|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > October 2004 > If Gastric Bypass is the "next" LASIK.....
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]
| Author |
If Gastric Bypass is the "next" LASIK.....
|
|
| DoctorMyEye 2004-10-06, 7:06 pm |
| As obesity surgery becomes commonplace, it has begun to be marketed to
the public as a safe alternative to diet and exercise programs. A new
study of gastric bypass patients has shown that the sudden mortality
rate after the surgery is much higher than ever expected. In the
study, one in 50 patients died within one month of their bypass
surgery.
You can read a little more about the study here:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health...tric-usat_x.htm
I recently had a patient return to my office after a 5 year absence,
and he was a trim 6'1' 200 pounds. He related to me that he had
gastric bypass surgery, and his weight was 270 at the time of the
surgery.
Lets look at the pattern here, folks. This patient was not morbidly
obese at 270 pounds, but he was sold on the gastric bypass as the safe
alternative to a diet and exercise program. He actually told me he
went to the seminar about bypass surgery after he heard an
advertisement on the radio about how "the results will change your
life."
I will refrain from other comments and let the reader draw his own
conclusions.
| |
|
|
> I recently had a patient return to my office after a 5 year absence,
> and he was a trim 6'1' 200 pounds. He related to me that he had
> gastric bypass surgery, and his weight was 270 at the time of the
> surgery.
>
> Lets look at the pattern here, folks. This patient was not morbidly
> obese at 270 pounds, but he was sold on the gastric bypass as the safe
> alternative to a diet and exercise program. He actually told me he
> went to the seminar about bypass surgery after he heard an
> advertisement on the radio about how "the results will change your
> life."
>
> I will refrain from other comments and let the reader draw his own
> conclusions.
So in YOUR mind he's not happy with it or your not happy with it?
You DID ask him if he was happy with it? Wouldn't that be the main thing????
I am not sticking up for this Gastric Bypass Surgery but obviously this guy
seriously wanted to loose some weight. Maybe he has tried exercise and
dieting all his life and it hasn't worked for him.
Lasik candidates want to not wear glasses or contacts any more. What's wrong
with that? I don't think most lasik patients are pushed into it at all. Its
a individual's decision. I agree that it is sold as a relatively simple
painless operation. I can't argue with that. Sure wasn't any pain for me.
How many operations can you have and wake up the next day painfree and being
able to see again for the first time in years without glasses or lenses.
I call that a miracle. What do you call it?
The bottom line is:
If you want to have Gastric Bypass Surgery - have it!!
If you want to have a boob job - have it!!
If you want to have Lasik - have it!!
They all have there own risks involved. If you can afford it and willing to
take the small risk especially with lasik then GO FOR IT!!!!
This is the 21st century. Make the most of our modern technology.
That's my views for what they are worth.
Wal
| |
| Ragnar Suomi 2004-10-06, 7:06 pm |
| That's true. And incredibly, the mortality rate for liposuction is
higher than that for heart transplants. I'm not making that up!
On 6 Oct 2004 09:28:27 -0700, doctor_my_eye@msn.com (DoctorMyEye)
wrote:
>As obesity surgery becomes commonplace, it has begun to be marketed to
>the public as a safe alternative to diet and exercise programs. A new
>study of gastric bypass patients has shown that the sudden mortality
>rate after the surgery is much higher than ever expected. In the
>study, one in 50 patients died within one month of their bypass
>surgery.
>
>You can read a little more about the study here:
>http://www.usatoday.com/news/health...tric-usat_x.htm
>
>I recently had a patient return to my office after a 5 year absence,
>and he was a trim 6'1' 200 pounds. He related to me that he had
>gastric bypass surgery, and his weight was 270 at the time of the
>surgery.
>
>Lets look at the pattern here, folks. This patient was not morbidly
>obese at 270 pounds, but he was sold on the gastric bypass as the safe
>alternative to a diet and exercise program. He actually told me he
>went to the seminar about bypass surgery after he heard an
>advertisement on the radio about how "the results will change your
>life."
>
>I will refrain from other comments and let the reader draw his own
>conclusions.
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-06, 10:06 pm |
| doctor_my_eye@msn.com (DoctorMyEye) wrote in
news:79e0f419.0410060828.79ba1ddb@posting.google.com:
> As obesity surgery becomes commonplace, it has begun to be marketed to
> the public as a safe alternative to diet and exercise programs. A new
> study of gastric bypass patients has shown that the sudden mortality
> rate after the surgery is much higher than ever expected. In the
> study, one in 50 patients died within one month of their bypass
> surgery.
