|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > October 2004 > contacts are great but can't read with them
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 |
contacts are great but can't read with them
|
|
|
| I am considering Lasik or something similar to correct my nearsightedness. I
have some astigmatism in one eye, but nothing too exciting. I currently have
contacts, but mostly wear glasses.
My glasses are an old prescription and don't correct my myopia all that
well, but good enough. At least I can read the newspaper with them on and
can sort of see distant things.
If I wear my contacts - a recent exam (last summer) is when I got them - I
have great vision - probably 20/15 or so, but I can't see anything within a
4-6 ft. radius clearly. They're a pain for that reason.
Now - if I get Lasik - will my eyesight be just like with contacts or what?
My wife has pretty good distance vision, but only needs glasses for tiny
print. I'd hate to have to wear glasses for everything within 4-6 ft. With
my contacts I can't clearly read the speedometer in the car. Now, I can't
drive with reading glasses. Is this normal presbyopia? If so, I'll stick
with my current glasses which aren't too great for distance, but good
enough. I don't know too many people in their 50s who have such bad close up
vision problems as I do with my contacts in.
I'm hoping that Lasik's version of 20/20 will reduce the presbyopia radius
to something normal like tiny print at 12" or so! But I guess that's too
much to ask for, huh? And I don't like the idea of monovision really.
I'm a 51 yr old male, with moderate myopia, some astigmatism.
| |
| Mike Tyner 2004-10-18, 10:08 pm |
| If you have LASIK and get "perfect" results (zero distance refraction) then
you can expect the same trouble as with your contacts.
Possible solutions include leaving one or both eyes a little
"undercorrected," like your glasses.
Don't discount monovision until you've tried it with (temporary) contacts.
At your age (same as me) I seldom fit contacts "perfect" in both eyes. Most
people can tolerate _some_ degree of undercorrection in one eye, and "some"
is lots better than "none".
-MT
"Bob" <ismk5ovb02@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:ujYcd.8125$YM4.2743744@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
>I am considering Lasik or something similar to correct my nearsightedness.
>I
> have some astigmatism in one eye, but nothing too exciting. I currently
> have
> contacts, but mostly wear glasses.
>
> My glasses are an old prescription and don't correct my myopia all that
> well, but good enough. At least I can read the newspaper with them on and
> can sort of see distant things.
>
> If I wear my contacts - a recent exam (last summer) is when I got them - I
> have great vision - probably 20/15 or so, but I can't see anything within
> a
> 4-6 ft. radius clearly. They're a pain for that reason.
>
> Now - if I get Lasik - will my eyesight be just like with contacts or
> what?
> My wife has pretty good distance vision, but only needs glasses for tiny
> print. I'd hate to have to wear glasses for everything within 4-6 ft. With
> my contacts I can't clearly read the speedometer in the car. Now, I can't
> drive with reading glasses. Is this normal presbyopia? If so, I'll stick
> with my current glasses which aren't too great for distance, but good
> enough. I don't know too many people in their 50s who have such bad close
> up
> vision problems as I do with my contacts in.
>
> I'm hoping that Lasik's version of 20/20 will reduce the presbyopia radius
> to something normal like tiny print at 12" or so! But I guess that's too
> much to ask for, huh? And I don't like the idea of monovision really.
>
> I'm a 51 yr old male, with moderate myopia, some astigmatism.
>
>
| |
|
|
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-18, 10:08 pm |
| "Bob" <ismk5ovb02@sneakemail.com> wrote in
news:ujYcd.8125$YM4.2743744@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net:
> I am considering Lasik or something similar to correct my
> nearsightedness. I have some astigmatism in one eye, but nothing too
> exciting. I currently have contacts, but mostly wear glasses.
>
> My glasses are an old prescription and don't correct my myopia all
> that well, but good enough. At least I can read the newspaper with
> them on and can sort of see distant things.
>
> If I wear my contacts - a recent exam (last summer) is when I got them
> - I have great vision - probably 20/15 or so, but I can't see anything
> within a 4-6 ft. radius clearly. They're a pain for that reason.
>
> Now - if I get Lasik - will my eyesight be just like with contacts or
> what? My wife has pretty good distance vision, but only needs glasses
> for tiny print. I'd hate to have to wear glasses for everything within
> 4-6 ft. With my contacts I can't clearly read the speedometer in the
> car. Now, I can't drive with reading glasses. Is this normal
> presbyopia? If so, I'll stick with my current glasses which aren't too
> great for distance, but good enough. I don't know too many people in
> their 50s who have such bad close up vision problems as I do with my
> contacts in.
>
> I'm hoping that Lasik's version of 20/20 will reduce the presbyopia
> radius to something normal like tiny print at 12" or so! But I guess
> that's too much to ask for, huh? And I don't like the idea of
> monovision really.
>
> I'm a 51 yr old male, with moderate myopia, some astigmatism.
>
>
If you elect to go with monovision LASIK, make sure that you try it out
first with contact lenses. Some surgeons neglect this important step.
DrG
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-18, 10:08 pm |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in
news:qbo8n0l2ahkivcmf5fvd56p1f7rpu9buc8@4ax.com:
> For a detailed article on monovision LASIK, visit
> http://www.usaeyes.org/faq/subjects/monovision.htm
>
> 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.
>
I like this warning on Glenn's monovision web page.
"... however monovision is not for everybody and some people really dislike
it effect."
DrG
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2004-10-18, 10:08 pm |
|
>
>I like this warning on Glenn's monovision web page.
>
>"... however monovision is not for everybody and some people really dislike
>it effect."
I done real good English too.
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 2004-10-18, 10:08 pm |
|
>
>If you elect to go with monovision LASIK, make sure that you try it out
>first with contact lenses. Some surgeons neglect this important step.
Yes they do, and for the life of me I can't figure that one out.
Without the contact lens trial the doctors have no way of knowing if
the patient will like monovision at all, if 0.75 or 1.75 diopter
undercorrection is better, if the patient will be able to drive at
night with monovision, etc. If they get it wrong, then they have all
the overhead expense of doing the surgery again. Doing monovision
without a contact lens testing just makes no sense to me.
EVERYONE considering surgically induced monovision should try it with
contacts for several weeks before they have it lasered into their
eyes.
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 2004-10-18, 10:08 pm |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in
news:q9t8n0t66ousrlbmemkl1qg8phbgm9gpu5@4ax.com:
>
>
>
> I done real good English too.
>
> 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.
Guess I have not room to brag. Whoops, I mean "no" room to brag.
DrG
| |
| Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Qual 2004-10-19, 2:08 am |
| BTW, will you be in New Orleans for the AAO?
| |
|
|
"Glenn - USAEyes.org" <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> schreef in bericht
news:pct8n05irsbgt81701sah7ml2k11a6iqvc@4ax.com...
>
>
> Yes they do, and for the life of me I can't figure that one out.
>
> Without the contact lens trial the doctors have no way of knowing if
> the patient will like monovision at all, if 0.75 or 1.75 diopter
> undercorrection is better, if the patient will be able to drive at
> night with monovision, etc. If they get it wrong, then they have all
> the overhead expense of doing the surgery again. Doing monovision
> without a contact lens testing just makes no sense to me.
One of the forgotten problems in the statement above from Glenn is the
increase of presbyopia over the years.
It is not only about either 0.75 or 1.75 diopters at the specific moment you
measure.
If done on a relative young presbyopic you have most certainly a lesser
addition as done on an older presbyopic.
Which addition should you choose, to strong and thereby having some spare
for the without any doubt increasement of presbyopia but at the same time
having a short reading distance, or a lower addition, knowing later on the
client has to wear glasses or contactlenses to overcome the increasment in
needed addition?
One of the advantages in contactlenses is the possibility to change the
addition when needed , when having LASIK it is impossible.
This has to be explained IMHO before surgery.
--
Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
Neither pro, nor anti, LASIK,LASEK,PRK etc......
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-19, 7:08 am |
| Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org wrote in
news:p599n05mialdgpv5cc470mcarraqctkqqm@4ax.com:
> BTW, will you be in New Orleans for the AAO?
>
I didn't realize that optoms were welcomed.
DrG
| |
| DoctorMyEye 2004-10-19, 11:10 am |
| I agree, Glenn. When I see an unhappy post-op LASIK monovision
patient, they always look at me like I'm from another planet when I
ask them if they tried monovision in contact lenses before they had it
lasered into their eyes. Trial fitting MUST BECOME a standard of
care.
Incidentally, I have stumbled upon a "new" way to explain monovision.
I mention to the patient that his/her brain is always making choices
between the two sides of the body that they never "think" about. For
example, if you approach a curb and have to "think" about how to step,
you could simply fall while deciding. So, you simply step with your
"favorite" foot.
When monovision works, the brain decides at a subconscious level to
use both pictures simultaneously and share the best of both sides,
picking one when it "has to."
