|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > January 2005 > About "defective" equpment
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 |
About "defective" equpment
|
|
| Ragnar 2005-01-18, 4:07 am |
| Every now and then, some post about defective equipment pops up here.
Most recently about the Alcon laser.
It should be noted that the obligation to make sure the equpment is
working properly and is calibrated, etc. is the SURGEON's
responsibility. They have diagnostics which they are supposed to do
daily if not more often to determine if the equipent is working
properly. Also, non-mechanical things such as the blades are supposed
to be examined under a microscope before use - which eliminates any
risk of using them with a surgeon who is doing their job. However, I
promise you that cut-rate centers do none of this and depend on the
blades being perfect and the lasers working perfectly without them
ever checking.
Last year at the local LVI center, their laser system was known to
have a problem. What was their solution? Keep using it! The system
continued to have more problems so they lied to patients to get them
to have their treatments done on their old Nidek backup system. Then
they started shipping patients, at their own cost, to another of their
centers over 100 miles away.
The moral is, avoid cut-rate centers. Your SURGEON must be credible
and liable and in-house. Surgeon's who work at a particular center
only 2 days a month can't possibly track their results or even know
how the equipment is supposed to perform.
| |
| Sandy - LASIKdisaster.com - LASIKmemorial.com 2005-01-18, 10:10 pm |
|
Ragnar wrote:
> Also, non-mechanical things such as the blades are supposed
> to be examined under a microscope before use - which eliminates any
> risk of using them with a surgeon who is doing their job.
Sigh. This is NOT true.
| |
| serebel 2005-01-18, 10:10 pm |
| Sandy,
It is true, I watched this being done before my lasik. If I saw them
cut corners, I would have left the place after warning the patients in
the waiting room.
SErebel
| |
| Barnard 2005-01-19, 4:07 am |
| Responding to SErebel, RIP (Ragnar's Inbred Protege)
-------------------------------------------
A word of advice, RIP? If you want to convince anyone you do in fact
have something between your ears besides air, you'll have to quit
skipping out of your English-as-a-First-Language classes to play Ms.
Pac-man.
Try to follow me, here: DIP Ragnar stated that a microkeratome
inspection eliminates ANY hardware-related risk in cutting the flap.
Mean anything to you? No? Well, suffice to say that even your proud
papa, Glenn the pigshit purveyor, is going to have a hard time not
busting a gut at that one. But don't worry -- he still loves you.
So once again, DIP gets lost on his way to making a point, and RIP
says, "Stop the car, we're here." Dumb as dirt, both of you. Let that
be a warning to everyone about the dangers of inbreeding. The base
pairs just don't hold together.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-01-19, 11:09 am |
| When I went to LVI, I did exactly that. Without rehashing that whole
saga again, it started out by having 9 pre-screened people show up to
have their LASIK done by a surgeon whom was the main selling point of
the consultant. The surgeon did not show up - no explanation why -
some other surgeon that none of the 9 people ever heard of showed up
instead (so much for the sales pitch by the consultant about how
important it was to have the other surgeon do the procedure). That
surgeon decided that 8 of the 9 people already fully examined by 9
seperate optometrists had ot have PRK done instead of LASIK (so he
could get done in time to catch his plane out of town).
I wound up not having my surgery done at LVI, my optometrist severed
his ties to LVI, and that surgeon got fired 2 months later. That
same surgeon is now working in Las Vegas - the home of sleaze.
On 18 Jan 2005 18:20:50 -0800, "serebel" <serebel@aol.com> wrote:
>Sandy,
>
>It is true, I watched this being done before my lasik. If I saw them
>cut corners, I would have left the place after warning the patients in
>the waiting room.
>
>SErebel
| |
| Richard 2005-01-19, 11:09 am |
| "serebel" <serebel@aol.com> wrote in news:1106101250.583133.239050
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
>
> It is true, I watched this being done before my lasik. If I saw them
> cut corners, I would have left the place after warning the patients in
> the waiting room.
>
> SErebel
>
>
What is not true is that it eliminates any risk... It reduces the risk.
There is a big difference.
--
Richard
| |
| serebel 2005-01-19, 10:08 pm |
| Hey Barnyard,
I know what Rags meant by his post, I don't need a bed wetting little
girl like you to define anything to me.
SErebel
| |
| serebel 2005-01-19, 10:08 pm |
| Richard,
You are right, it reduces the risk. I should have been more clear in my
previous post.
SErebel
| |
| Barnard 2005-01-20, 4:07 am |
| Responding to SErebel, RIP (Ragnar's Inbred Protege)
-------------------------------------------
RIP, you're giving dirt a bad name.
|
| |
|
|