>
> You can read a little more about the study here:
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/health...tric-usat_x.htm
>
> I recently had a patient return to my office after a 5 year absence,
> and he was a trim 6'1' 200 pounds. He related to me that he had
> gastric bypass surgery, and his weight was 270 at the time of the
> surgery.
>
> Lets look at the pattern here, folks. This patient was not morbidly
> obese at 270 pounds, but he was sold on the gastric bypass as the safe
> alternative to a diet and exercise program. He actually told me he
> went to the seminar about bypass surgery after he heard an
> advertisement on the radio about how "the results will change your
> life."
>
> I will refrain from other comments and let the reader draw his own
> conclusions.
>
As an aside, how much do you weigh?
DrG
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-06, 10:06 pm |
| "Wal" <notmewally@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:2sj7p4F1mi0qsU1@uni-berlin.de:
>
>
> So in YOUR mind he's not happy with it or your not happy with it?
>
> You DID ask him if he was happy with it? Wouldn't that be the main
> thing????
>
> I am not sticking up for this Gastric Bypass Surgery but obviously
> this guy seriously wanted to loose some weight. Maybe he has tried
> exercise and dieting all his life and it hasn't worked for him.
>
> Lasik candidates want to not wear glasses or contacts any more. What's
> wrong with that? I don't think most lasik patients are pushed into it
> at all. Its a individual's decision. I agree that it is sold as a
> relatively simple painless operation. I can't argue with that. Sure
> wasn't any pain for me. How many operations can you have and wake up
> the next day painfree and being able to see again for the first time
> in years without glasses or lenses. I call that a miracle. What do you
> call it?
>
> The bottom line is:
> If you want to have Gastric Bypass Surgery - have it!!
> If you want to have a boob job - have it!!
> If you want to have Lasik - have it!!
>
> They all have there own risks involved. If you can afford it and
> willing to take the small risk especially with lasik then GO FOR
> IT!!!! This is the 21st century. Make the most of our modern
> technology. That's my views for what they are worth.
> Wal
>
>
>
As I have said many, many times before: If you have had a good result from
LASIK, I am glad.
The problem is that the 3% rate continues to generate a significant number
of dissatisfied customers. Perhaps a surgeon operates on someone who has a
contraindication, like a pterygium. I would like to see the complication
rate much lower than it is. Perhaps with simple observance of certain
contraindications, it can be reduced.
DrG
| |
|
| "Wal" <notmewally@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<2sj7p4F1mi0qsU1@uni-berlin.de>...
>
> So in YOUR mind he's not happy with it or your not happy with it?
>
> You DID ask him if he was happy with it? Wouldn't that be the main thing????
>
> I am not sticking up for this Gastric Bypass Surgery but obviously this guy
> seriously wanted to loose some weight. Maybe he has tried exercise and
> dieting all his life and it hasn't worked for him.
>
> Lasik candidates want to not wear glasses or contacts any more. What's wrong
> with that? I don't think most lasik patients are pushed into it at all. Its
> a individual's decision. I agree that it is sold as a relatively simple
> painless operation. I can't argue with that. Sure wasn't any pain for me.
> How many operations can you have and wake up the next day painfree and being
> able to see again for the first time in years without glasses or lenses.
> I call that a miracle. What do you call it?
>
> The bottom line is:
> If you want to have Gastric Bypass Surgery - have it!!
> If you want to have a boob job - have it!!
> If you want to have Lasik - have it!!
>
> They all have there own risks involved. If you can afford it and willing to
> take the small risk especially with lasik then GO FOR IT!!!!
> This is the 21st century. Make the most of our modern technology.
> That's my views for what they are worth.
> Wal
LASIK is not a miracle. It's just modern medicine with a
straightforward explanation of the mechanics involved. I think that
Walt would be saying just the opposite if he'd had complications, and
even Walt has admitted to halos/glare at night.
| |
|
|
to[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> LASIK is not a miracle. It's just modern medicine with a
> straightforward explanation of the mechanics involved. I think that
> Walt would be saying just the opposite if he'd had complications, and
> even Walt has admitted to halos/glare at night.
Sandy for me Lasik is a miracle. May not be for you but it is for me ok!
Even with some halo's that I still get at night. I can live with them no
problem.