This is consistent with the work of Dr. Jan Jurkus from the Illinois
College of Optometry, who has shown that people who have total
"one-handedness", as if the second half of their body can't catch
anything, are very poor monovision wearers. Their brains don't want
to share the picture from side to side, as they have never done so for
anthing else.
Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message news:<pct8n05irsbgt81701sah7ml2k11a6iqvc@4ax.com>...
>
> Yes they do, and for the life of me I can't figure that one out.
>
> Without the contact lens trial the doctors have no way of knowing if
> the patient will like monovision at all, if 0.75 or 1.75 diopter
> undercorrection is better, if the patient will be able to drive at
> night with monovision, etc. If they get it wrong, then they have all
> the overhead expense of doing the surgery again. Doing monovision
> without a contact lens testing just makes no sense to me.
>
> EVERYONE considering surgically induced monovision should try it with
> contacts for several weeks before they have it lasered into their
> eyes.
>
> 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 2004-10-19, 11:10 am |
|
>I didn't realize that optoms were welcomed.
Oh yea. I forgot. Yet another of the turf war tactics. I wonder if
the folks involved realize how silly they look to the outside. My
goodness, they let ME in, but not optometrists. What logic is THAT?!
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 2004-10-19, 11:10 am |
| Absolutely on target, Jan. Being undercorrected with LASIK at 45 does
not mean you will be reading the newspaper without glasses at 60.
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 2004-10-19, 11:10 am |
| "Dr. Leukoma" <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote in message news:<Xns9586D5EE6E5BEdrgleukomacom@204.127.199.17>...
> If you elect to go with monovision LASIK, make sure that you try it out
> first with contact lenses. Some surgeons neglect this important step.
Very important. Reportedly at least 1 in 5 people are not ABLE (for
physiological reasons) to adapt to monovision, to say nothing of those
who simply decide they don't like it. For a surgeon to fail to perform
this step is altogether against the patient's interests because if the
patient is in that 20+%, either the surgery will have been a waste of
time because the patient will have to wear glasses again, or the
patient will find himself subjected to the significantly increased
risk of a second surgery.
It should also be a proper trial - the patient should wear the lenses
for several days so that they can see how their vision will fare
during all different kinds of activities they normally engage in.
Rebecca Petris
www.lasermyeye.org
| |
|
| If you opt for monovision, you
may have trouble with close-focus work. I had monovision and found
afterwards that surgery was quite difficult, as was threading needles,
removing splinters and even fly-tying fish lures. With time I became
quite farsighted in the eye that was originally 20:20 and am now
approaching 20:20 in the eye that was burned for reading. Now when I
wear glasses and look in the mirror one eye looks grossly enlarged in
the lens.
| |
|
| The way monovision was presented to me was, oh well, if you don't like
it, you can always have your undercorrected eye retreated to be
corrected for distance as if it were a no big deal everyday thing. Kind
of like, if it doesn't fit you can always return to the store for an
exchange.
In article <120ffab4.0410190702.3d993b51@posting.google.com>,
rebeccaNO_SPAM@lasermyeye.org (Rebecca) wrote:
> "Dr. Leukoma" <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote in message
> news:<Xns9586D5EE6E5BEdrgleukomacom@204.127.199.17>...
>
>
> Very important. Reportedly at least 1 in 5 people are not ABLE (for
> physiological reasons) to adapt to monovision, to say nothing of those
> who simply decide they don't like it. For a surgeon to fail to perform
> this step is altogether against the patient's interests because if the
> patient is in that 20+%, either the surgery will have been a waste of
> time because the patient will have to wear glasses again, or the
> patient will find himself subjected to the significantly increased
> risk of a second surgery.
>
> It should also be a proper trial - the patient should wear the lenses
> for several days so that they can see how their vision will fare
> during all different kinds of activities they normally engage in.
>
> Rebecca Petris
> www.lasermyeye.org
| |
| Mike Tyner 2004-10-19, 7:21 pm |
|
"Glenn - USAEyes.org" <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote
> Oh yea. I forgot. Yet another of the turf war tactics. I wonder if
> the folks involved realize how silly they look to the outside. My
> goodness, they let ME in, but not optometrists. What logic is THAT?!
You aren't seeking surgical priveleges in Oklahoma. ;)
They do take registration fees from PA's, nurses, ophthalmic assistants and
the occasional stray dog.
Next they take away our library cards.
-MT
| |
|
| Anyone 51 years old has presbyopia, regardless of whatever other eye
problems you have. If you wear contacts, you will either have to wear
reading glasses over them to read, or multifocal or monovision contacts.
No, Lasik does not cure presbyopia at all. If you have Lasik to reduce your
myopia, you will still have to wear reading glasses to read. Or you can have
the Lasik done in a manner similar to monovision contacts. If so, you should
try the monovision contacts for quite a while first, to see how you like
that.
It is unusual that you say you cannot read the speedometer in the car with
your contacts on. I doubt that is due to presbyopia, as the speedometer is
not very close to your face, and the characters are large. It may be due to
your astigmatism. The contact lens prescription you have might not be as
good as you think. Are they soft lenses? You might then need toric soft
lenses, to correct the astigmatism, at least in that one eye.
You say you had an eye exam this last summer, in which you were prescribed
the contacts. The eye doctor didn't say anything about your presbyopia, and
possible solutions with the contacts to deal with presbyopia? If not, I
would suggest going to a different eye doctor next time.
With monovision one eye is purposely under-corrected for the myopia, so it
can be used for reading. One eye becomes dominant for distance, the other
for reading. Strange idea, but the mind becomes used to it. Of course it's a
compromise, but the only non-compromise is to wear reading glasses over your
contacts or Lasik. The only way to have Lasik and to be able to read without
reading glasses is to have the operation done with monovision,
undercorrecting one eye, similar to how it is done with contacts.
There are also multifocal contact lenses now, in many different designs. I
am sure if you did a search on Google Groups, you will find many discussions
about them on this newsgroup, different kinds, etc. They are supposed to
correct presbyopia as well as your other vision problems. Many different
ways of doing that. All far from perfect. Your distance vision with those
will not be as good as wearing single vision distance contacts, your reading
vision will not be as good as with wearing reading glasses. But you might be
able to get by, for both vision and reading, without glasses. Hopefully
better designs of multifocal contacts will be developed in the future. Both
the multifocal and the monovision methods for presbyopes to wear contacts
and read without reading glasses, are compromises, and far from perfect, but
you might get by with them. The only way to have the best vision at both
distances is to wear contacts fitted only for distance (or have Lasik only
for distance, if that is your preference), and wear reading glasses for
reading. But reading glasses are a hassle, so it's a trade-off.
"Bob" <ismk5ovb02@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:ujYcd.8125$YM4.2743744@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> I am considering Lasik or something similar to correct my nearsightedness.
I
> have some astigmatism in one eye, but nothing too exciting. I currently
have
> contacts, but mostly wear glasses.
>
> My glasses are an old prescription and don't correct my myopia all that
> well, but good enough. At least I can read the newspaper with them on and
> can sort of see distant things.
>
> If I wear my contacts - a recent exam (last summer) is when I got them - I
> have great vision - probably 20/15 or so, but I can't see anything within
a
> 4-6 ft. radius clearly. They're a pain for that reason.
>
> Now - if I get Lasik - will my eyesight be just like with contacts or
what?
> My wife has pretty good distance vision, but only needs glasses for tiny
> print. I'd hate to have to wear glasses for everything within 4-6 ft. With
> my contacts I can't clearly read the speedometer in the car. Now, I can't
> drive with reading glasses. Is this normal presbyopia? If so, I'll stick
> with my current glasses which aren't too great for distance, but good
> enough. I don't know too many people in their 50s who have such bad close
up
> vision problems as I do with my contacts in.
>
> I'm hoping that Lasik's version of 20/20 will reduce the presbyopia radius
> to something normal like tiny print at 12" or so! But I guess that's too
> much to ask for, huh? And I don't like the idea of monovision really.
>
> I'm a 51 yr old male, with moderate myopia, some astigmatism.
>
>
| |
|
|
"RT" <RTMD24@NOSPAMyahoo.com> schreef in bericht
news:RTMD24-5A934C.11403119102004@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com...
> The way monovision was presented to me was, oh well, if you don't like
> it, you can always have your undercorrected eye retreated to be
> corrected for distance as if it were a no big deal everyday thing. Kind
> of like, if it doesn't fit you can always return to the store for an
> exchange.
>
The above is correct when wearing contactlenses, having had LASIK or an
other refraction surgery is a totally
different story.
--
Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
Neither pro, nor anti, LASIK,LASEK,PRK etc......
| |
| Bryce Carlson 2004-10-19, 7:21 pm |
| Bob wrote in message news:
> I am considering Lasik or something similar to correct my nearsightedness. I
> have some astigmatism in one eye, but nothing too exciting. I currently have
> contacts, but mostly wear glasses.
