|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > October 2004 > Capriati too?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-05, 11:09 am |
| http://www.sport.telegraph.co.uk/sp.../2002/08/10/stc
api10.xml
Also has night vision problems - "halos" she says.
Really, you folks ought to give it a rest. I think I've made my point,
which is that while some athletes have benefitted from LASIK, some haven't.
DrG
| |
|
| Whatever complications there are with LASIK, they are trivial compared
with those of wearing contact lenses.
You should take a break from posting messages before your credibility
sinks to a complete zero. Anybody familiar with this newsgroup knows
that your tune has changed dramatically in the last week.
On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 12:26:32 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
<drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>http://www.sport.telegraph.co.uk/sp.../2002/08/10/stc
>api10.xml
>
>Also has night vision problems - "halos" she says.
>
>Really, you folks ought to give it a rest. I think I've made my point,
>which is that while some athletes have benefitted from LASIK, some haven't.
>
>DrG
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-05, 11:09 am |
| I gave a truthful answer to a question posed in this newsgroup, and you
started with the ad hominem diatribes and attacked my credibility. You
should have known better. That wasn't very nice.
DrG
RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:vh55m09b7pse5qckjc6j14a652eg070160@4ax.com:
> Whatever complications there are with LASIK, they are trivial compared
> with those of wearing contact lenses.
>
> You should take a break from posting messages before your credibility
> sinks to a complete zero. Anybody familiar with this newsgroup knows
> that your tune has changed dramatically in the last week.
>
> On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 12:26:32 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
> <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>
>
>
| |
|
| "Dr. Leukoma" <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
> Really, you folks ought to give it a rest. I think I've made my point,
> which is that while some athletes have benefitted from LASIK, some haven't.
Define benefitted. There are lots of studies showing 90% and
better rates for achieving 20/40, 50% and better for achieving
20/20, and -- no offense to dispensers of glasses or contact
lenses -- 20% of lasik recipients achieving uncorrected visual
acuity levels better than their pre-operative best corrected
acuity.
| |
| joyceb 2004-10-06, 7:09 am |
| > Whatever complications there are with LASIK, they are trivial compared
> with those of wearing contact lenses.
I must admit, I am ignorant of the complications of wearing contact
lenses. I wear 30-day disposables, and I keep them in all the time.
What complications do I risk? Or expect?
Thanks in advance...
| |
|
| On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 09:12:17 GMT, r5 <r5ahhj@r5ahhj.bounceme.net>
wrote:
>"Dr. Leukoma" <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>
>Define benefitted. There are lots of studies showing 90% and
>better rates for achieving 20/40, 50% and better for achieving
>20/20, and -- no offense to dispensers of glasses or contact
>lenses -- 20% of lasik recipients achieving uncorrected visual
>acuity levels better than their pre-operative best corrected
>acuity.
R5... you were a bit conservative in your numbers there. The results
are better than that. The 20/20 rate is 90% for standard VISX LASIK
and 99% for VISX Customvue LASIK. 50% must be on a Nidek system at
a high-volume LASIK mill.
Incidentally.. to avoid posting another message, it should be noted
that TLC is another LASIK mill. I'm no fan of TLC nor Lasik+, nor
LVI. It's interesting how those companies came to be. There was one
of them, then the others came along copying the cut-rate practices and
sleazy marketing of the other and even taking them further.
Perhaps what the anti-lasik people need to do is direct their attacks
at bad doctors and bad lasik centers rather than at the LASIK
procedure itself.
| |
|
| On 6 Oct 2004 02:38:06 -0700, irecall911@yahoo.com (joyceb) wrote:
>
>I must admit, I am ignorant of the complications of wearing contact
>lenses. I wear 30-day disposables, and I keep them in all the time.
>What complications do I risk? Or expect?
>
>Thanks in advance...
If you are having no problems with your contacts, you should stick
with them. What is your prescription by the way?
| |
|
|
"r5" <r5ahhj@r5ahhj.bounceme.net> schreef in bericht
news:r5ahhj-7A7FF2.04121606102004@newssvr11-ext.news.prodigy.com...
> Define benefitted. There are lots of studies showing 90% and
> better rates for achieving 20/40, 50% and better for achieving
> 20/20, and -- no offense to dispensers of glasses or contact
> lenses -- 20% of lasik recipients achieving uncorrected visual
> acuity levels better than their pre-operative best corrected
> acuity.
No offense to the lasersurgeons.
You did not define the BCVA before having LASIK in the first part of your
statement.
