ESCRS Homepage

August 2002
IN THIS ISSUE

French specialists in conflict with Government as crisis looms


PRK gets a second look for poor LASIK candidates

Therapeutic apheresis slows the downhill course of dry AMD

Zyoptix ablation refinement uses two-step approach to achieve best visual results

Survey shows PRK is more widely practised
than LASIK in treatment of myopia in France

Flap hinge position no effect on corneal sensitivity

LASIK nomograms hide corneal biomechanical and epithelial profile changes induced by surgery

High-tech treatment for irregular astigmatism

Avoiding cataract surprises after refractive surgery

Antioxidants mitigate cataract risk and progression

Times are set to change for German eye surgeons

Study reveals next day follow-up visit may
be unnecessary for most cataract patients

High water content hydrophilic acrylic IOL gets the blues

Careful evaluation for diabetics with cataracts

Phaco does not worsen diabetic retinopathy

Night light might shade diabetic retinopathy

Diabetes debate continues

Common cardio drugs may improve PDT outcomes

Researchers say EBRT shows new promise for treatment of eyes with subfoveal CNV

FEATURES
From The Editor
Reflections on Refractive Surgery
Healthcare In Europe
Bio-ophthalmology



From The Editors - By Clive Peckar FRCS, FRCOphth

Phaco follow-up and globalisation
Food for thought

The necessity and frequency of postoperative examinations following cataract phacoemulsification continues to be hotly debated. In this issue we highlight a report, presented at ARVO,from Tinley in the UK. He abandoned the first day postoperative visit and concluded that this did not adversely affect the outcome of patients undergoing uncomplicated phacoemulsification. The report does not tell us, however, whether the patients had slit lamp examinations on the day of surgery prior to discharge. In addition, this is rather a small prospective study. It serves, however, to highlight the controversy and I would be very interested to hear the views of EuroTimes readers on this issue.

Market domination among ophthalmic companies continues to occur as part of the wider project of Globalisation. Small European pharmaceutical and instrument manufacturers run the risk of being acquired by 'superpower companies'. Whilst this may be good for the share holders, it stifles future local innovation and limits our choice as ophthalmologists. Most recently, the rumoured merger between a 'Blue Tablet American Giant' and what started as an 'Innovative Northern European Pharmaceutical Company' has hit the news. Unless we encourage and support our local companies to develop, we in Europe will lose our historic lead in ophthalmic instrument and pharmaceutical development.


Clive Peckar

Top