>
> My glasses are an old prescription and don't correct my myopia all that
> well, but good enough. At least I can read the newspaper with them on and
> can sort of see distant things.
>
> If I wear my contacts - a recent exam (last summer) is when I got them - I
> have great vision - probably 20/15 or so, but I can't see anything within a
> 4-6 ft. radius clearly. They're a pain for that reason.
>
> Now - if I get Lasik - will my eyesight be just like with contacts or what?
> My wife has pretty good distance vision, but only needs glasses for tiny
> print. I'd hate to have to wear glasses for everything within 4-6 ft. With
> my contacts I can't clearly read the speedometer in the car. Now, I can't
> drive with reading glasses. Is this normal presbyopia? If so, I'll stick
> with my current glasses which aren't too great for distance, but good
> enough. I don't know too many people in their 50s who have such bad close up
> vision problems as I do with my contacts in.
>
> I'm hoping that Lasik's version of 20/20 will reduce the presbyopia radius
> to something normal like tiny print at 12" or so! But I guess that's too
> much to ask for, huh? And I don't like the idea of monovision really.
>
> I'm a 51 yr old male, with moderate myopia, some astigmatism.
From the way you describe things, Bob, it is very possible your
contact lens Rx is "overminused." That is, it leaves you slightly
farsighted and you use your remaining accommodation ability to bring
your effective Rx to plano. In middle-aged people, this often results
is truly excellent distance vision, but compromised middle-distance
vision, as well as horrible close-up vision. This overminusing occurs
because some people like the super-crisp distance vision they get by
using their accommodation ability to fine tune a slightly plus Rx.
They don't realize that by doing this they exacerbate any existing
presbyopia. Even though they know better, ODs often go along with
this because the patient wants it and it doesn't damage the eye in any
way. Of course, it is also possible you just suffer from an
age-accelerated form of presbyopia, but I don't think so, because if
that were the case spectacles that give you good close-up vision would
result in quite significant myopia and very poor distance vision, but
from what you say that does not appear to be the case. I suggest you
go to your OD and have him fit you with a set of contact lenses that
have the weakest Rx necessary to bring your distance vision up to a
clear 20/20. It is likely this will solve your middle-distance
problem, and improve your close-up vision noticeably. This is also
the vision you are likely to get with LASIK surgery. Also, as others
have pointed out, you could also opt for monovision LASIK, though a
contact lens trial is a must, as many people do not like monovision
even though it works.
Bryce Carlson, PhD
| |
| Robert Martellaro 2004-10-19, 7:21 pm |
| On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 12:27:19 +0200, <Jan> wrote:
>"Glenn - USAEyes.org" <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> schreef in bericht
>news:pct8n05irsbgt81701sah7ml2k11a6iqvc@4ax.com...
>
>One of the forgotten problems in the statement above from Glenn is the
>increase of presbyopia over the years.
>It is not only about either 0.75 or 1.75 diopters at the specific moment you
>measure.
>If done on a relative young presbyopic you have most certainly a lesser
>addition as done on an older presbyopic.
>
>Which addition should you choose, to strong and thereby having some spare
>for the without any doubt increasement of presbyopia but at the same time
>having a short reading distance, or a lower addition, knowing later on the
>client has to wear glasses or contactlenses to overcome the increasment in
>needed addition?
>
Right. So if you shoot for 1.25 the patient will find this helpful, if they can
handle having one eye blurred for distance and the other eye blurred for near,
for only a short period of their life, probably about four to eight years,
dependent on the frequency and distance of close tasks. One might argue that the
use of monovision in refractive surgery is foolhardy since the efficacious
window is so short term, and that creating a moderate degree of permanent
anisometropia (more than 1.25D of unequal refractive power) seems to be at odds
with "first do no harm".
>One of the advantages in contactlenses is the possibility to change the
>addition when needed , when having LASIK it is impossible.
>This has to be explained IMHO before surgery.
>
>--
>Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
>
>Neither pro, nor anti, LASIK,LASEK,PRK etc......
>
My two cents
Robert Martellaro
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Optician/Owner
Roberts Optical
robopt@execpc.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself."
- Richard Feynman
| |
| Ragnar Suomi 2004-10-19, 7:21 pm |
| On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 12:27:19 +0200, <Jan> wrote:
>
>"Glenn - USAEyes.org" <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> schreef in bericht
>news:pct8n05irsbgt81701sah7ml2k11a6iqvc@4ax.com...
>
>One of the forgotten problems in the statement above from Glenn is the
>increase of presbyopia over the years.
Presbyopia increases over the years? Astonishing.
I don't suppose you knew that presbyopia literally means "old eyes".
| |
| Ragnar Suomi 2004-10-19, 7:21 pm |
| On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 11:53:41 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
<drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
>glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org wrote in
>news:p599n05mialdgpv5cc470mcarraqctkqqm@4ax.com:
>
>
>I didn't realize that optoms were welcomed.
>
>DrG
I doubt they put armed guards on the doors barring ODs.
The most vocal doctors are often the biggest quacks, as has been
demonstrated in this newsgroup. It's no wonder that various
organizations only want credible qualified physicians attending their
seminars instead of every Tom, Dick and Greg.
| |
| Ragnar Suomi 2004-10-19, 7:21 pm |
| I'm sure they let in ODs also, just not the ones that they know are
quacks, which are often the ones that are most anxious to show up at
these soirees.
When they show up at the door with a t-shirt that reads "LASIK SUCKS!"
they probably don't let that doctor in.
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 14:24:02 GMT, Glenn - USAEyes.org
<glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote:
>
>
>Oh yea. I forgot. Yet another of the turf war tactics. I wonder if
>the folks involved realize how silly they look to the outside. My
>goodness, they let ME in, but not optometrists. What logic is THAT?!
>
>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.
| |
|
|
"Bryce Carlson" <brycarlson@verizon.net> schreef in bericht
news:3170593.0410191131.2d165f11@posting.google.com...
> Bob wrote in message news:
>
>
> From the way you describe things, Bob, it is very possible your
> contact lens Rx is "overminused." That is, it leaves you slightly
> farsighted and you use your remaining accommodation ability to bring
> your effective Rx to plano. In middle-aged people, this often results
> is truly excellent distance vision, but compromised middle-distance
> vision, as well as horrible close-up vision. This overminusing occurs
> because some people like the super-crisp distance vision they get by
> using their accommodation ability to fine tune a slightly plus Rx.
> They don't realize that by doing this they exacerbate any existing
> presbyopia. Even though they know better, ODs often go along with
> this because the patient wants it and it doesn't damage the eye in any
> way. Of course, it is also possible you just suffer from an
> age-accelerated form of presbyopia, but I don't think so, because if
> that were the case spectacles that give you good close-up vision would
> result in quite significant myopia and very poor distance vision, but
> from what you say that does not appear to be the case. I suggest you
> go to your OD and have him fit you with a set of contact lenses that
> have the weakest Rx necessary to bring your distance vision up to a
> clear 20/20. It is likely this will solve your middle-distance
> problem, and improve your close-up vision noticeably. This is also
> the vision you are likely to get with LASIK surgery. Also, as others
> have pointed out, you could also opt for monovision LASIK, though a
> contact lens trial is a must, as many people do not like monovision
> even though it works.
>
> Bryce Carlson, PhD
An OD ''overminused'' a 51 years old, you must be out of your mind.
''Overminusing'' gives you a better vision ? what an unprofessional idea.
OD's often go along with ''overminusing'' ? see the above
Read the statement Bob has made about his old glasses, they do not correct
his myopia completely and therefore you might consider these glasses as
''underminused'' and also as a (weak) pair of reading glasses to Bob.
If Bob's myopia is exceeding the 5 diopters you have to consider the
accommodation- and convergence- effects when wearing contactlenses instead
of glasses.
An eyecare specialist should be familiar with these effects when explaining
the pro's and contra's in LASIK in my opinion.
--
Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
Neither pro, nor anti, LASIK,LASEK,PRK etc......
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-19, 7:21 pm |
| RT <RTMD24@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in
news:RTMD24-5A934C.11403119102004@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com:
> The way monovision was presented to me was, oh well, if you don't like
> it, you can always have your undercorrected eye retreated to be
> corrected for distance as if it were a no big deal everyday thing.
> Kind of like, if it doesn't fit you can always return to the store for
> an exchange.
Well then, there you go.
DrG
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-19, 7:21 pm |
| crvc@wyoming.com (CHip) wrote in
news:29e4f651.0410190739.549cfcfd@posting.google.com:
> If you opt for monovision, you
> may have trouble with close-focus work. I had monovision and found
> afterwards that surgery was quite difficult, as was threading needles,
> removing splinters and even fly-tying fish lures. With time I became
> quite farsighted in the eye that was originally 20:20 and am now
> approaching 20:20 in the eye that was burned for reading. Now when I
> wear glasses and look in the mirror one eye looks grossly enlarged in
> the lens.