I agree if I had of had your complications I wouldn't be as happy.
Can you answer this honestly please -
What is the likely percentage chance that anyone would have a outcome like
you had Sandy?
Admittedly you now need contacts but can still see well enough to drive and
live a normal life - right?
Wal
| |
| DoctorMyEye 2004-10-07, 11:09 am |
| I am one of those folks that has had to do battle with a propensity to
gain weight all of my life. I'm now 6' 0" and 221 lbs, but I have to
put 45 minutes a day on the treadmill 7 days a week to stay there. I
have weighed as much as 289 pounds 8 years ago and I graduated from
high school at about 205.
The "miracle" of gastric bypass is the selling of a concept that a
small stomach will suddenly make the person healthy. I have already
seen gastric bypass patients that blew off all of the psych counseling
that came with the surgery, and they fill their new little stomaches
with potato chips because that was what they loved when they were
heavy.
"Dr. Leukoma" <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote in message news:<Xns957AC9556534Ddrgleukomacom@216.148.227.77>...
> doctor_my_eye@msn.com (DoctorMyEye) wrote in
> news:79e0f419.0410060828.79ba1ddb@posting.google.com:
>
>
> As an aside, how much do you weigh?
>
> DrG
| |
| Wizkid 2004-10-07, 11:09 am |
| Wal, I am glad that LASIK was a miracle for you. I also agree that we
should make the most of modern technology and I would not be in favor
of curtailing anyone's right to have LASIK.
However, after years of being in the surgical field, I can tell you
that money is a driving force in a number of surgical specialties,
particularly for cosmetic procedures (LASIK is a cosmetic procedure).
When money becomes the focus, the patient loses. The most common form
of disabusing patients is not fully informing the patient in a
conscientious way about the prevalence and severity of potential
complications.
I have said it before and will say it again, post-LASIK ectasia is a
much larger problem than what refractive surgeons have been letting
the public on to. Were you told about ectasia? Were you told about
corneal homogenity and strength being permanently lost once the flap
is cut? And what this may mean to you long term?
Mark my words, this issue will be a growing issue in the coming
years... and many LASIK patients will be leaning about it for the
first time well after they have had the procedure. For these folks,
there will be no turning back. They will have opted for something that
they will have to suffer through until a fix (possibly Intacs) can
help them.
WK
"Wal" <notmewally@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<2skb3aF1ku2lrU1@uni-berlin.de>...
> to
>
> Sandy for me Lasik is a miracle. May not be for you but it is for me ok!
> Even with some halo's that I still get at night. I can live with them no
> problem.
>
> I agree if I had of had your complications I wouldn't be as happy.
> Can you answer this honestly please -
>
> What is the likely percentage chance that anyone would have a outcome like
> you had Sandy?
> Admittedly you now need contacts but can still see well enough to drive and
> live a normal life - right?
>
> Wal
| |
| Richard 2004-10-07, 7:11 pm |
| "Wal" <notmewally@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:2sj7p4F1mi0qsU1@uni-berlin.de:
>
>
> So in YOUR mind he's not happy with it or your not happy with it?
>
> You DID ask him if he was happy with it? Wouldn't that be the main
> thing????
>
> I am not sticking up for this Gastric Bypass Surgery but obviously
> this guy seriously wanted to loose some weight. Maybe he has tried
> exercise and dieting all his life and it hasn't worked for him.
>
> Lasik candidates want to not wear glasses or contacts any more. What's
> wrong with that? I don't think most lasik patients are pushed into it
> at all. Its a individual's decision. I agree that it is sold as a
> relatively simple painless operation. I can't argue with that. Sure
> wasn't any pain for me. How many operations can you have and wake up
> the next day painfree and being able to see again for the first time
> in years without glasses or lenses. I call that a miracle. What do you
> call it?
>
> The bottom line is:
> If you want to have Gastric Bypass Surgery - have it!!
> If you want to have a boob job - have it!!
> If you want to have Lasik - have it!!
>
> They all have there own risks involved. If you can afford it and
> willing to take the small risk especially with lasik then GO FOR
> IT!!!! This is the 21st century. Make the most of our modern
> technology. That's my views for what they are worth.
>
One difference is that one of the not extremely unlikely complications of
the Gastric Bypass is death, while that is an extremely unlikely
complication of LASIK.
