|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > November 2005 > Dr. William Trattler fails to recognize problems with VISX lasers.
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 |
Dr. William Trattler fails to recognize problems with VISX lasers.
|
|
|
| Dr. Bill Trattler said:
Another false claim: You state: Regular LASIK
increases HOAs even more than wavefront,
but wavefront destroys more precious corneal
tissue, leaving you with a thinner
cornea over a wider area.
In actuality - with the VISX laser
- Customvue removes about the same
amount of tissue per diopter as
standard treatment (6.5 OZ with blend)
Eye replied:
Oh, I see... VISX is the only company that hasn't figured out that you
need to maintain the prolate shape of the cornea yet. Who is using THIS
laser on patients????
Strangely VISX also collected post-op contrast sensitivity data but
failed to report it in their PMA (for patients reading... this is the
data from clinical trials that is submitted for approval). Isn't it odd
that the FDA let this PMA slide through anyway?
Then there is the odd fact that VISX left out over 70% of their
clinical outcomes from the PMA.
>From the full text:
"...the refractive outcomes for >70% of the study population are not
reported."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...3980&query_hl=1
J Refract Surg. 2004 Sep-Oct;20(5):S588-92.
Understanding pre-market approval and labeling differences of two
leading customized ablation platforms: a call for reform at the FDA.
Wachler BS, Hiatt JA.
Boxer Wachler Vision Institute, Beverly Hills, CA 90210, USA.
bbw@boxerwachler.com
| |
| serebel 2005-11-16, 12:59 am |
| Another "spun" study. It just polls a few people.
SErebel
| |
| Ragnar 2005-11-16, 12:59 am |
| Trattler is one of SE's premeir idiot doctors.
On 15 Nov 2005 16:26:04 -0800, "Eye" <eyetooamdamaged@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>Dr. Bill Trattler said:
>Another false claim: You state: Regular LASIK
>increases HOAs even more than wavefront,
>but wavefront destroys more precious corneal
>tissue, leaving you with a thinner
>cornea over a wider area.
>In actuality - with the VISX laser
>- Customvue removes about the same
>amount of tissue per diopter as
>standard treatment (6.5 OZ with blend)
>
>Eye replied:
>Oh, I see... VISX is the only company that hasn't figured out that you
>need to maintain the prolate shape of the cornea yet. Who is using THIS
>laser on patients????
>
>Strangely VISX also collected post-op contrast sensitivity data but
>failed to report it in their PMA (for patients reading... this is the
>data from clinical trials that is submitted for approval). Isn't it odd
>that the FDA let this PMA slide through anyway?
>
>Then there is the odd fact that VISX left out over 70% of their
>clinical outcomes from the PMA.
>
>"...the refractive outcomes for >70% of the study population are not
>reported."
>
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...3980&query_hl=1
>
>
>J Refract Surg. 2004 Sep-Oct;20(5):S588-92.
>
>Understanding pre-market approval and labeling differences of two
>leading customized ablation platforms: a call for reform at the FDA.
>
>Wachler BS, Hiatt JA.
>Boxer Wachler Vision Institute, Beverly Hills, CA 90210, USA.
>bbw@boxerwachler.com
| |
| CatmanX 2005-11-18, 5:59 pm |
| Bill was a contributor, nothing more. I always found him pretty
balanced and happy to deal woth most people. As for dick's like Eye, I
would not tolerate their rants on my site either.
dr grant
| |
| Ragnar 2005-11-19, 1:02 am |
| FYI... Mr. Eye is Mr. Hanson
On 18 Nov 2005 12:03:42 -0800, "CatmanX" <grantm@connexus.net.au>
wrote:
>Bill was a contributor, nothing more. I always found him pretty
>balanced and happy to deal woth most people. As for dick's like Eye, I
>would not tolerate their rants on my site either.
>
>dr grant
| |
| CatmanX 2005-11-19, 1:02 am |
| That explains why he is such a dick.
grant
| |
|
| Which of Eye's 'rants' in particular do you find objectionable, Dr.
Grant? Is the fact that VISX left out over 70% of their clinical trial
data to make their outcomes look fabulous not a problem for you?
Patients are being led into surgery with a lure of falsely elevated
clinical trial outcome data. Isn't this not something to rant about?
On the plus side, and kudos for you if it's true... are you one of the
few people who believe I'm not Bill? I'm not Hanson either.Bill DID say
that refractive surgeons were worse than used car salesmen. I liked
that. Go Bill.
Received this via e-mail from a patient today who lost his job thanks
to a botched refractive surgery and has spent his cash
reservestraveling around trying to get some medical help:
"Thanks for the info. I'll find out about the full wave scans and any
residual striae and haze this Monday.
I'm doing okay, but I do find this whole experience to be very
draining. I just found out my mother if full of cancer, and it kills me
I that I can't stop obsessing about my eyes and my diminishing finances
to be more positive for her sake. Funny, I honestly woke up almost
every day with a perma grin, but now I'm just a shadow of who I used to
be. This shit just seems to whittle you down until, in my case I
don't recognize anything about the person I've become."
Contacted by two new patients this week. They're absolutely wrecked by
refractivesurgery. Sorry, I just can't sit back and do nothing, say
nothing.
Doctors who could speak out to stop these practices and don't are just
as guilty as the butchers masquerading as medical doctors who destroyed
these patients' vision in the first place.
It's not a matter of improper screening --- the so-called 'best'
candidates can have their lives ruined by LASIK. LASIK harmsevery eye
it touches.
| |
| CatmanX 2005-11-19, 5:59 pm |
| Lasik does not necessarily harm each eye it touches. What you are doing
is taking a few cases and making out this is what happens in every
case, sort of like VISX.
I deal with real Lasik patients each day. many have worse corrected
vision than prior to surgery, many have residual corrections and walk
around marginally out of focus, many have night driving problemsThere
is one thing that still astounds me years down the track: they would
nearly all do it again, and in almost every case are happy, if not
ecstatic, with the outcome.
There are some shoddy surgeons out there, but most are good and want
the best outcomes for their patients.
Problems can occur, but this is why I select the surgeon for my
patients, as better testing and preoperative care reduces problems
dramatically and allows resolution of surgical issues.
I am more anti-RS than most, but I am a pragmatist, RS is here, it
exists and people will get it done. The doctors don't drag you in and
strap you down, people walk (if not run) into their surgeries and
demand this being done. Those with problems then want to blame the
doctor, or in Brent's case, the doctors who didn't even do the surgery
and didn't own the clinic he went to (by the way, Brent asked to have
RS too, he wasn't forced into it).
I see my job as pointing out problems, working out how to alleviate
problems and looking at ways of getting the industry to look forward to
improved technology and better outcomes. Calling doctors butchers is
neither accurate or helpful in any way. Do you know what the real
issues are for these people? What can you do? name calling doctors
won't help. For what it's worth, I get contacted by 30-40 patients each
week, all wanting fixes, some you can help, some you can't. Sometimes
it is heartbreaking, sometimes uplifting, but all we can do is keep
pushing forwards. The outcomes are now decidedly better than a few
years ago and hopefuuly the problem rate will continue to fall.
Cheers,
grant
| |
| serebel 2005-11-20, 1:01 am |
| Grant,
Eye is just making up these so called people who had all these so
called disasters.
|
| |
|
|