>
Because I value my stereopsis (3D vision) in the examination room, I cannot
tolerate monovision. A sense of depth is very important when performing
binocular retinoscopy.
Drg
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-19, 7:21 pm |
| Ragnar Suomi <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:7nuan0t6ujrvru58ne7lj3kf29mntdd4g5@4ax.com:
> I'm sure they let in ODs also, just not the ones that they know are
> quacks, which are often the ones that are most anxious to show up at
> these soirees.
> When they show up at the door with a t-shirt that reads "LASIK SUCKS!"
> they probably don't let that doctor in.
>
I'm sure you're right, Ragnar. However, they might be better served if
they did let in the occasional critic who has something useful to
contribute.
I would like to meet you at the door.
DrG
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-19, 7:21 pm |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in
news:ak8an0l9t1i0pran9p2ujsqau8c1hk67fv@4ax.com:
>
>
> Oh yea. I forgot. Yet another of the turf war tactics. I wonder if
> the folks involved realize how silly they look to the outside. My
> goodness, they let ME in, but not optometrists. What logic is THAT?!
>
....or how silly you look not knowing it.
Yes, what logic is that?
If there is a genuine interest in informational exchange, then I am open to
a "parlay." Otherwise, I guess I can go another 54 years without
attending.
DrG
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2004-10-20, 2:08 am |
| It just means that there will be more medical presentations at the
optometrists conventions. I don't think ASCRS has slammed the door
shut as yet.
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 2004-10-20, 2:08 am |
| And then you have all the risk of two surgeries when a pair of
contacts worn for a few weeks would do the job.
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.
| |
| Bryce Carlson 2004-10-20, 2:08 am |
| Jan wrote in message news:
> Bryce Carlson schreef in bericht:
Taking into consideration that English is not your native language,
Jan, I will do my best to respond to your somewhat jumbled and
generally misinformed post.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> An OD "overminused" a 51 years old, you must be out of your mind.
> "Overminusing" gives you a better vision? what an unprofessional idea.
> OD's often go along with ''overminusing'' ?
Yes, at the patient's request, ODs do sometimes slightly overminus
patients in this age group, even though it exacerbates any existing
presbyopia. Some patients like it because it allows them to use their
natural lens (through accommodation) to "squeeze" their effective Rx
down to a perfect plano, even eliminating small amounts of cylinder
(which non-toric RGP and soft lenses cannot do).
> Read the statement Bob has made about his old glasses, they do not correct
> his myopia completely and therefore you might consider these glasses as
> "underminused" and also as a (weak) pair of reading glasses to Bob.
Yes, and that leads to the key point you obviously missed, Jan. The
fact that a pair of old spectacles strong enough to give Bob "good
enough" distance vision to function, also provide him with good
close-up vision, indicates that he is not strongly presbyopic but,
rather, retains some accommodation and is about as presbyopic as one
would expect for a person of his age (51). A person of his age,
properly corrected for distance vision, would not be expected to have
the difficulty with mid-range vision Bob alludes to, unless he were
overminused in his contacts -- ergo, it is likely Bob is overminused
in his contacts.
> If Bob's myopia is exceeding the 5 diopters you have to consider the
> accommodation- and convergence- effects when wearing contactlenses instead
> of glasses.
> An eyecare specialist should be familiar with these effects when explaining
> the pro's and contra's in LASIK in my opinion.
Assuming Bob is neither exophoric nor esophoric (and he indicates
neither), any prism effects in spectacles -- as well as the lack of
said effects in contacts -- would not be a factor causing the blurred
vision he experiences at mid- and close-up distances. As to full
disclosure by eyecare specialists of all pertinent facts before
recommending refractive surgery, I completely agree -- as does
everyone else on this BB.
Now, one closing statement. I have spent the last five years
carefully researching LASIK and other refractive surgery procedures,
and I have written extensively about my findings on this and several
other RS bulletin boards, as well as in literally hundreds of private
e.mails. I have certainly learned a lot, and I continue to learn more
every day. In fact, more than one expert in the field has told me
that from a theoretical standpoint I know far more about refractive
surgery than do most refractive surgeons. Perhaps, perhaps not. In
any case, I have paid my dues, and while I am happy to discuss -- even
argue -- RS theory and practice with anyone, regardless of their
expertise or background, I am not happy to put up with boorish ad
hominem slams, such as "you must be out of your mind," from the likes
of Jan, or anyone else. I just have better and more productive things
to do with my life. Accordingly, this will be my last post on this
bulletin board. I wish you all well, and I hope this site can learn
to skip the personal attacks and focus, instead, on being a good
source for information and civil debate on refractive surgery.
Bryce Carlson, PhD
| |
|
|
"Bryce Carlson" <brycarlson@verizon.net> schreef in bericht
news:3170593.0410191942.157fe1e7@posting.google.com...
> Jan wrote in message news:
>
>
> Taking into consideration that English is not your native language,
> Jan, I will do my best to respond to your somewhat jumbled and
> generally misinformed post.
>
>
> Yes, at the patient's request, ODs do sometimes slightly overminus
> patients in this age group, even though it exacerbates any existing
> presbyopia.
The simple statement "Even though they know better, ODs often go along with
this" is an irritating one to any OD, it ain't true
When done, certainly not often and I doubt it is done with an 51 years old.
When done BTW it shall not exceed the -0.25 dpt.
Some patients like it because it allows them to use their
> natural lens (through accommodation) to "squeeze" their effective Rx
> down to a perfect plano, even eliminating small amounts of cylinder
> (which non-toric RGP and soft lenses cannot do).
Nonsense, an effective Rx is prescribed to achieve just this perfect plano
normally (when speaking of glasses)
Theoreticaly speaking, a person who is overcorrected with minuspower and who
is not accommodating has a lesser vision acuity don't you agree?
Occasionally an OD prescribes an undercorrected Rx in early presbyopic
myopics to make it possibly to read in the mid-short distance.
Bob is not an early presbyopic beeing 51 years old.
>
>
> Yes, and that leads to the key point you obviously missed, Jan. The
> fact that a pair of old spectacles strong enough to give Bob "good
> enough" distance vision to function, also provide him with good
> close-up vision, indicates that he is not strongly presbyopic but,
> rather, retains some accommodation and is about as presbyopic as one
> would expect for a person of his age (51).
Certainly Bryce, assuming Bob's glasses are 1 dioptre underprescribed and
Bob at his age still beeing able to accommodate 1.5 to 2.0 dioptres he can
read the paper at a distance of 40 - 33 cm.
Knowning driving a car in the US is allowed already with a vision acuity
of 20/40 makes me think Bob's "good enough'' distance vision is about the
same as this requirement.
Knowing his best corrected vision acuity is 1.2 it is not that strange to
assume his glasses are under corrected at least 1 dioptre to make it
possible to get this vision acuity of 20/40 for distance.
A person of his age,
> properly corrected for distance vision, would not be expected to have
> the difficulty with mid-range vision Bob alludes to, unless he were
> overminused in his contacts -- ergo, it is likely Bob is overminused
> in his contacts.
Are you familiar with the comfort high myopic people have in reading when
wearing glasses instead of contactlenses or having LASIK done?
Obviously not.
A high myopic wearing glasses has to accommodate less comparing to the same
high myopic wearing contactlenses or having LASIK done to achieve the same
reading distance.
A high myopic wearing glasses has to converge less comparing to the same
high myopic wearing contactlenses or having LASIK done to achieve a single
image at the same nearby point.
>
>
> Assuming Bob is neither exophoric nor esophoric (and he indicates
> neither), any prism effects in spectacles -- as well as the lack of
> said effects in contacts -- would not be a factor causing the blurred
> vision he experiences at mid- and close-up distances. As to full
> disclosure by eyecare specialists of all pertinent facts before
> recommending refractive surgery, I completely agree -- as does
> everyone else on this BB.
I am not talking about exophoric or esophoric aspects.
I am talking about the possibility Bob is an higher myopic.
Higher myopics have ,when wearing glasses some pleasant side effects (see my
earlier statements)
When changing to contactlenses or having LASIK these pleasant side effects
dissapear.
An "often" forgotten issue and obviously you have no knowledge about this
phenomenon.