--
Richard
| |
| serebel 2004-10-07, 10:08 pm |
| doctor_my_eye@msn.com (DoctorMyEye) wrote in message news
>
> The "miracle" of gastric bypass is the selling of a concept that a
> small stomach will suddenly make the person healthy.
You are so full of crap, even you could'nt possibly believe it.
Gastric bypass is only done as a last resort for 99.99% of patients.
Your'e so biased against RS, that you are willing to pull this crap
out of thin air. You need your head examined.
You should stick to misdiagnosing your MS patients.
SErebel
| |
| Ragnar Suomi 2004-10-08, 2:08 am |
| On 7 Oct 2004 17:15:30 GMT, Richard <RichardRapier@netscape.net>
wrote:
>"Wal" <notmewally@hotmail.com> wrote in
>news:2sj7p4F1mi0qsU1@uni-berlin.de:
>
>
>One difference is that one of the not extremely unlikely complications of
>the Gastric Bypass is death, while that is an extremely unlikely
>complication of LASIK.
Extremely unlikely in that it's never happened before. I have heard
of a patient dying as a result of cataract surgery though. The
patient was quite elderly and the stress of the operation killed him.
Somebody will call for a moratorium on cataract surgery (they already
have).
| |
| Ragnar Suomi 2004-10-09, 2:08 am |
| Serebel is correct as usual. Imagine that! There are people who have
credibility.
Gastric bypass is a last-resort procedure. There are people who
cannot lose weight no matter what their diet is and no matter how much
they exercise. People such as pop-star/talk show diva Carnie Wilson
and bride of satan Sharon Osbourne had a choice of either taking a
chance on gastric bypass or living a guaranteed short life in a body
of blubber.
Incidentally, I don't think Dr. Minarik is a gastric bypass candidate.
As I recall, he is 6 feet tall and his weight has ranged from 225 to
295. That's a big boy but not obese. The pictures I have seen of him
don't look like he has his own gravitational field like Carnie Wilson
did. When he goes to parties, I don't think people say "welcome
back!" when he turns around 360 degrees.
He'd probably be best off trying to stay strong so he can deal with
his body weight rather than try to starve off the weight.
On 7 Oct 2004 18:42:03 -0700, serebel@aol.com (serebel) wrote:
>doctor_my_eye@msn.com (DoctorMyEye) wrote in message news
>
>
> You are so full of crap, even you could'nt possibly believe it.
>Gastric bypass is only done as a last resort for 99.99% of patients.
>Your'e so biased against RS, that you are willing to pull this crap
>out of thin air. You need your head examined.
>You should stick to misdiagnosing your MS patients.
>
>
>SErebel
| |
| serebel 2004-10-09, 2:08 am |
| gospa68@aol.com (Wizkid) wrote in message news:<c11e3ecf.0410070652.7b886d0b@posting.google.com>...
> Wal, I am glad that LASIK was a miracle for you. I also agree that we
> should make the most of modern technology and I would not be in favor
> of curtailing anyone's right to have LASIK.
>
> However, after years of being in the surgical field, I can tell you
> that money is a driving force in a number of surgical specialties,
> particularly for cosmetic procedures (LASIK is a cosmetic procedure).
> When money becomes the focus, the patient loses. The most common form
> of disabusing patients is not fully informing the patient in a
> conscientious way about the prevalence and severity of potential
> complications.
>
> I have said it before and will say it again, post-LASIK ectasia is a
> much larger problem than what refractive surgeons have been letting
> the public on to. Were you told about ectasia? Were you told about
> corneal homogenity and strength being permanently lost once the flap
> is cut? And what this may mean to you long term?
>
> Mark my words, this issue will be a growing issue in the coming
> years... and many LASIK patients will be leaning about it for the
> first time well after they have had the procedure. For these folks,
> there will be no turning back. They will have opted for something that
> they will have to suffer through until a fix (possibly Intacs) can
> help them.
> WK
>
Wizzer,
since you genius types like Sandy , Brent, Wavefront,etal know so much
of all the pitfalls of lasik, why did you have it done?
SErebel
| |
| Wizkid 2004-10-09, 11:09 am |
| Serebel, you are not too cerebral. If you had paid attention to my
posts you will have learned that I was one of the lucky ones! I have
AVOIDED refractive surgery and am very happy with my PMMA contacts
(-6.5 myope). I have NO complications, NO fears about future
consequences, and see 20/15 with NO loss of contrast.
