Medical Forum / General / Vision / September 2006
can any buddy suggest me how to calculate IOl power in Silicon filled eyes
|
|
Thread rating:  |
ani - 27 Aug 2006 13:59 GMT HI Can any optometrist suggest me how to calculate IOLpower in silisocn filled eyes PLz tell me
otisbrown@pa.net - 27 Aug 2006 19:03 GMT Dear Ani,
The eye is not filled with silicon.
The refractive index of the eye is about 1.33.
The APPROXIMATE power of the lens of the eye is about 10 diopters.
The total power of the eye is about 60 diopters.
Otis
> HI > Can any optometrist suggest me how to calculate IOLpower in silisocn > filled eyes > PLz tell me Jan - 27 Aug 2006 21:42 GMT otisbrown@pa.net schreef:
> Dear Ani, > > The eye is not filled with silicon. Indeed, when we speak of a normal healthy eye.
> The refractive index of the eye is about 1.33. A bad and to simple statement Otis, you certainly have no knowledge what so ever in optics.
refractive index tears 1,333
refractive index fluid eye chamber and corpus vitreum 1,336
refractive index cornea 1,376
refractive index lens crystallina cortical-nuclear 1,386-1,406
> The APPROXIMATE power of the lens of the eye is > about 10 diopters. If that was true there are almost no myopic's anymore and a lot of plus lens fan's instead.
No Otis, again you show your lack in optics, especially optics in eyes.
BTW, the lens crystallina when replaced by an implant lens should, roughly said, have a power of 20 diopters.
Otis, beat a retread.
Free to Marcus Porcius Cato's "Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"
In conclusion, I think that the "old plus lens junk recovered by Otis" should be destroyed.
Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
Ann - 27 Aug 2006 22:25 GMT >Dear Ani, > >The eye is not filled with silicon. How do you know? A medical procedure fills the eye with silicon but you state that it doesn't..
Ann
>The refractive index of the eye is about 1.33. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> filled eyes >> PLz tell me otisbrown@pa.net - 27 Aug 2006 19:03 GMT Dear Ani,
The eye is not filled with silicon.
The refractive index of the eye is about 1.33.
The APPROXIMATE power of the lens of the eye is about 10 diopters.
The total power of the eye is about 60 diopters.
Otis
> HI > Can any optometrist suggest me how to calculate IOLpower in silisocn > filled eyes > PLz tell me Jan - 27 Aug 2006 21:05 GMT ani schreef:
> HI > Can any optometrist suggest me how to calculate IOLpower in silisocn > filled eyes > PLz tell me Look for Gullstrand's schematic eye.
Be aware of the differences in refraction index and the differences in optical system build up.
Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
otisbrown@pa.net - 27 Aug 2006 21:52 GMT What I said was the AVERAGE refractive index for the over-all eye was about 1.38 for an eye with a length of 24 mm. Different eyes will have different lengths, and different values of refractive index. Your is an idealization of a large number of eyes, and an analysis of a "frozen" eye -- for the convenience] of optical analysis. But it NEVER represents the dynamic behavior of the natural living eye.
Otis
> ani schreef: > > HI [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Jan (normally Dutch spoken) Jan - 27 Aug 2006 22:32 GMT otisbrown@pa.net schreef:
> What I said was the AVERAGE refractive index for the > over-all eye was about 1.38 for an eye with a length > of 24 mm. There is no such thing as an average refractive index of the eye Otis, only you make such a homemade brew.
>Your is an idealization of a large number of eyes, and > an analysis of a "frozen" eye -- for the convenience] > of optical analysis. So are your's.
But it NEVER represents
> the dynamic behavior of the natural living eye. Indeed, it only gives a average view on the optical topics concerning the eye (in rest, no accommodation) kicking and alive.
Remember Otis, you and you alone are suggesting the eye is a simple box-camera.
We know better.
Otis, beat a retread.
Free to Marcus Porcius Cato's "Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"
In conclusion, I think that the "old plus lens junk recovered by Otis" should be destroyed.
Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
Mike Tyner - 27 Aug 2006 23:20 GMT > of optical analysis. But it NEVER represents > the dynamic behavior of the natural living eye. And you NEVER present evidence, only opinion.
-MT
otisbrown@pa.net - 27 Aug 2006 21:58 GMT Dear Friend,
You have made an assumption. That the natural eye is filled with silicon. This is not the case.
In general, when a lens is removed (catarack surgery), the power of the eye is reduced by about 10 diopters.
The power of the eye is about 60 diopters (different with different people), but the result of removing that internal lens is the need of a +10 diopter plus for clear focus AFTER the lens is removed.
These values are approximate. Using ultra-sound methods -- better judgment may be made of the power of the internal lens -- and the necessary repacement.
Otis
> HI > Can any optometrist suggest me how to calculate IOLpower in silisocn > filled eyes > PLz tell me Simon Dean - 27 Aug 2006 22:20 GMT > Dear Friend, > > You have made an assumption. That the natural eye is > filled with silicon. This is not the case. You're a fruitcake Otis. He never made that assumption. You're assuming that's what he's talking about.
Get some sleep Otis.
Ann - 27 Aug 2006 22:26 GMT >Dear Friend, > >You have made an assumption. That the natural eye is >filled with silicon. This is not the case. No. You have made an assumption that the OP is talking about a normal eye. A medical procedure can fill the eye with silicon but you are totally ignorant of that fact.. you are disgusting
Ann
>In general, when a lens is removed (catarack surgery), the >power of the eye is reduced by about 10 diopters. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> filled eyes >> PLz tell me Jan - 27 Aug 2006 22:31 GMT otisbrown@pa.net schreef:
> Dear Friend, > > You have made an assumption. That the natural eye is > filled with silicon. This is not the case. And you think the OP has no brains too?