If it was 20/15 before and afterwards 20/20 than it is a lesser vision
acuity don't you agree?
And 10% achieving as a result 50% of the average vision acuity?
Should they not be warned before?
IMHO you figured out the wrong numbers, this is a to negative point of view
on LASIK.
I don't believe the last part off your statement either about the 20%, can
you show me the study?
--
Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
Neither pro, nor anti, LASIK,LASEK,PRK etc......
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-06, 7:09 am |
| r5 <r5ahhj@r5ahhj.bounceme.net> wrote in
news:r5ahhj-7A7FF2.04121606102004@newssvr11-ext.news.prodigy.com:
> "Dr. Leukoma" <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>
> Define benefitted. There are lots of studies showing 90% and
> better rates for achieving 20/40, 50% and better for achieving
> 20/20, and -- no offense to dispensers of glasses or contact
> lenses -- 20% of lasik recipients achieving uncorrected visual
> acuity levels better than their pre-operative best corrected
> acuity.
Define benefitted? That should not need an explanation.
Let me tell you a little fact. I just presented a scientific paper in Las
Vegas over the weekend. In that paper, I presented the profile of the
patient who sees me with post-LASIK problems. The average uncorrected
visual acuity of the group is 20/40, with 75% achieving 20/40 or better.
The average spectacle acuity for the same group is a little better than
20/30. Yet, they have disturbances in their vision severe enough to
motivate them to travel across the country, as they represent 20 states and
5 foreign countries.
Think about it. Visual acuity isn't the culprit.
DrG
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-06, 11:09 am |
| RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in news:3rk7m05fsg6l27tiq5odovcbgjlqqs9kha@4ax.com:
> On 6 Oct 2004 02:38:06 -0700, irecall911@yahoo.com (joyceb) wrote:
>
>
> If you are having no problems with your contacts, you should stick
> with them. What is your prescription by the way?
I don't think you should be giving medical advice on this or any other
forum. You are neither a medical doctor nor an optometrist.
DrG
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-06, 11:09 am |
| irecall911@yahoo.com (joyceb) wrote in
news:d90524f2.0410060138.34a7944d@posting.google.com:
>
> I must admit, I am ignorant of the complications of wearing contact
> lenses. I wear 30-day disposables, and I keep them in all the time.
> What complications do I risk? Or expect?
>
> Thanks in advance...
>
In the Cheng article published in the Lancet in 1999, the rate of incidence
of microbial keratitis is 1/500 for patients who sleep in their lenses.
Statistically, only about 13% of those results in vision loss. However, in
1999, the 30 day lens was not available, and so the data was from the "old"
technology.
I just returned from a scientific meeting in which data was presented
showing that the incidence of microbial keratitis from the new 30 day lens
was about a factor of 10 less. However, there still can be other less
severe problems such as sterile infiltrative keratitis.
DrG
| |
|
| On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 12:09:40 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
<drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in news:3rk7m05fsg6l27tiq5odovcbgjlqqs9kha@4ax.com:
>
>
>I don't think you should be giving medical advice on this or any other
>forum. You are neither a medical doctor nor an optometrist.
>
>DrG
There was a message about this last week. Being a doctor, you are
liable and accountable for the advice you give. Anybody else can
provide any kind of comment they want to as long as they don't
identify themselves as being a doctor when they are not. Glenn even
ends every message by telling people he is NOT a doctor.
And since you are presenting yourself as a doctor, you must stick your
name on there. Your name is Dr. Gemoules, not Dr. Leukoma. There is
no Dr. Leukoma. Dr. G doesn't cut it either. There are hundreds of
thousands of doctors with the last initial of G.
Since there isn't a single credible doctor posting here, and since you
are not an ophthalmologist you really have no business giving advice
about LASIK surgery. A dentist isn't qualified to give advice about
oncology and a gynecologist isn't qualified to give advice about
podiatry.
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-06, 11:09 am |
| Mike <cigto@aol.com> wrote in
news:1097073039.4kf8YLeT08fXluMuc+6smA@teranews:
> On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 12:09:40 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
> <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>
>
> There was a message about this last week. Being a doctor, you are
> liable and accountable for the advice you give. Anybody else can
> provide any kind of comment they want to as long as they don't
> identify themselves as being a doctor when they are not. Glenn even
> ends every message by telling people he is NOT a doctor.
I don't dispense advice here on this NG. I discuss facts and opinion.
>
> And since you are presenting yourself as a doctor, you must stick your
> name on there. Your name is Dr. Gemoules, not Dr. Leukoma. There is
> no Dr. Leukoma. Dr. G doesn't cut it either. There are hundreds of
> thousands of doctors with the last initial of G.
