ArticleMirror telescopic intraocular lens for age-related macular degeneration Design and preliminary clinical results of the Lipshitz macular implantAgarwal, Amar MS, FRCS, FRCOphth∗; Lipshitz, Isaac MD; Jacob, Soosan MS, DNB, FRCS, MNAMS; Lamba, Mandeep MBBS, DNB, FERC; Tiwari, Rahul MBBS, FERC; Kumar, Divya A. MD; Agarwal, Athiya MD, DO Author Information From Dr. Agarwal's Eye Hospital and Eye Research Centre (Am. Agarwal, Jacob, Lamba, Tiwari, Kumar, At. Agarwal), Chennai, India; and a private eye center (Lipshitz), Tel Aviv, Israel ∗Corresponding author: Professor Amar Agarwal, Dr. Agarwal's Eye Hospital, Cathedral Road, Chennai-600086, Tamil Nadu, India. E-mail: [email protected] Accepted for publication August 22, 2007. Dr. Lipshitz holds the patents for the mirror telescopic lens as well as shares in Optolight Vision Technology, the manufacturer of the Lipshitz macular implant. No other author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned. SymbolFirst author:Symbol: No Caption available.Amar Agarwal, MS, FRCS, FRCOphth Dr. Agarwal's Eye Hospital and Eye Research Centre, Chennai, India Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery: January 2008 - Volume 34 - Issue 1 - p 87-94 doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2007.08.031 Buy Metrics Abstract PURPOSE: To conduct a pilot study evaluating the visual and surgical outcomes of an intraocular mirror telescopic intraocular lens, the Lipshitz macular implant (LMI) (Optolight Vision Technology), for age-related macular degeneration (ARMD) and other macular pathology. SETTING: Dr. Agarwal's Eye Hospital and Eye Research Centre, Chennai, India. METHODS: The LMI was implanted in patients with bilateral macular pathology and visual acuity worse than 20/200 in whom vision improved with a ×2.5 external telescope preoperatively. The LMI was implanted after conventional phacoemulsification or microphakonit. The minimum follow-up was 6 months. RESULTS: Six eyes of 6 patients had surgery in the worse eye. Four eyes had ARMD, and 1 eye each had myopic macular degeneration or macular dystrophy. There were no intraoperative complications. The mean gain in distance acuity was 3.66 lines ± 1.88 (SD), and the mean increase in the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study score for near acuity was 50.83 ± 9.15 logMAR. The best corrected distance acuity and near acuity improved significantly (both P = .014). The mean change in endothelial count was −5.79% ± −4.07%. The mean postoperative corneal endothelial–LMI distance was 3.15 ± 0.31 mm. A good central fundus view was possible around the mirrors in all eyes. Fundus fluorescein angiography showed good visibility of the retina up to the midperiphery. The mean score on a quality-of-life questionnaire was 11.16 ± 1.72 (SD) preoperatively and 4.50 ± 0.83 postoperatively, a statistically significant improvement (P = .014). CONCLUSIONS: The LMI may be an effective solution for optical rehabilitation of patients with ARMD or other macular pathology by increasing the central image on the retina while preserving peripheral vision. The surgery and visual recovery were quick, and the improvement in quality of life was significant. © 2008 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.