>
> Now, one closing statement. I have spent the last five years
> carefully researching LASIK and other refractive surgery procedures,
> and I have written extensively about my findings on this and several
> other RS bulletin boards, as well as in literally hundreds of private
> e.mails. I have certainly learned a lot, and I continue to learn more
> every day. In fact, more than one expert in the field has told me
> that from a theoretical standpoint I know far more about refractive
> surgery than do most refractive surgeons. Perhaps, perhaps not. In
> any case, I have paid my dues, and while I am happy to discuss -- even
> argue -- RS theory and practice with anyone, regardless of their
> expertise or background, I am not happy to put up with boorish ad
> hominem slams, such as "you must be out of your mind," from the likes
> of Jan, or anyone else. I just have better and more productive things
> to do with my life. Accordingly, this will be my last post on this
> bulletin board. I wish you all well, and I hope this site can learn
> to skip the personal attacks and focus, instead, on being a good
> source for information and civil debate on refractive surgery.
>
> Bryce Carlson, PhD
If you play at bowls you must look for rubbers
Accusing OD's of prescribing ''overminused'' Rx's very often is not correct
and it is a quit irritating pronunciation which as to be corrected.
Trying to show you some aspects when speaking about technical details in
glasses should not be that evil I suppose, after all you still want to learn
as you stated.
Your knowledge about the surgery aspects maybe fine, your technical
knowledge in glasses or refraction matters are subject to improvement.
--
Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
Neither pro, nor anti, LASIK,LASEK,PRK etc......
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-20, 7:08 am |
| brycarlson@verizon.net (Bryce Carlson) wrote in
news:3170593.0410191942.157fe1e7@posting.google.com:
>
> Now, one closing statement. I have spent the last five years
> carefully researching LASIK and other refractive surgery procedures,
> and I have written extensively about my findings on this and several
> other RS bulletin boards, as well as in literally hundreds of private
> e.mails. I have certainly learned a lot, and I continue to learn more
> every day. In fact, more than one expert in the field has told me
> that from a theoretical standpoint I know far more about refractive
> surgery than do most refractive surgeons. Perhaps, perhaps not. In
> any case, I have paid my dues, and while I am happy to discuss -- even
> argue -- RS theory and practice with anyone, regardless of their
> expertise or background, I am not happy to put up with boorish ad
> hominem slams, such as "you must be out of your mind," from the likes
> of Jan, or anyone else. I just have better and more productive things
> to do with my life. Accordingly, this will be my last post on this
> bulletin board. I wish you all well, and I hope this site can learn
> to skip the personal attacks and focus, instead, on being a good
> source for information and civil debate on refractive surgery.
>
> Bryce Carlson, PhD
>
Are you taking Ragnar with you? 
DrG
| |
|
|
"Ragnar Suomi" <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
news:eptan0dv2ace76s2hslrsi4d9dd31cbv5h@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 12:27:19 +0200, <Jan> wrote:
>
>
> Presbyopia increases over the years? Astonishing.
> I don't suppose you knew that presbyopia literally means "old eyes".
Indeed, I did not.
The same to myopia which is translated for laymen in "shortsightness"?
Which reminds me Ragnar, your myopia may be fixed having LASIK done , your
shortsigtness ain't.
--
Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
Neither pro, nor anti, LASIK,LASEK,PRK etc......
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-20, 7:08 am |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in
news:fnlbn0lqsl63p0ps858c8hph560igjmbtu@4ax.com:
> It just means that there will be more medical presentations at the
> optometrists conventions. I don't think ASCRS has slammed the door
> shut as yet.
>
When I was in optometry school, quite a number of my professors were MD's.
DrG
| |
| Ragnar Suomi 2004-10-20, 7:11 pm |
| On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:45:54 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
<drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>brycarlson@verizon.net (Bryce Carlson) wrote in
>news:3170593.0410191942.157fe1e7@posting.google.com:
>
>
>
>Are you taking Ragnar with you?
>
>DrG
You would just love to have the inmates take over the asylum.
It's interesting that you are pleased with the departure of Bryce
Carlson.
| |
| Ragnar Suomi 2004-10-20, 7:11 pm |
| On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 13:44:11 +0200, <Jan> wrote:
>
>"Ragnar Suomi" <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
>news:eptan0dv2ace76s2hslrsi4d9dd31cbv5h@4ax.com...
>
>Indeed, I did not.
>
>The same to myopia which is translated for laymen in "shortsightness"?
>
>Which reminds me Ragnar, your myopia may be fixed having LASIK done , your
>shortsigtness ain't.
You really surprise me. I thought you were smarter.
If someone is a myope, they will always be a myope. It can't be
fixed. Glasses, contact lenses, and surgery are merely compensating
for the refractive errors caused by the myopia.
| |
| Ragnar Suomi 2004-10-20, 7:11 pm |
| On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:50:16 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
<drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>Ragnar Suomi <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:7nuan0t6ujrvru58ne7lj3kf29mntdd4g5@4ax.com:
>
>
>I'm sure you're right, Ragnar. However, they might be better served if
>they did let in the occasional critic who has something useful to
>contribute.
>
>I would like to meet you at the door.
>
>DrG
Heh, I don't know which meetings you went to, but it's possible we
would meet.
This reminds me of some meeting a few years ago in which you were to
attend and the whole meeting got cancelled due to some problem with a
load of quacks showing up to spout off their crazy opinions.
| |
|
|
"Ragnar Suomi" <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
news:sn3dn0plsf1fghe4qaif0cphvnhuop7ecv@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 13:44:11 +0200, <Jan> wrote:
>
>
>
> You really surprise me. I thought you were smarter.
> If someone is a myope, they will always be a myope. It can't be
> fixed. Glasses, contact lenses, and surgery are merely compensating
> for the refractive errors caused by the myopia.
Peanuts to surprise someone with such a lack of knowledge in eyecare.
I surprise you even more, you are right.......... when glasses and
contactlenses are involved and necessary to compensate for an optical error
such as myopia.
But Ragnar, I did not mentioned glasses or contactlenses, it is refractive
surgery I am talking about.
Your refraction error of the eye is brought back to zero if your surgeon did
his job in a proper way.
Having non errors in refraction of the eye is called emmetropia.
But you are still shortsighted in my opinion.
--
Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
Neither pro, nor anti, LASIK,LASEK,PRK etc......
| |
| Dan Abel 2004-10-20, 7:11 pm |
| In article <sn3dn0plsf1fghe4qaif0cphvnhuop7ecv@4ax.com>, Ragnar Suomi
<ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You really surprise me. I thought you were smarter.
> If someone is a myope, they will always be a myope. It can't be
> fixed. Glasses, contact lenses, and surgery are merely compensating
> for the refractive errors caused by the myopia.
I'm not sure I can agree with your definition. I'm a layperson, but it
seems like this refractive error *is* myopia. If the refractive error is
gone, then there isn't any myopia.
--
Dan Abel
Sonoma State University
AIS
dabel@sonic.net
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2004-10-20, 7:11 pm |
| Myopia is caused by the eye being too long. Hyperopia is caused by
the eye being too short. Presbyopia is when the natural lens of the
eye is unable to change focus from distance to near.
Refractive surgery does not change the length of the eye. It only
changes the shape of the cornea to compensate for the length of the
eye.
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" <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> schreef in bericht
news:fvfdn0pg0v9f3q1p0cd6lncieepudb4s0h@4ax.com...
> Refractive surgery does not change the length of the eye. It only
> changes the shape of the cornea to compensate for the length of the
> eye.
Better said, it is to compensate for the error in refraction related to the
lenght of the eye.
The optical error is brought back to non error and therefore you might say
the eye is emmetropic
Besides, when you want to split hairs, the eye-lenght is shorter as before
in this former myopic example
--
Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
Neither pro, nor anti, LASIK,LASEK,PRK etc......
| |
|
| No, you are wrong. While LASIK does correct the refractive error, it
does not eliminate all the problems associated with the myopic eye.
There is more to myopia than refraction. For instance, the "film" in
the back of the eye called the retina is "stretched" in the myopic eye
which is not a good thing. There is really nothing that can be done
about that.
It's people like you that give out misinformation. I would hate for
any person contemplating LASIK surgery to think that they are going to
have perfect vision for the rest of their lives. They will still get
presbyopia and cataracts and the possibility of glaucoma and retinal
detachments, etc. just like patients who don't have surgery do.
It's pretty ridiculous to assume that removing a paper-thin circular
disk about 7mm in diameter is going to miraculously solve all the
problems in an organ the size of a golf ball.
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:45:03 +0200, <Jan> wrote:
>
>"Ragnar Suomi" <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
>news:sn3dn0plsf1fghe4qaif0cphvnhuop7ecv@4ax.com...
>
>Peanuts to surprise someone with such a lack of knowledge in eyecare.
>I surprise you even more, you are right.......... when glasses and
>contactlenses are involved and necessary to compensate for an optical error
>such as myopia.
>But Ragnar, I did not mentioned glasses or contactlenses, it is refractive
>surgery I am talking about.
>Your refraction error of the eye is brought back to zero if your surgeon did
>his job in a proper way.