I would consider a refractive procedure if it were truly safe,
provided an excellent visual outcome in all lighting conditions, and
were reversible. The last is important as I believe that the evolution
of optical correction will continue and I would like to take advantage
of future improvements. No procedure today meets these criteria.
Intacs are close but I am well out of their range.
Being an Ophthalmic insider, I know too much and know that most
consumers know too little. I cannot support the hype that exists in
our field. WK
| |
|
| As usual, my Roadrunner account is not propagating it's messages in a
timely manner. If anyone else out there is using Roadrunner, I would
like to know if you have the same problem.
Anyway, I found this new message on my Easynews account. Wizkid, you
go stick with your contact lenses. Do you honestly think that anyone
is going to put out $3500 for LASIK when they don't have any problems
with their contact lenses? At LVI, I sat right next to a guy whose
eyes were just -0.5 He hated his contacts so much he was having
LASIK done. I would never suggest that someone -0.5 have LASIK done.
Of course the LVI people didn't think twice about doing him.
Here's something I wonder about. What makes you an ophthalmic
insider? Is that some kind of secret?
On 9 Oct 2004 06:54:54 -0700, gospa68@aol.com (Wizkid) wrote:
>Serebel, you are not too cerebral. If you had paid attention to my
>posts you will have learned that I was one of the lucky ones! I have
>AVOIDED refractive surgery and am very happy with my PMMA contacts
>(-6.5 myope). I have NO complications, NO fears about future
>consequences, and see 20/15 with NO loss of contrast.
>
>I would consider a refractive procedure if it were truly safe,
>provided an excellent visual outcome in all lighting conditions, and
>were reversible. The last is important as I believe that the evolution
>of optical correction will continue and I would like to take advantage
>of future improvements. No procedure today meets these criteria.
>Intacs are close but I am well out of their range.
>
>Being an Ophthalmic insider, I know too much and know that most
>consumers know too little. I cannot support the hype that exists in
>our field. WK
| |
| serebel 2004-10-10, 12:06 am |
| gospa68@aol.com (Wizkid) wrote in message news:<c11e3ecf.0410090554.1ebd8b3e@posting.google.com>...
> Serebel, you are not too cerebral. If you had paid attention to my
> posts you will have learned that I was one of the lucky ones! I have
> AVOIDED refractive surgery and am very happy with my PMMA contacts
> (-6.5 myope). I have NO complications, NO fears about future
> consequences, and see 20/15 with NO loss of contrast.
>
> I would consider a refractive procedure if it were truly safe,
> provided an excellent visual outcome in all lighting conditions, and
> were reversible. The last is important as I believe that the evolution
> of optical correction will continue and I would like to take advantage
> of future improvements. No procedure today meets these criteria.
> Intacs are close but I am well out of their range.
>
> Being an Ophthalmic insider, I know too much and know that most
> consumers know too little. I cannot support the hype that exists in
> our field. WK
Touche'
SErebel
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2004-10-10, 2:11 am |
|
>Being an Ophthalmic insider, I know too much and know that most
>consumers know too little. I cannot support the hype that exists in
>our field. WK
Then what, exactly, are you doing about it. I mean really doing about
it, not lamenting in this forum that has virtually no influence upon
ophthalmology and isn't going to make a bit of difference regarding
the hype. What specific acts have you taken within your profession to
reduce or eliminate the hype?
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
| DoctorMyEye 2004-10-11, 11:09 am |
| Re-read my original post. This patient was given a bypass at a 270
pound starting weight. This was the most blatant misuse of surgery I
have seen since.....since the LASIK patient I have seen who was cut
even though he has Marfan's Syndrome.
serebel@aol.com (serebel) wrote in message news:<6ddf3bb5.0410071742.6b7632ad@posting.google.com>...
> doctor_my_eye@msn.com (DoctorMyEye) wrote in message news
>
>
> You are so full of crap, even you could'nt possibly believe it.
> Gastric bypass is only done as a last resort for 99.99% of patients.
> Your'e so biased against RS, that you are willing to pull this crap
> out of thin air. You need your head examined.
> You should stick to misdiagnosing your MS patients.
>
>
> SErebel
| |
|
| Marfan's sysndrome is primarily a cardiac and blood vessel problem.
I'm not sure how that would affect refractive surgery since the cornea
is devoid of blood vessels. Anyway, let's not argue about that.
