what the source for this content is. I have therefore added a "Primary sources" tag.

What I'll also try to do if I have time is to convert the current references into more standard form. In the meantime if an Ophthalmic professionals care to provide the WP:RS, I'll happily assist in the editorial process. --TerryE (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Phakic, aphakic and pseudophakic IOLs

The section with this title says:

• Phakia is the presence of the natural crystalline lens.
• Aphakia is the absence of the natural crystalline lens, either from natural causes or because it has been removed.
• Pseudophakia is the substitution of the natural crystalline lens with a synthetic lens. Pseudophakic IOLs are used in cataract surgery.

The "aphakia" case seems weird. "Aphakia" implies that there is no lens. "Aphakic IOL" in the section title therefore suggests both "no lens" and "intraocular lens", which is a contradiction.

In my humble opinion, this entire section is redundant. The relevant info (i.e. on phakic and psuedophakic IOLs) can be integrated into other relevant sections. (That is what I did when I used this article as a basis for the corresponding Dutch article).

HHahn (Talk) 10:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Addition to the present article on: IOL History

In my opinion this article can be much improved if a section is introduced after the "History" section, to describe what happened after the 1950's. However I do not wish to study how I can become an expert Wikipedia editor and would be grateful if anyone who agrees with me that it would be a useful addition, can take over that task from me. At this point in time I even have not yet created a Wikipedia account, but will do so if I receive any response. Then I would also be prepared to do some extra work on it for further improvement.

Discussion on Wikipedia's article on IntraOcular Lens (IOL); its History.

It is proposed to introduce the following section after the “History”section. The long road to general acceptance.

The 1950’s. The introduction of a foreign body in the human eye, was a paradigm shift in ophthalmological practice. It was therefore not unexpected that, when Harold Ridley first reported on his implantations of the lens (fabricated by Rayner), it met with criticism. The severeness of this criticism by several prominent ophthalmologist of the day was however very disappointing, since it sometimes developed into hostility where words as “malpractice”, “recklessness” and “criminal conduct” were used. Proponents sometimes saw the advancement of their careers obstructed [2],[5].

A major reason for the criticism was that initially some 15% of the implants had to be removed again, because of dislocations or infections. But then there were also 85% of the patients, who were overjoyed for having near perfect vision again after a long period of blindness.

Of course such an entirely new practice needs to go through a period of improvement in the design and in the search for the optimal location and fixation of the implants. Luckily there were many, who continued their efforts. Names that stand out are Ridley’s young colleague Peter Choyce (UK), Edward Epstein (South Africa), Joaquin Barraquer (Spain) and Benedetto Strampelli (Italy). In the USA Warren Reese implanted many lenses in Wills Eye Institute in Philadelphia as from 1952. But nevertheless the rather poor success ratio and the fear for litigation and conviction caused many initial proponents to abandon their efforts and progress was slow. This delayed introduction many years, thus depriving patients of having their eyesight restored. It was also a major reason why Sir Ridley only very belatedly (as from 1985) received his much deserved prestigeous awards [3].

The 1960’s. Around 1960 the future for IOL’s looked rather bleak. But new ophthalmologists joined the ones who had persisted and international cooperation started to flourish. Svyatoslav Fyodorov in Russia, started implantations around 1960 and joined his contemporary Binkhorst of the Netherlands who had designed his iris clip lens, which he had implanted for the first time in 1958. Some modifications resulted in the Fyodorov-Binkhorst lens and after the 2-loop lens, the 4-loop Binkhorst lens was designed [6] fabricated by Morcher in Germany. Without belittleing the considerable contributions of many others, it was according to Steinert [5] (on page 379) quote: ”the perseverance and intellectual and surgical acumen of one man that kept this subject alive to herald in the modern era. Cornelius Binkhorst” unquote..”Kees” Binkhorst operated in Sluiskil and Terneuzen in the south of the Netherlands. Around the mid 1960’s when progress in the USA had practically come to a halt, he cooperated with several USA surgeons when they started implanting his lenses in their country [7].

In 1966 some 16 pioneers of IOL’s formed the International Intraocular Implant Club (IIIC), with Peter Choyce as their secretary and Ridley as president.

