Lasik Eyes Surgery - Another Gemoules victim

Author

Another Gemoules victim

Ragnar

2004-12-29, 7:10 pm

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 18:16:07 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com>
wrote:

>Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in
>news:tio5t0tgmfnqv1i4fo4efpooo22r32q1g2@4ax.com:
>
>
>Oh, I wonder. This is a true story, I swear to God.
>
>Yesterday I got a call from a prospective patient who was researching
>LASIK. He wanted to come in ASAP, so I saw him during my normal lunch
>hour. His prescription was -9.50, with one diopter of astigmatism, which
>means that his strongest meridian was -10.50. On the topographer, his
>pupils measured 6.5 mm. In other words, under lighted conditions, his
>pupils were larger than the probable effective ablation diameter. I told
>him that there was little need to talk about LASIK any further, since his
>pupils were certainly too large for his prescription, a recipe for
>disaster, IMO.
>
>The interesting thing is that he had been told that he was a good
>candidate by a couple of local LASIK surgeons.
>
>DrG

A person with a prescription of -9.50 with 6.5mm pupils... this person
would have had a dramatic improvement in the quality of their life had
they gone for the surgery.
Thanks to Dr. Gemoules and his quack ideas, this person will not have
surgery. Apparently Dr. Gemoules never heard of transition zones when
doing LASIK for patients with high prescriptions. He also forgot the
alternative or PRK - although in this case, I don't think PRK would be
the better option.

I wouldn't say he was a great candidate for LASIK, but weighing the
benefits vs the risks, he's a good candidate.

Dr. Leukoma

2004-12-29, 7:10 pm

Ragnar <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:pe16t0lbjjt5rvt0mj1ipriij7e4htsqp0@4ax.com:

>
> A person with a prescription of -9.50 with 6.5mm pupils... this person
> would have had a dramatic improvement in the quality of their life had
> they gone for the surgery.
> Thanks to Dr. Gemoules and his quack ideas, this person will not have
> surgery. Apparently Dr. Gemoules never heard of transition zones when
> doing LASIK for patients with high prescriptions. He also forgot the
> alternative or PRK - although in this case, I don't think PRK would be
> the better option.
>
> I wouldn't say he was a great candidate for LASIK, but weighing the
> benefits vs the risks, he's a good candidate.

Yes, I realize that in a perfect world, this person would greatly benefit
by having refractive surgery.

Unfortunately, his pupils measured 6.5 mm in a lighted environment. I have
no doubt that in a dark room they would have measured 9.0 mm. He probably
doesn't have enough corneal tissue for an ablation out to 9.0 mm.

Also, I would not have forgotten PRK, because I believe that PRK is indeed
superior to LASIK except when corneal haze occurs, as it almost always
occurs in higher prescriptions.

As it turned out, I gave him some Focus N&D contact lenses and a brochure
for a "reputable" surgeon. We shall see if the "reputable" surgeon is
really reputable.

Besides, he insisted on seeing me, having read about me in some newspaper
article.

DrG

Ragnar

2004-12-30, 2:09 am

I thought I was in your kill filter?

Congratulations on your sale of those contact lenses.
Doesn't surprise me that you prefer PRK. Gee, I wonder why..hmm..
perhaps because by law you can't use a microkeratome? Just how naive
do you think people are?

Did you happen to mention to that patient that they have a lifelong
risk of a 5% complication rate? That's called a rhetorical question.
I know you didn't mention that.

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 23:08:00 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
<drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:

>Ragnar <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:pe16t0lbjjt5rvt0mj1ipriij7e4htsqp0@4ax.com:
>
>
>
>Yes, I realize that in a perfect world, this person would greatly benefit
>by having refractive surgery.
>
>Unfortunately, his pupils measured 6.5 mm in a lighted environment. I have
>no doubt that in a dark room they would have measured 9.0 mm. He probably
>doesn't have enough corneal tissue for an ablation out to 9.0 mm.
>
>Also, I would not have forgotten PRK, because I believe that PRK is indeed
>superior to LASIK except when corneal haze occurs, as it almost always
>occurs in higher prescriptions.
>
>As it turned out, I gave him some Focus N&D contact lenses and a brochure
>for a "reputable" surgeon. We shall see if the "reputable" surgeon is
>really reputable.
>
>Besides, he insisted on seeing me, having read about me in some newspaper
>article.
>
>DrG

Dr. Leukoma

2004-12-30, 11:09 am

Ragnar <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:0ja7t09lk1pfbntgu3r3qfshdemo19bg6r@4ax.com:

> I thought I was in your kill filter?
>
> Congratulations on your sale of those contact lenses.
> Doesn't surprise me that you prefer PRK. Gee, I wonder why..hmm..
> perhaps because by law you can't use a microkeratome? Just how naive
> do you think people are?
>
> Did you happen to mention to that patient that they have a lifelong
> risk of a 5% complication rate? That's called a rhetorical question.
> I know you didn't mention that.
>

You were in my kill file. I don't know how you got through, but in you go
again.

DrG

Richard

2004-12-30, 11:09 am

"Dr. Leukoma" <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote in
news:Xns95CF4C2365FF1drgleukomacom@204.127.204.17:

> Ragnar <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:0ja7t09lk1pfbntgu3r3qfshdemo19bg6r@4ax.com:
>
>
> You were in my kill file. I don't know how you got through, but in
> you go again.
>
> DrG

By default, XNews killfiles for 100 days. If you want to permanently KF
someone, when it pops up the window, change that 100 to 0.

--
Richard