Was the Marfan's syndrome diagnosed before the lasik surgery? If so,
was the surgeon told about it? That syndrome, like MS, has no
definitive way of diagnosing it. It's determined by symptoms - and
sometimes the symptoms don't manifest themselves.
Here's my question. When this patient came to you with the Marfan's
syndrome, did they know they already had it? Also, did you call up
the surgeon and ask him why he did surgery on this patient? It's
possible that the patient held back that information from the surgeon
so the surgeon would perform the surgery. When a patient wants
surgery done, and their surgeon tells them "no you can't have this
surgery because you have (some problem)", the patient is going to go
to another surgeon and omit that problem.
In my case, the idiot at LVI who never measured my pupils told me I
could not have LASIK and must have PRK because my pupils are 10 mm.
He told lies to 8 out of 9 patients that night ot get them to have PRK
done rather than the LASIK they came in for. I intentionally did not
mention what LVI said about my pupils to the surgeon who wound up
doing my surgery until after he measured them. They are 6.5mm. If I
had believed the LVI doctor, I would have wound out with IOLs.
On 11 Oct 2004 09:07:50 -0700, doctor_my_eye@msn.com (DoctorMyEye)
wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>Re-read my original post. This patient was given a bypass at a 270
>pound starting weight. This was the most blatant misuse of surgery I
>have seen since.....since the LASIK patient I have seen who was cut
>even though he has Marfan's Syndrome.
>
>
>serebel@aol.com (serebel) wrote in message news:<6ddf3bb5.0410071742.6b7632ad@posting.google.com>...
| |
| DoctorMyEye 2004-10-12, 11:08 am |
| Yes, the patient and the operating physician both knew he has
Marfan's. And, he appears physically just like Abe Lincoln...a
prolonged face, very long fingers and earlobes. As Marfan's causes a
painful overgrowth and migration of connective tissue cells, and the
cornea is a derivative of connective tissue, this patients three year
post LASIK adventure has been a constant battle. Pre-operatively he
was a -4.00 myope with limited astigmatism. Thanks to his
surgically-altered thin corneas, he is now +4.00 with a -9.00
astigmatism in each eye at oblique axes. He is wearibg
reverse-geometry RGPs with 16 hours of wearing time daily and good
acuity. But, he would have never started this adventure if the
physician would have disqualified him on day 1.
RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<4fplm0hlo9v3oo55nb54cckt6toh5liqa8@4ax.com>...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Marfan's sysndrome is primarily a cardiac and blood vessel problem.
> I'm not sure how that would affect refractive surgery since the cornea
> is devoid of blood vessels. Anyway, let's not argue about that.
>
> Was the Marfan's syndrome diagnosed before the lasik surgery? If so,
> was the surgeon told about it? That syndrome, like MS, has no
> definitive way of diagnosing it. It's determined by symptoms - and
> sometimes the symptoms don't manifest themselves.
>
> Here's my question. When this patient came to you with the Marfan's
> syndrome, did they know they already had it? Also, did you call up
> the surgeon and ask him why he did surgery on this patient? It's
> possible that the patient held back that information from the surgeon
> so the surgeon would perform the surgery. When a patient wants
> surgery done, and their surgeon tells them "no you can't have this
> surgery because you have (some problem)", the patient is going to go
> to another surgeon and omit that problem.
>
> In my case, the idiot at LVI who never measured my pupils told me I
> could not have LASIK and must have PRK because my pupils are 10 mm.
> He told lies to 8 out of 9 patients that night ot get them to have PRK
> done rather than the LASIK they came in for. I intentionally did not
> mention what LVI said about my pupils to the surgeon who wound up
> doing my surgery until after he measured them. They are 6.5mm. If I
> had believed the LVI doctor, I would have wound out with IOLs.
>
>
>
> On 11 Oct 2004 09:07:50 -0700, doctor_my_eye@msn.com (DoctorMyEye)
> wrote:
>
| |
|
| I thought Lincoln's problem was acromegly, but they maybe acromegly is
a symptom of Marfans.
I would think that surgeon needs to be sued if he knew about the
Marfan's before the surgery was done.
I would like to know why the results of the procedure were so bad. It
seems to me that not only shouldn't the surgeon have done surgery, but
the surgery he did was botched regardless of any medical condition.
How about explaining what the difference between a reverse geometry
RGP and an ortho K lens is. I think they are similar if not the same
- just worn in a different regimen.
