Lasik Eyes Surgery - Glenn, let's discuss whores.

Author

Glenn, let's discuss whores.

Dr. Leukoma

2004-10-06, 10:06 pm

In another post, someone named "Mike" called me a "whore" for publishing
some information about a professional tennis player who allegedly had a
"50%" result.

I would like to ask you which, if any, of your surgeons would perform LASIK
on a patient who had a pterygium?

Quite frankly, I won't even put a contact lens on a patient with a
pterygium.

DrG

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2004-10-06, 10:06 pm

You've been getting the brunt of it lately, and I'm not exactly sure
why. Usually its me getting blasted left and right. Welcome to the
dubious honor club.

Depending upon the location and severity of the pterygium, I believe
some surgeons would do PRK, although LASIK is much less likely. I've
always viewed a pterygium as a minor problem easily resolved, but
further research has shown that there can be some significant
problems. One thing for sure is to resolve the problem before it
encroaches too far into the cornea.

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.

Dr. Leukoma

2004-10-07, 2:18 am

Well, actually a pterygium is a corneal disease. It encroaches upon the
cornea. Most of them are quite benign and require no treatment, unless
they are disturbed. What causes them? The common reply is "dryness."
What can exacerbate dryness? Well, contact lenses and LASIK.

DrG

Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in
news:sgb9m0tg2bbtsiu4ort84bh20ivdm7mdbm@4ax.com:

> You've been getting the brunt of it lately, and I'm not exactly sure
> why. Usually its me getting blasted left and right. Welcome to the
> dubious honor club.
>
> Depending upon the location and severity of the pterygium, I believe
> some surgeons would do PRK, although LASIK is much less likely. I've
> always viewed a pterygium as a minor problem easily resolved, but
> further research has shown that there can be some significant
> problems. One thing for sure is to resolve the problem before it
> encroaches too far into the cornea.
>
> 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.
>

Ragnar Suomi

2004-10-08, 2:08 am

Here we go again. They specifically said in that article that the
pterygium was not the result of the LASIK. Capriati herself said
that. Yet you decided that Capriatis doctors are wrong, Capriati is
wrong, everyone is wrong. It's that damned LASIK. They need Dr.
Gemoules to tell them what to do. Those MD's just don't have a clue I
guess.

On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 03:28:56 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
<drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>Well, actually a pterygium is a corneal disease. It encroaches upon the
>cornea. Most of them are quite benign and require no treatment, unless
>they are disturbed. What causes them? The common reply is "dryness."
>What can exacerbate dryness? Well, contact lenses and LASIK.
>
>
>DrG
>
>
>Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in
>news:sgb9m0tg2bbtsiu4ort84bh20ivdm7mdbm@4ax.com:
>

Dr. Leukoma

2004-10-08, 11:08 am

Ragnar Suomi <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:38acm05b0shoh5v2vjjmg4b09i9e08q39g@4ax.com:

> Here we go again. They specifically said in that article that the
> pterygium was not the result of the LASIK. Capriati herself said
> that. Yet you decided that Capriatis doctors are wrong, Capriati is
> wrong, everyone is wrong. It's that damned LASIK. They need Dr.
> Gemoules to tell them what to do. Those MD's just don't have a clue I
> guess.
>

Sometimes actions have unintended consequences. In the zeal to prove me
wrong about one tennis player, we stumble across another interesting story
about another tennis player via the post of another O.D..

As I said, the pterygium was more than likely there before the LASIK. I
just wondered why someone would risk doing LASIK on a patient with a
pterygium. And, sure enough, she wound up needing a pterygiectomy. Two
questions arise: Did the LASIK accelerate the growth of the pterygium?
Even if the answer is "no," a future pterygiectomy was still possible.
Should the pterygium have been excised first?

I have followed many patients with pterygiums. I cannot remember the last
time I needed to refer one for removal because they typically grow so
slowly, and most are found on older patients.

I did have a young female patient who had a pterygium. She was also pretty
hyperopic. The pterygium barely encroached onto the cornea - maybe 0.5mm.
I had the opportunity of following her for several years. The only time I
observed the pterygium to grow was after she persisted in talking me into
letting her try soft lenses. Well, she was pretty attractive and I felt
sorry for her having to wear thick glasses. Perhaps I should have referred
her for LASIK - lol. Live and learn.

I have great respect for most ophthalmologists, by the way. I refer
patients to them quite often. They don't need me to tell them what to do
anymore than I need them to tell me what to do. If I don't know what to
do, I send the patient to someone who does. That street goes both ways.
If an ophthalmologist doesn't know how to address the higher order
aberrations caused by LASIK, then they should send them to an optometrist
who knows how to fit contact lenses. They know to do it for PKP's and
keratoconus, but just not LASIK - at least not yet.

However, I am seeing a realization from a number of ophthalmologists that
the contact lens option might be the better approach.

DrG

2004-10-08, 11:08 am

Dr. Gemoules seems to be recovering from his bad week. He and Dan
Rather had a lapse of sorts. There is a fine line between expressing
a point-of-view and being responsible and credible.

As was mentioned several days ago, I'm sure the mega-malcontents have
archived his posts of last week for eternity and they will be used
against him for years.

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 12:18:43 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
<drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:

>Ragnar Suomi <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:38acm05b0shoh5v2vjjmg4b09i9e08q39g@4ax.com:
>
>
>Sometimes actions have unintended consequences. In the zeal to prove me
>wrong about one tennis player, we stumble across another interesting story
>about another tennis player via the post of another O.D..
>
>As I said, the pterygium was more than likely there before the LASIK. I
>just wondered why someone would risk doing LASIK on a patient with a
>pterygium. And, sure enough, she wound up needing a pterygiectomy. Two
>questions arise: Did the LASIK accelerate the growth of the pterygium?
>Even if the answer is "no," a future pterygiectomy was still possible.
>Should the pterygium have been excised first?
>
>I have followed many patients with pterygiums. I cannot remember the last
>time I needed to refer one for removal because they typically grow so
>slowly, and most are found on older patients.
>
>I did have a young female patient who had a pterygium. She was also pretty
>hyperopic. The pterygium barely encroached onto the cornea - maybe 0.5mm.
>I had the opportunity of following her for several years. The only time I
>observed the pterygium to grow was after she persisted in talking me into
>letting her try soft lenses. Well, she was pretty attractive and I felt
>sorry for her having to wear thick glasses. Perhaps I should have referred
>her for LASIK - lol. Live and learn.
>
>I have great respect for most ophthalmologists, by the way. I refer
>patients to them quite often. They don't need me to tell them what to do
>anymore than I need them to tell me what to do. If I don't know what to
>do, I send the patient to someone who does. That street goes both ways.
>If an ophthalmologist doesn't know how to address the higher order
>aberrations caused by LASIK, then they should send them to an optometrist
>who knows how to fit contact lenses. They know to do it for PKP's and
>keratoconus, but just not LASIK - at least not yet.
>
>However, I am seeing a realization from a number of ophthalmologists that
>the contact lens option might be the better approach.
>
>DrG

Dr. Leukoma

2004-10-08, 11:08 am

RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:ae5dm0h2fcl9t7tpbj4heeg6f1shvi04ff@4ax.com:

> Dr. Gemoules seems to be recovering from his bad week. He and Dan
> Rather had a lapse of sorts. There is a fine line between expressing
> a point-of-view and being responsible and credible.

What is your excuse?

DrG
>
> As was mentioned several days ago, I'm sure the mega-malcontents have
> archived his posts of last week for eternity and they will be used
> against him for years.
>
> On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 12:18:43 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
> <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>
>