>Having non errors in refraction of the eye is called emmetropia.
>But you are still shortsighted in my opinion.
| |
|
| I was pointing out the more precise definition. The layperson
interpretation is fine with me, but Jan felt it necessary to say that
the more precise definintion is wrong.
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 12:16:54 -0700, dabel@sonic.net (Dan Abel) wrote:
>In article <sn3dn0plsf1fghe4qaif0cphvnhuop7ecv@4ax.com>, Ragnar Suomi
><ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>I'm not sure I can agree with your definition. I'm a layperson, but it
>seems like this refractive error *is* myopia. If the refractive error is
>gone, then there isn't any myopia.
| |
|
| On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:45:26 GMT, Glenn - USAEyes.org
<glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote:
>Myopia is caused by the eye being too long. Hyperopia is caused by
>the eye being too short. Presbyopia is when the natural lens of the
>eye is unable to change focus from distance to near.
>
>Refractive surgery does not change the length of the eye. It only
>changes the shape of the cornea to compensate for the length of the
>eye.
>
>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.
I find it ironic that the people giving out the most accurate and
unbiased information in this newsgroup are not eye doctors. No wonder
some of these doctors get banned from meetings. You would think they
would take the hint from their peers.
Thanks for clarifying the Myopia definition Glenn.
| |
|
| On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 22:00:35 +0200, <Jan> wrote:
>
>"Glenn - USAEyes.org" <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> schreef in bericht
>news:fvfdn0pg0v9f3q1p0cd6lncieepudb4s0h@4ax.com...
>
>Better said, it is to compensate for the error in refraction related to the
>lenght of the eye.
>The optical error is brought back to non error and therefore you might say
>the eye is emmetropic
>Besides, when you want to split hairs, the eye-lenght is shorter as before
>in this former myopic example
Yes.. it's shorter.. by about a quarter of a millimeter.. which is
nothing compared to the elongated eye. You should cease posting on
this topic to avoid making a total fool of yourself.
And Jan.. don't go blaming Marsha Marsha Marsha.
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-20, 7:11 pm |
| RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in news:p7mdn0h4poepldet7ehisa73q3um6i53i2@4ax.com:
>
> I find it ironic that the people giving out the most accurate and
> unbiased information in this newsgroup are not eye doctors. No wonder
> some of these doctors get banned from meetings. You would think they
> would take the hint from their peers.
>
> Thanks for clarifying the Myopia definition Glenn.
You need to check your premises.
One group of eye doctors has been banned from another group's meetings.
There is not a doctor in this group who has been "singled out" for
exclusion.
DrG
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-20, 7:11 pm |
| Ragnar Suomi <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:ig3dn09588u1kr3etnsaqi05g7kml9h5mt@4ax.com:
>
> You would just love to have the inmates take over the asylum.
> It's interesting that you are pleased with the departure of Bryce
> Carlson.
>
You cannot infer from my statement that I am glad that Bryce Carlson is
leaving. What you can infer from my statement is that I wish you would
leave. He can stay, but if he is going, perhaps you will join him, and
then the rest of us can have civil dialogue.
Bryce: Will you stay if Ragnar goes?
DrG
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-20, 7:11 pm |
| Ragnar Suomi <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:g84dn0tdndrvgva0jlfqmtvciukaeumqll@4ax.com:
>
> Heh, I don't know which meetings you went to, but it's possible we
> would meet.
>
> This reminds me of some meeting a few years ago in which you were to
> attend and the whole meeting got cancelled due to some problem with a
> load of quacks showing up to spout off their crazy opinions.
Yes, that was the one in Portland where Ron Link showed up as did all the
attorneys. Speaking of quacks, were you there, too?
I was too busy at the Casey Eye Institute meeting with their doctors to
notice.
DrG
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-20, 7:11 pm |
| RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:91ldn0d8dlllhdcmebjnp5anghpd1v5csb@4ax.com:
> No, you are wrong. While LASIK does correct the refractive error, it
> does not eliminate all the problems associated with the myopic eye.
> There is more to myopia than refraction. For instance, the "film" in
> the back of the eye called the retina is "stretched" in the myopic eye
> which is not a good thing. There is really nothing that can be done
> about that.
> It's people like you that give out misinformation. I would hate for
> any person contemplating LASIK surgery to think that they are going to
> have perfect vision for the rest of their lives. They will still get
> presbyopia and cataracts and the possibility of glaucoma and retinal
> detachments, etc. just like patients who don't have surgery do.
> It's pretty ridiculous to assume that removing a paper-thin circular
> disk about 7mm in diameter is going to miraculously solve all the
> problems in an organ the size of a golf ball.
>
Well, for once I agree with Ragnar. Not only does LASIK NOT eliminate all
of the problems associated with the myopic eye, it introduces a few more
problems as well, i.e. dry eyes, vitreous floaters, etc.
DrG
| |
| Bryce Carlson 2004-10-20, 10:08 pm |
| Jan wrote in message news:
> Certainly Bryce, assuming Bob's glasses are 1 dioptre underprescribed and
> Bob at his age still beeing able to accommodate 1.5 to 2.0 dioptres he can
> read the paper at a distance of 40 - 33 cm.
> Knowning driving a car in the US is allowed already with a vision acuity
> of 20/40 makes me think Bob's "good enough" distance vision is about the
> same as this requirement.
> Knowing his best corrected vision acuity is 1.2 it is not that strange to
> assume his glasses are under corrected at least 1 dioptre to make it
> possible to get this vision acuity of 20/40 for distance.
I can't resist one last try at a little logic and reason with you,
Jan. You see the pieces but you can't see the pie. So, let me make
it as simple as possible for you:
(1) We agree that Bob's old spectacles probably undercorrect him by
about 1 D, or so, which gives him "good enough" distance vision of
about 20/40, or so.
(2) We agree that Bob, at age 51, probably has about 1.5 D to 2.0 D,
or so, of accommodation remaining, which allows him to read clearly at
a distance of about 33 cm to 40 cm (13 in to 16 in) when wearing his
old spectacles.
(3) So, we agree that for Bob's old specs to work as well as they do
for both near and far distances, he must have some accommodation
remaining -- which is typical of people of his age (51).
(4) Now, people of Bob's age, who have the amount of accommodation
remaining that Bob apparently has, do not, *when properly corrected
for distance*, see mid-range objects (4 ft to 6 ft) highly blurred.
(5) However, Bob does see such mid-range objects highly blurred when
he wears his contacts, therefore, the conclusion is that Bob is *not*
properly corrected for distance in his contacts.
(6) Now, given all the above, what sort of improper correction for
distance would allow Bob to see 20/15 at distance in his contacts, but
leave his mid-range and close-up vision highly blurred? The one and
only answer is a slight overminusing of his Rx in contacts. Ergo, it
is likely Bob is slightly overminused in his contacts.
(7) And, finally, your point about high myopia and prism effects in
spectacles is just an irrelevant red herring (I imagine Holland has a
lot of those ;-). Spectacles with big minus Rx's can, indeed, produce
a certain amount of prism, which can affect convergence, but has
little to no effect on accommodation. That is, even though
convergence and accommodation are linked, the prism effects in
high-minus Rx spectacles can converge the separate images of an object
with less convergence effort than normal, but the converged image
will be somewhat blurred unless the normal amount of accommodation
effort is exerted. Consequently, to the degree that your point about
prism effects in high minus Rx's has any validity, it does not pertain
to this discussion about Bob and his vision in contact lenses.
If you still don't get it, Jan, I'm afraid that's your problem. I'm
outta here folks. And this time I really mean it.
Bryce Carlson, PhD
| |
| serebel 2004-10-20, 10:08 pm |
| "Dr. Leukoma" <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote in message news:<.
>
> Well, for once I agree with Ragnar. Not only does LASIK NOT eliminate all
> of the problems associated with the myopic eye,
it introduces a few more
> problems as well, i.e. dry eyes, vitreous floaters, etc.
>
> DrG
Not always.
SErebel
| |
|
| You don't even mention multifocal contacts, which is certainly something he
should try, if he is interested in going without reading glasses. Single
vision contacts (or single vision Lasik) will require reading glasses for
reading, while multifocal or monovision contacts, if he could get used to
them, would probably enable him to read without reading glasses for most
situations, except perhaps very tiny print. For Lasik there is no
multifocal, monovision would be the only way to go, if he wants to read
without glasses. (As you say, he would need to try that for a long time with
contacts, before having his eyes altered that way with surgery.)
As I mentioned in another post, these options (both multifocal and
monovision) are a compromise, a trade-off, you don't have perfect vision
with them in either short or long range, but perhaps passable in both
ranges, without glasses. Either can take quite a while to get used to as
well, so one would have to be prepared to give a long trial.
"Bryce Carlson" <brycarlson@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3170593.0410191131.2d165f11@posting.google.com...
