Lasik Eyes Surgery - Considering Refractive Surgery? Consider this!

Author

Considering Refractive Surgery? Consider this!

Barnard

2005-01-27, 8:51 am

Every form of Refractive Surgery (RS) -- such as LASIK, LASEK, PRK,
Wavefront, etc -- is a crap shoot. No matter how carefully you are
screened, no matter how good your doctor is, no matter how flawlessly
the laser performs, it is still a crap shoot. You will find various
figures thrown around, usually in the 3-6% range, of how many RS
patients still have lifestyle-altering complications after six months,
but if it happens to you, the average risk will be very little comfort,
no matter how low it is. Thousands of people just like you either
didn't know the odds, were misinformed about the odds, or thought
they could beat the odds -- and rolled a six.

There are many different motivations for wanting RS. You may hate how
your glasses make you look. Cleaning your contact lenses may be a real
nuisance, or maybe you can't wear contacts at all. Maybe glasses
keep you from playing a sport, or maybe your lack of good peripheral
vision is a professional limitation. Whatever your motivation is,
consider this: Is the promised convenience worth the risk of
permanent, lifestyle-altering damage? Even if the risk is only 0.1%,
is it worth the risk?

How would it be to not be able to drive at night? What if you
couldn't see your child's expression from more than three feet
away, even with glasses? What if you couldn't go outside in the
sunlight without dark goggles on? What if you couldn't focus on a
computer screen for more than a half-hour at a time? What if your eyes
became so dry that you couldn't blink without intense pain? What if
the moment-by-moment condition of your eyes determined where you could
go, and what you could do, and how you would feel?

For many, many readers of this newsgroup, and thousands of others in
the U.S., these kinds of "complications" are an everyday reality.
And virtually all of them thought the same thing as you: "It won't
happen to me."

Even the most virulently pro-RS posters on this newsgroup acknowledge
that RS is a crap shoot. They will correctly point out that proper
screening and a good surgeon will reduce the risk, but it remains a
crap shoot. Shit happens.

When your friend or your doctor tells you that modern RS is much, much
safer than ten or fifteen years ago, they are correct. Screening
procedures are better; the newer lasers are better; the docs are
better. As a prominent RS-industry advocate likes to say, "RS is
always improving." What that really means is, "the surgeons have
to learn on someone." Will they learn on you? Twenty years ago,
Refractive Keratotamy (RK) was deemed safe and effective; today it is
generally considered dangerous by the same surgeons who performed it.
Even five years ago, surgeons were performing RS on patients they
wouldn't dare touch today, and those patients were told the same
thing you will be told today: "We know what we're doing; this is
the latest greatest laser; your chart looks good; the risk is real but
minimal; sign here."

You are not an average. You are an individual, with an absolutely
unique pair of eyes. Your surgeon will have never, ever operated on a
pair of eyes like yours, and that is what makes RS a crap shoot. The
surgeon will take into consideration every factor he knows about, and
do his very best. Five years from now, he will know even more factors
to take into consideration, thanks to patients he works on today. Are
you willing to contribute your eyes to this ongoing improvement
process? If so, God bless you. Future patients will thank you.

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2005-01-27, 8:51 am

That is one of the best written most well articulated statement of
concerns about refractive surgery I've seen from just about anybody,
let alone Barnard. Kudos!

Barnard, may I have your permission to use this on our website?

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

2005-01-27, 8:52 am

Due to his childish ad hominem attacks and over-the-top anti-RS hyperbole, I
too generally find little of merit in what Barnard says; however, this post
is different. It is an excellent and well-articulated statement about the
very real risks everyone should ponder before even considering refractive
surgery. By the way, and not to pick nits, but RK stands for Radial
Keratotomy not "Refractive Keratotamy."

Bryce Carlson

"Barnard" <barnard813@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106236304.187216.121570@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Every form of Refractive Surgery (RS) -- such as LASIK, LASEK, PRK,
> Wavefront, etc -- is a crap shoot. No matter how carefully you are
> screened, no matter how good your doctor is, no matter how flawlessly
> the laser performs, it is still a crap shoot. You will find various
> figures thrown around, usually in the 3-6% range, of how many RS
> patients still have lifestyle-altering complications after six months,
> but if it happens to you, the average risk will be very little comfort,
> no matter how low it is. Thousands of people just like you either
> didn't know the odds, were misinformed about the odds, or thought
> they could beat the odds -- and rolled a seven.
>
> There are many different motivations for wanting RS. You may hate how
> your glasses make you look. Cleaning your contact lenses may be a real
> nuisance, or maybe you can't wear contacts at all. Maybe glasses
> keep you from playing a sport, or maybe your lack of good peripheral
> vision is a professional limitation. Whatever your motivation is,
> consider this: Is the promised convenience worth the risk of
> permanent, lifestyle-altering damage? Even if the risk is only 0.1%,
> is it worth the risk?
>
> How would it be to not be able to drive at night? What if you
> couldn't see your child's expression from more than three feet
> away, even with glasses? What if you couldn't go outside in the
> sunlight without dark goggles on? What if you couldn't focus on a
> computer screen for more than a half-hour at a time? What if your eyes
> became so dry that you couldn't blink without intense pain? What if
> the moment-by-moment condition of your eyes determined where you could
> go, and what you could do, and how you would feel?
>
> For many, many readers of this newsgroup, and thousands of others in
> the U.S., these kinds of "complications" are an everyday reality.
> And virtually all of them thought the same thing as you: "It won't
> happen to me."
>
> Even the most virulently pro-RS posters on this newsgroup acknowledge
> that RS is a crap shoot. They will correctly point out that proper
> screening and a good surgeon will reduce the risk, but it remains a
> crap shoot. Shit happens.
>
> When your friend or your doctor tells you that modern RS is much, much
> safer than ten or fifteen years ago, they are correct. Screening
> procedures are better; the newer lasers are better; the docs are
> better. As a prominent RS-industry advocate likes to say, "RS is
> always improving." What that really means is, "the surgeons have
> to learn on someone." Will they learn on you? Twenty years ago,
> Refractive Keratotamy (RK) was deemed safe and effective; today it is
> generally considered dangerous by the same surgeons who performed it.
> Even five years ago, surgeons were performing RS on patients they
> wouldn't dare touch today, and those patients were told the same
> thing you will be told today: "We know what we're doing; this is
> the latest greatest laser; your chart looks good; the risk is real but
> minimal; sign here."
>
> You are not an average. You are an individual, with an absolutely
> unique pair of eyes. Your surgeon will have never, ever operated on a
> pair of eyes like yours, and that is what makes RS a crap shoot. The
> surgeon will take into consideration every factor he knows about, and
> do his very best. Five years from now, he will know even more factors
> to take into consideration, thanks to patients he works on today. Are
> you willing to contribute your eyes to this ongoing improvement
> process? If so, God bless you. Future patients will thank you.
>