Still in the 1960’s Binkhorst began his cooperation with a young Dutch colleague, Jan Worst, who had his practice in the Northern Dutch city of Groningen. Worst designed around 1968 the Medallion lens and used perlon thread and later ultrathin stainless steel wire to suture the lens to the iris which obviated the daily application of eyedrops, as needed by Binkhorst’s lenses. Later he attached haptics to the lenses for fixation to the iris.

The 1970’s When IOL’s started loosing their bad image, Binkhorst was honoured by the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS), with the introduction in 1975 of the yearly Binkhorst Award.

Meanwhile Worst continued his work. He had a very inventive mind and was a real “handyman”; an Artisan. With every implantation he was looking for improvements in his method and instruments. He often made instruments himself, which were later perfected with the help of his expert instrument maker Klaas Otter in his “Medical Workshop”; later named “Ophtec”. They also fabricated their own IOL’s. Worst believed in using simple instruments, which he carried with him in a small toolbox, when he was invited worldwide to give lectures and perform guest implantations. Nearly every year he went to Pakistan, Nepal or India [10], to teach and perform implants of IOL’s, often for free. Here he showed how to make surgical knives out of normal razorblades, rather than using the in those countries prohibitively expensive surgical scalpels [9].

In India (Amritsar) he had close relations with Daljit Singh, who with his help introduced IOL implantations there. Singh restored the eyesight to many people, also amongst his poor rural patients. He started this work in 1976, using Worst’s Medallion lens and from 1979 onward used Worst’s Iris Claw lens. Several 100.000’s of such implantations were performed in India in the following years.[11]..

As from 1975 Worst gave weekly courses and demonstrations to numerous -also international- ophtalmologists. He was a teacher by nature. After conferences in Europe frequently many attendees e.g. from the USA and South Korea would flock to Groningen. After the course they would go home with lenses to apply at home what they had learned. Robert Drews -who befriended Worst in 1968- later saw this as an important contribution to what he called the explosion of .IOL implants in the 1970’s and 1980’s.[8]. At the end of the decade IOL’s started to be manufactured in the US. It had up to then mainly been an European affair.

In 1976 Worst was the first one to be awarded the Brinkhorst Award by the ASCRS.

The 1980’s and onward. In 1986 Worst designed the Myopia P(hakic)IOL with Iris Claw fixation, later named the Artisan lens which found universal acceptance. It was first implanted by Paul Fechner in Germany in the same since Worst did initially not want to operate on a healthy eye. Phakic meaning that the original natural lens is still in place, as opposed to aphakic, when it has been extracted by a cataract operation. It is sometimes called an Intraocular Contact Lens (ICL) and is an alternative to using spectacles. The process is reversable; if the natural lens changes its optical power, the PIOL can be removed and replaced.

Gradually lens design changed into the hands of manufacturers who employed ophthalmologists. Multifocal and Accommodating lenses were fabricated and toric lenses to correct astigmatism as described in following sections of this IOL article.

At present. Some 60 years after the invention by Sir Harold Ridley, there are several 100’s of different IOL designs and worldwide probably more than 200 million of lenses have been implanted, making it the most commonly performed eye surgery.

\ References Ref. 1. Transactions of the American Academy of Ophtalmology and Otolaryngology. January/February 1953 Ref. 2. Harold Ridley and the Invention of the Intraocular Lens by David Apple and John Sims. Survey of ophtalmology, volume 40 number 4 Jan-Febr. 1996. See also: www.rayner.com/history/Invention_of_IOL.pdf Ref.3. Sir Harold Ridley cover story by David Apple. Cataract & Refractive Surgery Today (CRSToday), issue March 2004. Ref.4. www.rayner.com/history Ref.5. Cataract Surgery. Techniques, Complicated cases and Management by R.F. Steinert et al.ISBN –13: 978-0-7216-9057-5 Ref. 6. The Intraocular Implant Lens. Development and Results with Special Reference to the Binkhorst Lens. 1975 by Marcel Nordlohne. ISBN 9061931762 and Zubal books catalogue number 527793 Ref. 7.Recollections from 1967 and beyond by Chandrappa Resmi. Cataract & Refractive Surgery Today (CRSToday), issue October 2006. Ref. 8. My Awakening to IOL’s by Robert Drews.Cataract & Refractive Surgery Today (CRSToday), issue April 2006. Ref. 9. www.janworst.com . Ref. 10 Ocular Surgery News Europe/Asis-Pacific edition July 1, 2002. Ref. 11. Emedicine.medscape.com. May 16, 2008. Arun Verna, Myopia, phakic IOL.