On 12 Oct 2004 07:12:53 -0700, doctor_my_eye@msn.com (DoctorMyEye)
wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>Yes, the patient and the operating physician both knew he has
>Marfan's. And, he appears physically just like Abe Lincoln...a
>prolonged face, very long fingers and earlobes. As Marfan's causes a
>painful overgrowth and migration of connective tissue cells, and the
>cornea is a derivative of connective tissue, this patients three year
>post LASIK adventure has been a constant battle. Pre-operatively he
>was a -4.00 myope with limited astigmatism. Thanks to his
>surgically-altered thin corneas, he is now +4.00 with a -9.00
>astigmatism in each eye at oblique axes. He is wearibg
>reverse-geometry RGPs with 16 hours of wearing time daily and good
>acuity. But, he would have never started this adventure if the
>physician would have disqualified him on day 1.
>
>
>RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<4fplm0hlo9v3oo55nb54cckt6toh5liqa8@4ax.com>...
| |
| serebel 2004-10-12, 10:08 pm |
| doctor_my_eye@msn.com (DoctorMyEye) wrote in message news:<79e0f419.0410120612.4b8966b0@posting.google.com>...
> Yes, the patient and the operating physician both knew he has
> Marfan's.
Then they both took their chances. You roll the dice sometimes it comes up craps.
SErebel
| |
| DoctorMyEye 2004-10-13, 7:11 pm |
| The surgery actually went very well, and was done "by the book". His
post-operative refraction was about -.25 Diopter for about a month.
The ectasia and hydrops, caused by the underlying systemic disease,
lead to the resulting disaster.
RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<nv5om0502befbktf7covoiqmvjuhqon1ft@4ax.com>...[vbcol=seagreen]
> I thought Lincoln's problem was acromegly, but they maybe acromegly is
> a symptom of Marfans.
> I would think that surgeon needs to be sued if he knew about the
> Marfan's before the surgery was done.
> I would like to know why the results of the procedure were so bad. It
> seems to me that not only shouldn't the surgeon have done surgery, but
> the surgery he did was botched regardless of any medical condition.
>
> How about explaining what the difference between a reverse geometry
> RGP and an ortho K lens is. I think they are similar if not the same
> - just worn in a different regimen.
>
>
> On 12 Oct 2004 07:12:53 -0700, doctor_my_eye@msn.com (DoctorMyEye)
> wrote:
>
| |
| Wizkid 2004-10-13, 7:11 pm |
| Not to worry, Glenn. I am actively involved in patient advocacy within
the society (most difficult), in Washington,D.C., and in my state. I
am sure that you have seen the news last week and this week on Vioxx,
and the news over the summer on the posting of all clinical trial
results for drugs. You may have also seen Marcia Angell, former editor
of the New England Journal of Medicine, on TV lately promoting her new
book, "The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us And
What To Do About It." The work several of us have underway is having
and will continue to have an impact.
With the focus now solidly on how company's are marketing healthcare
products, there will be more examples of how the consumer is being
misled and underserved. Refractive surgery is now on the regulatory
radar screen as overly hyped, and will be dealt with in a more
forceful manner - individually or as part of a systematic overhaul.
Only time will tell.
And what are you doing?
WK
Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message news:<nhihm0tvlp2fdc4v09uh2s5pnm5jbvje9k@4ax.com>...
>
> Then what, exactly, are you doing about it. I mean really doing about
> it, not lamenting in this forum that has virtually no influence upon
> ophthalmology and isn't going to make a bit of difference regarding
> the hype. What specific acts have you taken within your profession to
> reduce or eliminate the hype?
>
> Glenn Hagele
> Executive Director
> Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
>
> Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
>
> http://www.USAEyes.org
> http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
>
> I am not a doctor.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2004-10-13, 7:11 pm |
| I believe it was NPR who had a very interesting interview on this
subject. Yep, it is amazing.
In little ways and bigger ways we try to influence docs into "doing
the right thing". Or more accurately, not doing the wrong thing.
One significant event in this realm is our recent advisory regarding
wavefront. We found that doctors were telling their patients that the
lasers were approved to correct higher order aberrations (HOA). That
is not true. The lasers were approved to correct myopia and
astigmatism. No laser has been approved to correct HOAs, and no laser
can predictably and reliably reduce HOA. The best they do is not
induce HOA as much as conventional.
Anyway, after some rather tense discussions with the laser
manufacturers, we issued an Advisory Memorandum to all refractive
surgeons (http://www.usaeyes.org/faq/subjects...visory_Memo.pdf).