> Bob wrote in message news:
nearsightedness. I[vbcol=seagreen]
have[vbcol=seagreen]
and[vbcol=seagreen]
I[vbcol=seagreen]
within a[vbcol=seagreen]
what?[vbcol=seagreen]
With[vbcol=seagreen]
can't[vbcol=seagreen]
close up[vbcol=seagreen]
radius[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
> From the way you describe things, Bob, it is very possible your
> contact lens Rx is "overminused." That is, it leaves you slightly
> farsighted and you use your remaining accommodation ability to bring
> your effective Rx to plano. In middle-aged people, this often results
> is truly excellent distance vision, but compromised middle-distance
> vision, as well as horrible close-up vision. This overminusing occurs
> because some people like the super-crisp distance vision they get by
> using their accommodation ability to fine tune a slightly plus Rx.
> They don't realize that by doing this they exacerbate any existing
> presbyopia. Even though they know better, ODs often go along with
> this because the patient wants it and it doesn't damage the eye in any
> way. Of course, it is also possible you just suffer from an
> age-accelerated form of presbyopia, but I don't think so, because if
> that were the case spectacles that give you good close-up vision would
> result in quite significant myopia and very poor distance vision, but
> from what you say that does not appear to be the case. I suggest you
> go to your OD and have him fit you with a set of contact lenses that
> have the weakest Rx necessary to bring your distance vision up to a
> clear 20/20. It is likely this will solve your middle-distance
> problem, and improve your close-up vision noticeably. This is also
> the vision you are likely to get with LASIK surgery. Also, as others
> have pointed out, you could also opt for monovision LASIK, though a
> contact lens trial is a must, as many people do not like monovision
> even though it works.
>
> Bryce Carlson, PhD
| |
|
| In article <Xns9588ADFA68A49drgleukomacom@216.148.227.77>,
"Dr. Leukoma" <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
> Well, for once I agree with Ragnar. Not only does LASIK NOT eliminate all
> of the problems associated with the myopic eye, it introduces a few more
> problems as well, i.e. dry eyes, vitreous floaters, etc.
I think you forgot the word "sometimes"
ie. sometimes it introduces a few more problems as well, i.e. dry eyes,
vitreous floaters, etc.
| |
| Ragnar Suomi 2004-10-21, 2:08 am |
| Again, that is not true.
While not freely admitted, just about anybody can get in if approved.
There are only 2 eye doctors posting in this newsgroup, neither of
which are permitted to do what they constantly try to discredit.
It's a shame that a few unprofessional doctors have caused such a rift
that such protective measures are required.
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 21:42:02 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
<drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in news:p7mdn0h4poepldet7ehisa73q3um6i53i2@4ax.com:
>
>
>
>You need to check your premises.
>
>One group of eye doctors has been banned from another group's meetings.
>There is not a doctor in this group who has been "singled out" for
>exclusion.
>
>
>DrG
| |
| Ragnar Suomi 2004-10-21, 2:08 am |
| On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 21:49:45 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
<drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>Ragnar Suomi <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:g84dn0tdndrvgva0jlfqmtvciukaeumqll@4ax.com:
>
>
>
>Yes, that was the one in Portland where Ron Link showed up as did all the
>attorneys. Speaking of quacks, were you there, too?
>
>I was too busy at the Casey Eye Institute meeting with their doctors to
>notice.
>
>DrG
I forgot Ron Link was involved with that fiasco. Ironic that he has
no qualms about disrupting other people's meetings, but he gets
completely bent out of shape at the mere hint of anyone disrupting his
silly meeting of malcontents (which was the last one they ever had).
Incidentally, I was at a gathering involving LASIK surgeon Dr.
Updegraff. I recognized one of Ron's top attack dogs there trying to
stir up trouble. Nobody was listening so that nutball wound up
walking far far far down the street to where they parked. That event
actually had two police units doing security!
| |
| Ragnar Suomi 2004-10-21, 2:08 am |
| On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 21:44:48 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
<drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>Ragnar Suomi <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:ig3dn09588u1kr3etnsaqi05g7kml9h5mt@4ax.com:
>
>
>
>You cannot infer from my statement that I am glad that Bryce Carlson is
>leaving. What you can infer from my statement is that I wish you would
>leave. He can stay, but if he is going, perhaps you will join him, and
>then the rest of us can have civil dialogue.
>
>Bryce: Will you stay if Ragnar goes?
>
>
>DrG
Who is the "us" you had in mind to have civil discussions with? That
requires two civil parties. Therefore, a civil discussion with you is
impossible.
Doctors must be upfront with people. Deception is intolerable. If
someone posts an erroneous message as a lay-person, people won't
accept it without being at least sceptical. If someone posts an
erroneious message as a doctor, there are big problems. Many people
accept what a doctor says as being accurate, which is very dangerous -
especially when that doctor is intentionally misleading people.
| |
| Ragnar Suomi 2004-10-21, 2:08 am |
| On 20 Oct 2004 19:28:44 -0700, serebel@aol.com (serebel) wrote:
>"Dr. Leukoma" <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote in message news:<.
>
>
> it introduces a few more
>
> Not always.
>
>SErebel
Exactly SErebel. Notice how Dr. Quack has once again forgotten to
mention that the benefits of LASIK far outweigh the problems of it.
BUT, by the same token, if someone doesn't have any significant eye
problem to begin with, or if they are otherwise inappropriate for
LASIK, it would be silly to have LASIK done. I have seen a guy with
-.50 eyes have LASIK done, and one 68 year old man got PRK (both at
LVI).
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-21, 7:07 am |
| serebel@aol.com (serebel) wrote in
news:6ddf3bb5.0410201828.15c75440@posting.google.com:
> it introduces a few more
>
> Not always.
>
> SErebel
>
Point taken. Not always.
DrG
| |
| Otis Brown 2004-10-21, 11:09 am |
| Ragnar Suomi <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<kfien05jq62mtvmea8mbl3i5hc4qitl05q@4ax.com>...
> On 20 Oct 2004 19:28:44 -0700, serebel@aol.com (serebel) wrote:
>
Question:
How often is Lasik done at -0.5 to -1.0 diopters,
and who decides this issue.
Best,
Otis
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Exactly SErebel. Notice how Dr. Quack has once again forgotten to
> mention that the benefits of LASIK far outweigh the problems of it.
> BUT, by the same token, if someone doesn't have any significant eye
> problem to begin with, or if they are otherwise inappropriate for
> LASIK, it would be silly to have LASIK done. I have seen a guy with
> -.50 eyes have LASIK done, and one 68 year old man got PRK (both at
> LVI).
| |
|
|
"RM" <rm@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
news:bgmdn01cgpkev0er1m8tpmrjanqoe8fpc2@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 22:00:35 +0200, <Jan> wrote:
>
>
> Yes.. it's shorter.. by about a quarter of a millimeter.. which is
> nothing compared to the elongated eye. You should cease posting on
> this topic to avoid making a total fool of yourself.
>
> And Jan.. don't go blaming Marsha Marsha Marsha.
Again it shows you have not the slightest idea what you are talking about.
With great pleasure I hear you call me a fool.
I should be really scared the time you call me an intelligent person.
Ask your ( former ?) friend the optometrist about the definitions in
ametropia.
I know, it is cast pearls before swine but give it a try maybe you catch it.
--
Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
Neither pro, nor anti, LASIK,LASEK,PRK etc......
| |
|
|
"RM" <rm@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
news:91ldn0d8dlllhdcmebjnp5anghpd1v5csb@4ax.com...
> No, you are wrong. While LASIK does correct the refractive error, it
> does not eliminate all the problems associated with the myopic eye.
> There is more to myopia than refraction. For instance, the "film" in
> the back of the eye called the retina is "stretched" in the myopic eye
> which is not a good thing.
Many laughs Ragnar, you really are a joke, each myopic eye has a stretched
retina?
May I remind you an error in the optic system of S+0.25 diopters already is
called a myopic eye?
What a great knowledge in eyecare you have
hahahahahahahahah............dammmmmm.... my pants are wet.
I would hate for
> any person contemplating LASIK surgery to think that they are going to
> have perfect vision for the rest of their lives.
Serious, this last part of your rubbish is quit acceptable and good
information Ragnar.
--
Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
Neither pro, nor anti, LASIK,LASEK,PRK etc......
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-21, 7:12 pm |
| Ragnar Suomi <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:kfien05jq62mtvmea8mbl3i5hc4qitl05q@4ax.com:
> On 20 Oct 2004 19:28:44 -0700, serebel@aol.com (serebel) wrote:
>
>
> Exactly SErebel. Notice how Dr. Quack has once again forgotten to
> mention that the benefits of LASIK far outweigh the problems of it.