Dr. G is my nickname. What is your name, "Mike"?
>
> Since there isn't a single credible doctor posting here, and since you
> are not an ophthalmologist you really have no business giving advice
> about LASIK surgery. A dentist isn't qualified to give advice about
> oncology and a gynecologist isn't qualified to give advice about
> podiatry.
>
You are right, I do not give advice about LASIK surgery. I talk about
LASIK surgery, just like you do.
DrG
| |
| Dr. Ted Roxan 2004-10-06, 7:06 pm |
|
Jennifer Capriatii did not have LASIK surgery, she had a pterygium
removed which is, in fact, effecting her night vision.
Dr. Ted Roxan
http://visionupdate.net/
On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 12:26:32 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
<drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>http://www.sport.telegraph.co.uk/sp.../2002/08/10/stc
>api10.xml
>
>Also has night vision problems - "halos" she says.
>
>Really, you folks ought to give it a rest. I think I've made my point,
>which is that while some athletes have benefitted from LASIK, some haven't.
>
>DrG
| |
|
| This is a revelation! The problems Capriati had were due to
pterygium which is unrelated to her LASIK surgery years ago.
She did have LASIK surgery years ago, but it's not related to the
pterygium surgery. Blame it on the sun.
=========================
Q. Jennifer, you were talking to Mary Jo about your eyesight and this
condition from being out in the sun so many years. Can you tell us a
little more about that and what you're going to have to do to take
care of it.
JENNIFER CAPRIAIT: It's different from the surgery I had before, which
is the vision correction lasik surgery. Now because I have had that,
it's important that I don't let it go too much, because it could
interfere with that other surgery. It's a common thing. A lot of
people have it that are out in the sun a lot?
http://www.capriati.host.sk/ichampionships2_02.htm
On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 19:39:06 GMT, Dr. Ted Roxan
<editor@visionupdate.net> wrote:
>
>Jennifer Capriatii did not have LASIK surgery, she had a pterygium
>removed which is, in fact, effecting her night vision.
>
>Dr. Ted Roxan
>http://visionupdate.net/
>
>
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-06, 7:06 pm |
| Dr. Ted Roxan <editor@visionupdate.net> wrote in
news:58i8m01ld0sbg601tlbjuc6g53ebcp239k@4ax.com:
>
> Jennifer Capriatii did not have LASIK surgery, she had a pterygium
> removed which is, in fact, effecting her night vision.
>
> Dr. Ted Roxan
> http://visionupdate.net/
>
You are half right, Dr. Roxan. She had both LASIK and a pterygiectomy.
DrG
>
>
> On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 12:26:32 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
> <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>
>
>
| |
| joyceb 2004-10-07, 4:09 am |
| > If you are having no problems with your contacts, you should stick
> with them. What is your prescription by the way?
Perhaps I misinterpreted your note. Though the reference was vague,
you seemed to be implying that, on balance, contacts are more to be
feared than LASIK.
If this was indeed your meaning, would you please tell me what
complications I risk with contacts? I understand that a small
percentage of LASIK patients experience complications which can have a
very negative effect on their quality of life. Are there
complications from contacts which can have similarly severe
consequences?
If that was not your meaning, would you please clarify?
| |
|
| Well, I don't want to start a war on this topic, but you have asked
repeatedly in the past few days. Unlike some others, I am not going
to threaten to spam the group with a flood of anti-contact lens
information. I like rigid contact lenses. They provide the best
possible vision if you can tolerate them. The sad thing is that the
more effective a lens is, the more complications are involved with it.
Conversely, the more ineffective a lens is, the less complications you
have to worry about. That is why doctors love soft contact lenses
and disposables. They can crank out a prescription for these mass
produced lenses which do nothing for astigmatism (which everyone has
to some degree). The complications with these type of lenses are
negligible.
Now for the information you requested: here is the link - at the
bottom of this post I will include the full text of the link for
people who have trouble launching urls from their newsreader.
http://www.eyemdlink.com/Condition.asp?ConditionID=131
On 7 Oct 2004 01:15:19 -0700, irecall911@yahoo.com (joyceb) wrote:
>
>Perhaps I misinterpreted your note. Though the reference was vague,
>you seemed to be implying that, on balance, contacts are more to be
>feared than LASIK.
>
>If this was indeed your meaning, would you please tell me what
>complications I risk with contacts? I understand that a small
>percentage of LASIK patients experience complications which can have a
>very negative effect on their quality of life. Are there
>complications from contacts which can have similarly severe
>consequences?