Pioneers of IntraOcular Lens implantations. From left: John Alpar, Norman Jaffe, Cornelius Binkhorst, Jan Worst, Sir Harold Ridley, Peter Choyce, Svyatoslav Fyodorov and Michael Roper Hall

This is the caption under a photograph that I did not manage to introduce in this talk page!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.92.240.172 (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

multifocal and accommodative IOLS

Need info on these lenses and cost. I have been diagnosis w/catharacts and doctor suggested the above lenses which my insurance does not cover. I am an avid reader and enjoy driving so I need help in making the correct decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.224.136 (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The article says they're actually hinged... There's a number of reasons that's a stupid idea, but why can't they just be literally made of a flexible material like our natural lenses? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.11.36.165 (talk) 16:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Materials Confusion

This article commonly makes notations about PMMA and acrylic lenses, describing the two as entirely different materials. In fact, these 'two' materials are both the same thing - PMMA stands for polymethyl methacrylate, most commonly known as plexiglas, perspex, acrylic glass, or acrylic. Any other materials considered as 'acrylic' are unsuitable for the task - acrylic fiber appears white due to its highly refractive nature as a fiber and its impurities, whereas pure acryls by themselves are too reactive to be included as an implant material (They contain two double bonds, which are subject to easily being broken by free radicals and various components of one's body.). It is strongly suggested that the corrections be made. See the Acrylic glass article and the Acrylic disambiguation for more detailed information. Xander T. 03:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above post completely. The section is very confusing and poorly organized. I have added the expand section tag to the article and moved this section of the discussion to the top of this discussion page. Garvin (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The crystalens stuff reads like an advertisement. 213.139.161.102 (talk) 22:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, apparently we replaced PMMA with acrylic at some point, despite these being the same material. Still needs fixing.212.44.62.180 (talk) 08:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Remove or Clarify Confusing or Misleading Text

Under the section "Materials used for intraocular lenses" there is text that states " This break through material provides the exact chromophore the human retina has already specified for light protection."

I'm not aware that the human retina, clever as it seems in operation, is a self-aware entity that can specify anything. Remove this anthropomorphic expression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.190.119 (talk) 06:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Replacement of Intraocular Lens

Once implanted, can an intraocular lens be replaced? No mention is made in the article.Abenr (talk) 16:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

It should be possible. I've had the ICL surgery for vision correction and that is reversible. I'll try to find a source. -rachel (talk) 00:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

evidence and criticisms subsections

These sections are bizarre (the FDA doesn't run clinical trials - there is no such thing as an "FDA trial") and is sourced to old, primary sources. it is fine to describe evidence but this needs to be sourced to MEDRS refs.

moved here per PRESERVE.