Since then, I only on rare occasion hear of a patient being told the
lasers are approved to correct HOA. It may be a small step, but it is
most certainly in the right direction.
There are other things we do, but I don't want (nor do we need) to
blow our own horn.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
|
| One thing about Minarik. Even though he goes off the deep end, he is
capable of sucking it up and coming up with useful communication
without being a crybaby.
Now we know what happened with the Marfan's patient. How rare is
Marfan's?
Off topic again: do you have diabetes or high cholesterol? I don't
think your weight alone is high enough to justify gastric bypass, but
if you have diabetes or high cholesterol, it's something to consider.
Chelation therapy for lowering cholesterol is rated as being one of
the biggest and most expensive scams going. It's good that there are
effective therapies that don't involve popping thousands of $$$ worth
of pills per year.
On 13 Oct 2004 10:11:33 -0700, doctor_my_eye@msn.com (DoctorMyEye)
wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>The surgery actually went very well, and was done "by the book". His
>post-operative refraction was about -.25 Diopter for about a month.
>The ectasia and hydrops, caused by the underlying systemic disease,
>lead to the resulting disaster.
>
>
>RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<nv5om0502befbktf7covoiqmvjuhqon1ft@4ax.com>...
| |
| Wizkid 2004-10-14, 7:13 pm |
| My hat is off to you! There needs to be more of this. If we do not
focus on the patient we all lose. Honest communications are required
with all patients, and for a quality, cost effective healthcare
system. There is no shirking of our responsibility in this matter. WK
Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message news:<kbuqm0p1l300vbvhh54qfqbphep7d391cf@4ax.com>...
> I believe it was NPR who had a very interesting interview on this
> subject. Yep, it is amazing.
>
> In little ways and bigger ways we try to influence docs into "doing
> the right thing". Or more accurately, not doing the wrong thing.
>
> One significant event in this realm is our recent advisory regarding
> wavefront. We found that doctors were telling their patients that the
> lasers were approved to correct higher order aberrations (HOA). That
> is not true. The lasers were approved to correct myopia and
> astigmatism. No laser has been approved to correct HOAs, and no laser
> can predictably and reliably reduce HOA. The best they do is not
> induce HOA as much as conventional.
>
> Anyway, after some rather tense discussions with the laser
> manufacturers, we issued an Advisory Memorandum to all refractive
> surgeons (http://www.usaeyes.org/faq/subjects...visory_Memo.pdf).
> Since then, I only on rare occasion hear of a patient being told the
> lasers are approved to correct HOA. It may be a small step, but it is
> most certainly in the right direction.
>
> There are other things we do, but I don't want (nor do we need) to
> blow our own horn.
>
> Glenn Hagele
> Executive Director
> Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
>
> Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
>
> http://www.USAEyes.org
> http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
>
> I am not a doctor.
| |
| Rebecca 2004-10-15, 7:25 pm |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message news:<kbuqm0p1l300vbvhh54qfqbphep7d391cf@4ax.com>...
> One significant event in this realm is our recent advisory regarding
> wavefront. We found that doctors were telling their patients that the
> lasers were approved to correct higher order aberrations (HOA). That
> is not true. The lasers were approved to correct myopia and
> astigmatism. No laser has been approved to correct HOAs, and no laser
> can predictably and reliably reduce HOA. The best they do is not
> induce HOA as much as conventional.
The memorandum was certainly a good idea. Any positive step may help
someone somewhere.
I would rather expect though that in practice very few patients would
actively concern themselves with what is or isn't FDA approved. If it
is available and is being advertised, they will simply assume,
reasonably enough, that it has been FDA approved. Unless a patient
engages in an unusual amount of research (an amount most consumers
would think not warranted) they will never enter into the minutiae of
FDA approvals - beyond, at the most, what laser IS approved, or
perhaps even what range of correction it is approved for. I believe
that most patients are susceptible to commonly made statements such as
http://www.laser4me.com/. (I am not picking on that site/company/doc
for any particular reason, actually I simply stumbled across it while
doing an image search on Google.)
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2004-10-15, 7:25 pm |
| The whole point of the memo is for practices big and small to
understand that telling patients something that is not accurate, no
matter who the source or what the circumstance, will not be tolerated.
At least, not by us and the laser manufacturers who cooperated with us
on this memorandum.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
|
| |
|
|