>
>If that was not your meaning, would you please clarify?
============================================
Contact Lens Related Problems
Contact lenses, though worn by millions, may result in many potential
complications. Most of these problems can be attributed to contact
lens over-wear, poor lens hygiene, sensitivity to lens materials or
solutions, or a poor fit.
Swimming with contact lenses in may be associated with a devastating
ocular infection known as Acanthamoeba keratitis.
Giant Papillary Conjunctivitis
Development of red, itchy eyes, and in some cases, poor vision with
contact lens wear may sometimes be associated with a condition known
as giant papillary conjunctivitis. This condition can only be
diagnosed by eversion of the upper eyelid, demonstrating the giant
papillae characteristic of this condition. The cause of the condition
is thought to be an immune reaction to the material of, or the
presence of, the contact lens itself. Treatment generally requires
discontinuance of, or limitation of, contact lens wear. In most cases,
the temporary use of steroids or the long-term use of mast cell
stabilizing agents will control giant papillary conjunctivitis.
Corneal Ulceration
One of the most dreaded complications of contact lens wear is corneal
ulceration. This is a bacterial infection of the cornea, which is
nearly always bacterial in origin. The condition usually presents with
a red, painful eye with discharge, and perhaps poor or reduced vision.
The patient may occasionally observe a white spot on the cornea of the
involved eye. If the diagnosis of corneal ulceration is confirmed, the
ophthalmologist may or may not take a culture, and antibiotic
eye-drops are then administered. The patient is usually followed daily
until the condition resolves. Permanent visual loss occurs in some
patients despite early therapy, depending mostly on what part of the
cornea (central or peripheral) is most affected.
Contact Lens Solution Hypersensitivity
Hypersensitivity to contact lens solutions may also occur. These
patients usually present with red, irritated eyes and difficulty
wearing the contact lenses. Usually the patient has recently changed
contact lens cleaning or storage solutions. Use of preservative-free
solutions or a solution with a different preservative may be all that
is necessary to correct the problem.
Contact Lens Protein Deposits
Contact lens protein deposits may make a once comfortable contact lens
very uncomfortable and irritating. The condition can usually be seen
by the ophthalmologist at the slit lamp examination with the lenses
in. In most cases, a new lens is required to solve the problem.
Enzymatic cleaning of lenses or planned-replacement contact lenses,
which are disposed of regularly, may be the best options.
Tight Contact Lens Syndrome
Tight contact lens syndrome occurs when a contact lens is ill-fitting.
Because of a variety of factors, including tear film deficiencies and
changes in corneal curvature with contact lens wear, a tight contact
lens syndrome may occur even in patients with initially well-fitting
contacts. The patient usually complains that the lens feels fine until
after a few hours of wear, at which point it becomes uncomfortable.
The eye may also become red. The symptoms usually resolve within a few
hours after discontinuance of contact lens wear.
Tight contact lens syndrome can often be diagnosed by the
ophthalmologist with the pertinent history and examination, the latter
of which shows a contact lens that scarcely moves on the cornea with
blinking. Resolution of the problem entails fitting a contact lens
with a flatter base-curve or smaller diameter. In essence, the lens
must fit more loosely on the eye, allowing the tear film better access
to the cornea beneath the contact lens.
Corneal Warpage
Corneal warpage is a condition that may develop with hard, rigid
gas-permeable, or soft contact lenses. The condition is characterized
by an unusual change in the curvature of the cornea with contact lens
wear. The cornea is literally "molded" by the contact lens into a
distorted shape. The condition usually presents with gradual worsening
of vision while wearing contact lenses, need for frequent lens power
changes, and in some cases, an irritated, red eye. The condition can
only be diagnosed with use of a keratometer or a corneal topographer,
both of which determine the shape of the cornea. The only available
treatment is discontinuance of contact lens wear until the cornea
stabilizes (usually a few weeks or months). Contact lenses may be
refit once the cornea is stable; however, recurrence of corneal
warpage is likely. The patient is usually informed that glasses or,
perhaps, refractive surgery may be better options depending on the
degree of refractive error.
| |
| joyceb 2004-10-08, 2:08 am |
| Thank you very much! I appreciate having as much information as
possible. And I also appreciate your personal take on rigid contacts
vs. soft.