> In general, when a lens is removed (catarack surgery), the > power of the eye is reduced by about 10 diopters. Yes and I'm the pope.
Again Otis, this shows your lack in knowledge when it comes to optics.
> The power of the eye is about 60 diopters (different with > different people), but the result of removing that > internal lens is the need of a +10 diopter plus > for clear focus AFTER the lens is removed. Wrong again Otis and again showing your lack in eye optic knowledge
> Using ultra-sound methods -- better judgment may be made of the > power of the internal lens -- and the necessary > repacement. That's more like it.
Otis, beat a retread.
Free to Marcus Porcius Cato's "Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"
In conclusion, I think that the "old plus lens junk recovered by Otis" should be destroyed.
Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
William Stacy - 27 Aug 2006 22:30 GMT > HI > Can any optometrist suggest me how to calculate IOLpower in silisocn > filled eyes > PLz tell me You would have to know the refractive index of the IOL for starters. And your question may have no possible answer.
For example if you are using an IOL with the same index or less than that of the silicone oil, the power would be infinitely large, as no matter how strong it is in air, it will have a zero or negative power in a medium of the same index (unless the eye were very long, as in high myopia).
Assuming an IOL of higher index than the oil, you need to know the corneal curvature and the axial length of the eye. From that, ordinary optical formulas will give you a power for the IOL, but remember you must correct for the power in air if the IOL is to be specified as measured in air.
Of course no matter what you do, according to otis, the eye will adapt and emmetropize itself so long as you never put a minus lens in front of it, so I guess it doesn't matter what you put in there...
Who needs a cornea or an IOL anyway, since the fundamental eye will always fix itself if left alone through the mystery of dynamic nature?
w.stacy, o.d.
Jan - 27 Aug 2006 22:42 GMT William Stacy schreef:
> Of course no matter what you do, according to otis, the eye will adapt > and emmetropize itself so long as you never put a minus lens in front of > it, so I guess it doesn't matter what you put in there... > > Who needs a cornea or an IOL anyway, since the fundamental eye will > always fix itself if left alone through the mystery of dynamic nature? I like your "dynamic" and "funda - mental" thoughts.
Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
William Stacy - 27 Aug 2006 22:48 GMT Yeah, and Jan I wish I'd paid more attention in Latin class. Thanks for your humor.
BTW have you noticed that otis posts to the alt.cancer.breast group? He claims that brasierres cause it because everyone who gets it has had a bra on. Except otis. He is protected by the plus lens so is able to wear one with impunity...
w.stacy, o.d.
> William Stacy schreef: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Jan (normally Dutch spoken) ani - 03 Sep 2006 11:50 GMT I mean was people who under go for silicon oil insertion in their for prevent retinal detachment so If they want to go for catract Sx how to calculate IOL power calculation in these patient. becoz For caculating we need to hav an axial length so the we usually ultrasound for caculation of axial length but here Refractive index differ so device caculates worng axial length so how do u caculate an axial length length ultimately how u calculate IOL power .............. that my question......
> HI > Can any optometrist suggest me how to calculate IOLpower in silisocn > filled eyes > PLz tell me William Stacy - 03 Sep 2006 19:01 GMT > I mean was people who under go for silicon oil insertion in their for > prevent retinal detachment so If they want to go for catract Sx how to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >>filled eyes >>PLz tell me you should take a look at:
http://doctor-hill.com/iol-main/silicone.htm
Seems prudent to use a flat rear curve which should not be influenced by the index of whatever is in the vitreous cavity. But if a biconvex iol is used, you would have to correct for the posterior curve using normal thick lens formulas:
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/ThickLensFormula.html
w.stacy, o.d.
Don W - 03 Sep 2006 19:34 GMT > Seems prudent to use a flat rear curve which should not be influenced by > the index of whatever is in the vitreous cavity. But if a biconvex iol is > used, you would have to correct for the posterior curve using normal thick > lens formulas: A question moreso in the area of lens design than anything. It seems that the refractive material adjacent to the 'flat rear curve" would affect the focal point. The different entering angles, and angles thru the lens, (i.e., ray traces) would be then be refracted differently at the flat surface depending on the index of refraction. Would this not be the case?
Don W.
William Stacy - 03 Sep 2006 20:22 GMT >>Seems prudent to use a flat rear curve which should not be influenced by >>the index of whatever is in the vitreous cavity. But if a biconvex iol is [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Don W. No it wouldn't. An optically flat interface has no refractive power by definition.
w.stacy, o.d.
Don W - 08 Sep 2006 05:55 GMT > No it wouldn't. An optically flat interface has no refractive power by > definition. > > w.stacy, o.d. Had wondered about this. In order for the flat to have "no refractive power" the rays must be close to the optical axis. That is, for the "definition" to hold, the input ray angles (radians) are the same as the trig equivalents. But my first guess is this is not true of images projected onto the retina.
Don W.
William Stacy - 08 Sep 2006 17:30 GMT >>No it wouldn't. An optically flat interface has no refractive power by >>definition. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > There is no optical "axis" of a flat surface, as the optical center is undefined. It is true that rays encountering a flat suface that are not perpindicular to that surface are deflected slightly due to prismatic effect. But all rays parallel to those off-perpindicular rays are deflected the same amount, which means there is still zero diopters refraction (no convergence and no divergence) at any flat surface.
w.stacy, o.d.
|
|
|