The effect of incisions for cataract on corneal curvature.

PURPOSE: To determine the magnitude and duration of change on the horizontal and vertical meridians of the cornea after five different incisions for cataract. DESIGN: Retrospective comparative interventional study of five commonly used incisions for cataract surgery: extracapsular cataract extraction (ECCE), 6-mm superior scleral tunnel (6Sup), 3-mm superior scleral tunnel (3Sup), 3-mm temporal scleral tunnel (3Temp), and 3-mm temporal corneal incision (3Cor). PARTICIPANTS: A total of 662 cases with preoperative regular astigmatism, measured with keratometry. METHODS: The mean net change on each meridian was computed at 1 day, 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month, 1.5 months, 2 months, 4 months, 6 months, and 12 months and at succeeding 6-month intervals after surgery. Best-fit parameters were calculated for the observed changes in the horizontal and vertical keratometry values after each incision. To determine when the cornea stabilized, average change on the horizontal and vertical meridians was compared with an estimate of the accuracy of keratometry measurement. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The pattern of change on the horizontal and vertical meridians and time for the cornea to stabilize after each incision. RESULTS: The initial and final net changes after a superior incision decrease with length. A sigmoid equation describes the course of the changes on the horizontal and vertical meridians after the superior incisions. The changes after the temporal incisions depend linearly on time after surgery. Considering the uncertainty of keratometry, the corneal meridians stabilized 4.5 months after ECCE, 1.2 months after 6Sup, and 0.3 months after 3Sup. No significant change was detected on the horizontal and vertical meridians after 3Temp and 3Cor. CONCLUSIONS: The magnitude and the duration of keratometric change on the horizontal and vertical meridians of the cornea depend on the length and location of the incision. Within the limits of measurement error, no significant change in corneal curvature was detected after either small temporal incision.

Neurotrophic factor intervention restores auditory function in deafened animals.

A primary cause of deafness is damage of receptor cells in the inner ear. Clinically, it has been demonstrated that effective functionality can be provided by electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve, thus bypassing damaged receptor cells. However, subsequent to sensory cell loss there is a secondary degeneration of the afferent nerve fibers, resulting in reduced effectiveness of such cochlear prostheses. The effects of neurotrophic factors were tested in a guinea pig cochlear prosthesis model. After chemical deafening to mimic the clinical situation, the neurotrophic factors brain-derived neurotrophic factor and an analogue of ciliary neurotrophic factor were infused directly into the cochlea of the inner ear for 26 days by using an osmotic pump system. An electrode introduced into the cochlea was used to elicit auditory responses just as in patients implanted with cochlear prostheses. Intervention with brain-derived neurotrophic factor and the ciliary neurotrophic factor analogue not only increased the survival of auditory spiral ganglion neurons, but significantly enhanced the functional responsiveness of the auditory system as measured by using electrically evoked auditory brainstem responses. This demonstration that neurotrophin intervention enhances threshold sensitivity within the auditory system will have great clinical importance for the treatment of deaf patients with cochlear prostheses. The findings have direct implications for the enhancement of responsiveness in deafferented peripheral nerves.

Electrophonic Hearing and Cochlear Implants.

It has been difficult to explain the good speech understanding obtained by some cochlear implant patients fitted with a single-channel electrode and analog transmissions of the speech signal (Vienna/3M implant). It has also been difficult to explain the variation in results reported by different groups using the same implant. One hypothesis asserts that the above differences can be explained by the observation that electric stimulation with an implanted electrode might result in two different auditory sensations, the first resulting from the stimulation of the remaining hair cells (electrophonic component) and the second from the electric stimulation of the auditory nerve (electro-neural component). The two sensations are very different. As a result of different definitions of total deafness (functional or threshold definition), patients with remaining hair cells are operated on by some groups, but not by other groups. Some published results from different studies are discussed with reference to the above hypothesis and the possible consequences for the selection of the patients, the use of extra-or intracochlear electrodes, and the selection of the speech coding strategy are discussed.