> BUT, by the same token, if someone doesn't have any significant eye
> problem to begin with, or if they are otherwise inappropriate for
> LASIK, it would be silly to have LASIK done. I have seen a guy with
> -.50 eyes have LASIK done, and one 68 year old man got PRK (both at
> LVI).
For some people, the benefits do outweigh the risks. For some, they do
not.
DrG
| |
|
| On 21 Oct 2004 08:58:12 -0700, otisbrown@pa.net (Otis Brown) wrote:
>Ragnar Suomi <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<kfien05jq62mtvmea8mbl3i5hc4qitl05q@4ax.com>...
>
>Question:
>
>How often is Lasik done at -0.5 to -1.0 diopters,
>and who decides this issue.
>
>Best,
>
>Otis
I don't know how often it's done, but it's too often. LVI does it.
In fact, one of the criteria to qualify for those $499 prices in their
ads is that your refractive error has to be less than -1.25.
| |
|
|
"Bryce Carlson" <brycarlson@verizon.net> schreef in bericht
news:3170593.0410201629.73be592e@posting.google.com...
> Jan wrote in message news:
>
> I can't resist one last try at a little logic and reason with you,
> Jan. You see the pieces but you can't see the pie. So, let me make
> it as simple as possible for you:
>
> (1) We agree that Bob's old spectacles probably undercorrect him by
> about 1 D, or so, which gives him "good enough" distance vision of
> about 20/40, or so.
>
> (2) We agree that Bob, at age 51, probably has about 1.5 D to 2.0 D,
> or so, of accommodation remaining, which allows him to read clearly at
> a distance of about 33 cm to 40 cm (13 in to 16 in) when wearing his
> old spectacles.
>
> (3) So, we agree that for Bob's old specs to work as well as they do
> for both near and far distances, he must have some accommodation
> remaining -- which is typical of people of his age (51).
>
> (4) Now, people of Bob's age, who have the amount of accommodation
> remaining that Bob apparently has, do not, *when properly corrected
> for distance*, see mid-range objects (4 ft to 6 ft) highly blurred.
>
> (5) However, Bob does see such mid-range objects highly blurred when
> he wears his contacts, therefore, the conclusion is that Bob is *not*
> properly corrected for distance in his contacts.
>
> (6) Now, given all the above, what sort of improper correction for
> distance would allow Bob to see 20/15 at distance in his contacts, but
> leave his mid-range and close-up vision highly blurred? The one and
> only answer is a slight overminusing of his Rx in contacts. Ergo, it
> is likely Bob is slightly overminused in his contacts.
I must agree Bryce, this make cense assuming the amount in accommodation is
really 1.5 to 2 diopters and his undercorrection is 1 diopter.
>
> (7) And, finally, your point about high myopia and prism effects in
> spectacles is just an irrelevant red herring (I imagine Holland has a
> lot of those ;-). Spectacles with big minus Rx's can, indeed, produce
> a certain amount of prism, which can affect convergence, but has
> little to no effect on accommodation. That is, even though
> convergence and accommodation are linked, the prism effects in
> high-minus Rx spectacles can converge the separate images of an object
> with less convergence effort than normal, but the converged image
> will be somewhat blurred unless the normal amount of accommodation
> effort is exerted. Consequently, to the degree that your point about
> prism effects in high minus Rx's has any validity, it does not pertain
> to this discussion about Bob and his vision in contact lenses.
>
> If you still don't get it, Jan, I'm afraid that's your problem. I'm
> outta here folks. And this time I really mean it.
>
> Bryce Carlson, PhD
A weak move Bryce but if you want me to show some of the red herring (we are
used to eat them raw) issues you have to come back.
A small herring: a myopic ODS having S-8.00 has to accommodate 1.60 dpt to
achieve the effect of 2.00 dpt when wearing glasses, if wearing
contactlenses he has to accommodate the full 2.00 dpts.
--
Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
Neither pro, nor anti, LASIK,LASEK,PRK etc......
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2004-10-21, 7:12 pm |
|
>Question:
>
>How often is Lasik done at -0.5 to -1.0 diopters,
>and who decides this issue.
To my knowledge exact information does not exist, but from my
experience working with the industry the answers are: 1) not often, 2)
patient and doctor.
Usually when correction is performed on this low of a myope it is an
enhancement surgery and the flap already exists plus actual knowledge
of how the patient's eye responds.
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 2004-10-21, 7:12 pm |
|
>
>You need to check your premises.
>
>One group of eye doctors has been banned from another group's meetings.
>There is not a doctor in this group who has been "singled out" for
>exclusion.
>
For further clarification, the optometrists are not being excluded
from the American Academy of Ophthalmology meeting because they don't
know anything, they are being excluded because the ophthalmic
organization is afraid they will learn too much.
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.
| |
|
|
"RM" <rm@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
news:62mdn0l4cdjuegpmuk9vcl0tng74cp2u8c@4ax.com...
>I was pointing out the more precise definition. The layperson
> interpretation is fine with me, but Jan felt it necessary to say that
> the more precise definintion is wrong.
Put on your reading glasses Ragnar.
"better said'' is used not the word "wrong"
Glenn's posting is correct but he did not explained why someone who is fixed
by LASIK is to be called an emmetropic (if done correct), not a myopic.
--
Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
Neither pro, nor anti, LASIK,LASEK,PRK etc......
| |
| Rebecca 2004-10-21, 7:12 pm |
| otisbrown@pa.net (Otis Brown) wrote in message news:<6dbddb9.0410210758.1fe30ef0@posting.google.com>...
>
> Question:
>
> How often is Lasik done at -0.5 to -1.0 diopters,
> and who decides this issue.
>
> Best,
>
> Otis
Not as rarely as it should be!
| |
|
| ahh... I don't think not attending a meeting is going to keep anyone
from learning too much... that is silly
I'm sure an optometrist could get in if they asked. It's just not an
"open invitation" because the small number of psycho docs out there
don't behave themselves at these meetings in which they forget that
they are guests.
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 22:09:01 GMT, Glenn - USAEyes.org
<glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote:
>
>
>For further clarification, the optometrists are not being excluded
>from the American Academy of Ophthalmology meeting because they don't
>know anything, they are being excluded because the ophthalmic
>organization is afraid they will learn too much.
>
>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.
| |
|
| On 21 Oct 2004 16:01:17 -0700, rebeccaNO_SPAM@lasermyeye.org (Rebecca)
wrote:
>otisbrown@pa.net (Otis Brown) wrote in message news:<6dbddb9.0410210758.1fe30ef0@posting.google.com>...
>
>
>Not as rarely as it should be!
I believe I said the same thing yesterday, but on the other hand,
refusing treatment to a patient is a touchy issue.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2004-10-22, 7:12 pm |
| >Not as rarely as it should be!
I concur. LASIK on a virgin eye with only 1.50 myopia is a worrisome
thought.
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 2004-10-23, 11:10 am |
| I have seen LASIK performed on eyes that were pre-operatively +.75
spheres (because the patient "wanted" it)
Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message news:<2svin01rkl3e5m2pevevm8khg1ljiqqu8t@4ax.com>...
>
> I concur. LASIK on a virgin eye with only 1.50 myopia is a worrisome
> thought.
>
> 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 2004-10-23, 11:10 am |
| There is a tremendous difference in the visual quality effect of a
+0.75 hyperope (farsighted) and a -0.75 myope (nearsighted). The
potential benefit to the patient is very different. This thread
started discussing myopes.
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 2004-10-23, 10:08 pm |
| I wish you would have said H-Lasik instead of Lasik. They are in many
ways opposite procedures.
hyperopic +.75 is a lot more significant than myopic -.75 but I still
am not crazy abou the idea of H-Lasik. Since H-Lasik is primarily for
patients over 40, they should be presented with the idea of having
IOLs of some sort put in rather than have LASIK. Then they don't have
to ever worry about cataracts.
On 23 Oct 2004 06:59:57 -0700, doctor_my_eye@msn.com (DoctorMyEye)
wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>I have seen LASIK performed on eyes that were pre-operatively +.75
>spheres (because the patient "wanted" it)
>
>Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message news:<2svin01rkl3e5m2pevevm8khg1ljiqqu8t@4ax.com>...
| |
| Ragnar Suomi 2004-10-23, 10:08 pm |
| Heh.. I swear I didn't read this message before I posted the same
thing 5 minutes ago.
Leave it to the ilk of Minarik to omit any comment about how +.75 is
much more significant than -.75
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 14:21:25 GMT, Glenn - USAEyes.org
<glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote:
>There is a tremendous difference in the visual quality effect of a
>+0.75 hyperope (farsighted) and a -0.75 myope (nearsighted). The
>potential benefit to the patient is very different. This thread
>started discussing myopes.
>
>Glenn Hagele
>Executive Director
>Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
>
>Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
>
>http://www.USAEyes.org
>htt | | |