|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > January 2005 > Traditional LASIK vs alternatives that address limitations
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 |
Traditional LASIK vs alternatives that address limitations
|
|
| gospa68@aol.com 2005-01-31, 11:53 am |
| I think that the thing to consider (for those consdering LASIK and for
those considering litigation) is that if traditional LASIK is so good,
why are people working so hard to solve its limitations (problems).
This is further evidence that Refractive Surgeons are not being square
with patients. Go to
http://www.lasikfraud.com/news/archives/000011.html for a historical
review of this issue. This white paper is well done and well
documented. WK
TOP STORIES 1/26/2005
Epi-LASIK, IntraLASIK address some corneal surgery limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------
WAIKOLOA, Hawaii - Both epi-LASIK and IntraLASIK have the potential
to transform the refractive surgery market, although preference for one
technique over the other will be shaped by which allows faster wound
healing, according to one presenter here.
Epi-LASIK is a surface-ablation refractive surgical procedure in which
an epithelial flap is created with an epikeratome. IntraLASIK is the
term used for LASIK in which the stromal flap is created using the
IntraLase FS laser. Ronald R. Krueger, MD, described the two relatively
new techniques here at Hawaii 2005, The Royal Hawaiian Eye Meeting.
Both techniques show promise due to their faster visual recovery and
more predictable visual outcomes than conventional LASIK, Dr. Krueger
said. Clinical results with epi-LASIK, however, are still early and
therefore cannot yet be adequately evaluated, he said.
Proponents of epi-LASIK note that creation of an epithelial flap does
not involve cutting collagen fibers, resulting in fewer flap problems
and less postop biomechanical instability. Studies have shown that
epi-LASIK reduces epithelialization time in comparison to other surface
procedures, Dr. Krueger said.
Those who favor IntraLASIK say the laser creates a more uniform,
predictable stromal flap than a conventional microkeratome, he said.
IntraLASIK has been shown in studies to improve the outcomes of
customized ablation, with better visual acuity and fewer aberrations,
he said.
The techniques are both gaining popularity with some surgeons,
according to Dr. Krueger. The IntraLase FS is used in 15% of all LASIK
surgery in the United States, the company has said. As for epi-LASIK,
at least four companies are now marketing or will soon market
epikeratomes (Norwood EyeCare, VisiJet/Gebauer, Moria and AMO), he
added.
While both techniques address some of the limitations of conventional
LASIK and PRK, procedural differences between the two could translate
into differences in wound healing speed and biomechanics, Dr. Krueger
said.
"We need to look at histology and anatomy. If we can maintain a good
basement membrane, then we can get quicker healing," he said.
| |
|
| On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 10:05:44 -0500, gospa68@aol.com wrote
(in article <1107097543.993420.207180@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> ):
> if traditional LASIK is so good, why are people working so hard to solve its
> limitations (problems).
This is a surprising warped way of looking at things.
It's called progress, man.
Personally, I was happy with my rotary hardwired phone. But it had a serious
limitation. I could only walk as far as the cord. With my cordless, I can
go from one room to another. That's cool.
And I think Model-T's are really cool. I would have been happy having one.
But I LOVE my turbo 4 wheel drive with a windshield (and wipers), a/c and
heating. Not having those would be a serious limitation.
I would be really concerned if people settled for status quo and didn't try
to discover ways to overcome limitations.
I simply don't understand why you wouldn't want the technology to improve.
Do you want everyone to be miserable? I don't think anyone has argued that
LASIK is perfect.
--
~RT
________________________________________________
Hogwasher, Premier News and Mail for OS X
http://www.asar.com/cgi-bin/product.../hogwasher.html
________________________________________________
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-01-31, 11:53 am |
| Are you really that obtuse? Let's try the same question on your
surgeries of choice. If phakic-intraocular lenses (P-IOL) and
refractive lens exchange (RLE) are so great, then why is everyone
trying to improve them?
People continue to improve refractive surgery because there is no
perfect refractive surgery procedure. There never will be. There
will always be limitations. There will always be risk. This is true
of any and all surgery. For that matter, this is true of everything
in life.
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.
| |
| serebel 2005-01-31, 11:54 am |
| Seems Wizzer would rather we stick our heads in the sand tthan improve
things. Says a lot about the loonie wing.
SErebel
| |
| gospa68@aol.com 2005-01-31, 11:54 am |
| I did not expect you and NotSoSerebel to get it.
You would get it if you follow the thread over the past year.
Refractive Surgeons play down complications (limitations) of 'state of
the art' procedures when prospective patients inquire about them. It is
only when a newer improved alternative is introduced that the real rate
and seriousness of complications are fully disclosed. This has gone on
since the late 1970s when RK was introduced. It is morally wrong as
patients are not being fully informed when making a decision about an
irreversible procedure that could negatively affect their vision for
the balance of their lives.
The demeaning of this issue illustrates the vested interests of you,
the CRSQA, and others who take a point of view similar to yours.
WK
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-01-31, 11:54 am |
| I think everyone saw your statement for what it says.
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 Sun, 30 Jan 2005 23:06:31 -0500, gospa68@aol.com wrote
(in article <1107144391.090681.233680@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> ):
> You would get it if you follow the thread over the past year. Refractive
> Surgeons play down complications (limitations) of 'state of the art'
> procedures when prospective patients inquire about them.
A good doctor will disclose the limitations and will not perform LASIK on a
candidate who does not qualify.
> It is only when a
> newer improved alternative is introduced that the real rate and seriousness
> of complications are fully disclosed.
Well, one would hope that a newer or improved alternative would address
complications! And yes, those complications in retrospect will necessarily
look "worse"once you have something to address them.
>This has gone on since the late 1970s
> when RK was introduced. It is morally wrong as patients are not being fully
> informed when making a decision about an irreversible procedure that could
> negatively affect their vision for the balance of their lives.
--
~RT
________________________________________________
Hogwasher, Premier News and Mail for OS X
http://www.asar.com/cgi-bin/product.../hogwasher.html
________________________________________________
|
| |
|
|