• In a September 2004 FDA trial involving 325 patients:
  • 100% could see at intermediate distances (24" to 30") without glasses; the distance for most of life's activities
  • 98.4% could see well enough to read the newspaper and the phone book without glasses.
  • Some patients did require glasses for some tasks after implantation of the crystalens
  • Vision was restored to 20/40 or better in 88% of patients compared to 35.9% of patients who received normal IOLs.
• In 2006, a 12-month study by Cummings et al. investigated contrast sensitivity and near visual acuity in patients who had received a Crystalens AT-45 versus those who received a standard IOL. Effectiveness was measured in terms of near, intermediate, and distance visual acuities and safety was evaluated by assessing complications. The study concluded that contrast sensitivity was not reduced compared to those receiving standard IOLs and provided good visual acuity at all distances in pseudophakic patients. There were no adverse complications reported. However, this study lacked a long-term follow up.
• Pepose et al. (2007) tested the combination of a multifocal IOL in one eye and an accommodating IOL in the other eye. The group found that any combination of Crystalens in one or both eyes was better for intermediate vision. ReSTOR (multifocal IOL) is better for near vision. The Crystalens and ReSTOR combination had better mean intermediate and near vision overall.
• Macsai et al. (2006) conducted a multicenter, nationwide study evaluating the visual outcomes of 112 cataract patients implanted with Crystalens IOL (n=56) versus standard monofocal IOLs (n=56). The Crystalens group demonstrated significantly better visual acuity compared to the monofocal patient group, as well as better distance and near vision 6 months post-operation.
• In overall FDA clinical results on uncorrected binocular vision in 124 patients, 92 per cent had distance vision of 20/25 or better, 98 per cent had intermediate vision of 20/25 or better, and 73 per cent had near vision of 20/25 or better 11 to 15 months after surgery. In addition, 73.5 per cent either did not wear spectacles or wore them most none of the time.
• Sanders et al. (2007) published visual performance results after Tetraflex accommodative intraocular lens implantation. They found that 6 months post-operatively, all patients had at least 1 diopter of accommodative amplitude. At 6 months, 92.2 per cent of eyes had 20/40 or better uncorrected distance visual acuity (UCDVA) and 50.6 per cent of eyes achieved 20/20 or better UCDVA. At near, 48.1 per cent of eyes achieved 20/40 or better uncorrected near visual acuity.
• A 2014 Cochrane review found that in adults with a history of uveitis, eyes treated with hydrophobic acrylic IOLs were 2 times more likely to have a best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of 20/40 or more when compared to eyes treated with silicone IOLs.

Criticisms

• The main concern with accommodating IOLs is that there are no long-term, large-scale studies involving their use in patients. Such clinical studies using objective measurement techniques must be done to fully support the claim that accommodating IOLs can restore accommodative vision to the presbyopic eye.
• Though it is rare, potential complications include capsular bag contraction and posterior capsule opacification.
• Further complications include permanent or temporary blindness, infection, hemorrhaging, and dislocation.
• Dislocation requires additional surgeries to attach the Crystalens. Lens replacement surgery may involve additional risk especially for those with chronic health conditions such as high blood pressure.

References

-- Jytdog (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Intraocular lens. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061017074609/http://www.revophth.com/index.asp?page=1_751.htm to http://www.revophth.com/index.asp?page=1_751.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Formatting

This Article is all over the place with type sizes and underlining and mislabeled sections. The section Types does not cover types of IOL it covers patients eye status pre and post operative. Accommodating lenses are a "Type" of IOL but have a huge bold heading all to themselves. Types should cover monofocal, multifocal, Toric, EDOF and Accommodating. it also needs a section on blending vision using different lenses in each eye.

History section deserves to go at the start to provide and introduction on when and where the technology started to give context to the article that follows.

Much of the opthamalogical language needs simplifying or putting in brackets alongside more commonly used terms. Wikipedia isn't a reference source for opthamologists it's more useful for patients about to undergo surgery looking for answers it fails miserably at that. As such this page needs re-writing with up to date information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CADKiwi (talk • contribs) 03:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for saying this, CADKiwi - as someone who has had ICL surgery I watch this article but haven't contributed. I agree with your observations and will try to make some of those changes this week (I have limited time but formatting doesn't take much time! HereAndSometimesThere (talk) 10:23, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Diabetes

Can Itraocular lens benefit someone suffering from diabetes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.237.228.132 (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Diabetes-related vision loss is related to retinal problems, and intraocular lenses are for issues related to the lens (such as cataracts). Therefore, it may not benefit, as it doesn't address the core vision issue experienced due to diabetes. However, because intraocular lens surgery may increase pressure in the eye, people suffering from retinal-related problems may need to speak with a doctor to determine whether there are additional risks to the surgery. I don't know whether this justifies a section within this article for diabetes alone, though it might be worthwhile to add a section about health risks to the surgery and include diabetes, glaucoma and any other possible health issues. HereAndSometimesThere (talk) 08:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

That sort of information is more relevant at cataract surgery and diabetic retinopathy, possibly even at diabetes, but should be mentioned here (with links, and suitable references) for completeness. The first step is to identify suitable references. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:13, 21 May 2023 (UTC)