At this time, I have no measurable astigmatism (according to my
doctor) and no noticeable problems with my soft 30-day lenses. I wear
them constantly for 28 days or so (including sleep), then throw them
away, wear my glasses for a couple of days to give my eyes a break
(seems prudent), and then break out a new pair. This has worked well
for the last five years or so. But I'm not so foolish as to think
that I am immune to problems in the future. Who knows -- perhaps I've
already done damage to my eyes.
Prior to my soft contacts, I wore rigid gas-permeables for about five
years. My experience varied quite a bit -- some times I would go
several months without any discomfort at all, and then there were
stretches of a few months when they were uncomfortable most of the
time. My doc wasn't ever able to pinpoint the cause, and eventually I
gave up. Wow -- I remember what it was like to get any eyelash under
a contact -- agony!
I imagine that the technology has dramatically improved since then.
The next time I see my eye doctor, I will ask him about rigid lenses.
Thanks for the heads-up!
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-08, 11:08 am |
| irecall911@yahoo.com (joyceb) wrote in
news:d90524f2.0410072207.3b7f4294@posting.google.com:
> Thank you very much! I appreciate having as much information as
> possible. And I also appreciate your personal take on rigid contacts
> vs. soft.
>
> At this time, I have no measurable astigmatism (according to my
> doctor) and no noticeable problems with my soft 30-day lenses. I wear
> them constantly for 28 days or so (including sleep), then throw them
> away, wear my glasses for a couple of days to give my eyes a break
> (seems prudent), and then break out a new pair. This has worked well
> for the last five years or so. But I'm not so foolish as to think
> that I am immune to problems in the future. Who knows -- perhaps I've
> already done damage to my eyes.
>
> Prior to my soft contacts, I wore rigid gas-permeables for about five
> years. My experience varied quite a bit -- some times I would go
> several months without any discomfort at all, and then there were
> stretches of a few months when they were uncomfortable most of the
> time. My doc wasn't ever able to pinpoint the cause, and eventually I
> gave up. Wow -- I remember what it was like to get any eyelash under
> a contact -- agony!
>
> I imagine that the technology has dramatically improved since then.
> The next time I see my eye doctor, I will ask him about rigid lenses.
> Thanks for the heads-up!
>
We live in a wonderful time for eye care, and contact lenses are improving
at a dizzying clip. I just received an update on the safety of silicone-
hydrogel lenses last weekend. I also wear silicone-hydrogel soft lenses,
and am constantly amazed at their comfort.
I think that you are wise in sticking with your contact lenses if they are
not giving you any problems. I enjoyed reading your comments.
Of course, refractive surgery will continue to improve as well. Perhaps
the competition between the different technologies is a good thing.
DrG
| |
| Robert Anderson 2004-10-08, 11:08 am |
| You are a doctor's dream patient. Very few people will wear their
glasses for a few days a month. In my case, due to considerable
astigmatism, strong prescription, and working at a computer monitor -
glasses were ineffective for me. In the last few several months
before lasik, my eyes seemed to be rejecting the contact lenses.
I think rigid lenses will be a long term solution for you. The first
thing you will notice about them is how easy they are to clean.
On 7 Oct 2004 23:07:16 -0700, irecall911@yahoo.com (joyceb) wrote:
>Thank you very much! I appreciate having as much information as
>possible. And I also appreciate your personal take on rigid contacts
>vs. soft.
>
>At this time, I have no measurable astigmatism (according to my
>doctor) and no noticeable problems with my soft 30-day lenses. I wear
>them constantly for 28 days or so (including sleep), then throw them
>away, wear my glasses for a couple of days to give my eyes a break
>(seems prudent), and then break out a new pair. This has worked well
>for the last five years or so. But I'm not so foolish as to think
>that I am immune to problems in the future. Who knows -- perhaps I've
>already done damage to my eyes.
>
>Prior to my soft contacts, I wore rigid gas-permeables for about five
>years. My experience varied quite a bit -- some times I would go
>several months without any discomfort at all, and then there were
>stretches of a few months when they were uncomfortable most of the
>time. My doc wasn't ever able to pinpoint the cause, and eventually I
>gave up. Wow -- I remember what it was like to get any eyelash under
>a contact -- agony!
>
>I imagine that the technology has dramatically improved since then.
>The next time I see my eye doctor, I will ask him about rigid lenses.
>Thanks for the heads-up!
| |
| joyceb 2004-10-08, 7:11 pm |
| > I think rigid lenses will be a long term solution for you. The first
> thing you will notice about them is how easy they are to clean.
I know from previous experience that rigids are relatively easy to
clean. However, when it comes to convenience, nothing beats "no
cleaning" (disposables). *wink*
|
| |
|
|