|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > November 2005 > Testing for and Treating Dry Eye
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 |
Testing for and Treating Dry Eye
|
|
|
|
PRIMARY CARE OPTOMETRY NEWS 11/1/2005
Individualize dry eye treatment regimens for each patient
Take advantage of various diagnostic methods available to determine if
the cause is aqueous tear deficiency or meibomian gland dysfunction.
William Townsend, OD; Annie Plumer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ocular surface disease (OSD), namely dry eye syndrome, is an
increasingly prevalent condition in our society, affecting an estimated
11% to 22% of the population. The increase is due to many factors,
including an expanding "senior" segment, swelling numbers of
patients taking drugs with anti-cholinergic properties (such as
systemic antihistamines), changes in diet and heating/cooling systems
that remove much of the ambient moisture from the air. OSD is
characterized by a wide spectrum of symptoms, including dryness,
burning, stinging, grittiness, foreign body sensation, blurred vision
and increased sensitivity to light. OSD may eventually lead to
structural damage to the ocular surface.
Shifts in hormone levels, similar to those found in menopause, and some
autoimmune disorders are strongly associated with ocular dryness.
Severing of corneal nerves in procedures such as LASIK causes changes
in corneal sensitivity, which has been well documented as a cause of
dry eye.
Full article at
http://www.pconsupersite.com/default.asp?ID=11620
| |
| serebel 2005-11-23, 1:00 am |
| The first three paragraphs are correct and worth reporting.
The little anti lasik spin at the end is distorted. It does not cause
permanent dry eye in every patient.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-11-23, 1:00 am |
| It doesn't cause permanent dry eye in any patient.
On 22 Nov 2005 19:43:11 -0800, "serebel" <serebel@aol.com> wrote:
>The first three paragraphs are correct and worth reporting.
>The little anti lasik spin at the end is distorted. It does not cause
>permanent dry eye in every patient.
| |
|
| You two are in denial. What studies are you quoting? By what
authority do you make your claims?
| |
|
| my mild dry eyes is another contridiction to lasik. If your eyes are
too dry to comfortabily wear contacts, this may become worse with lasik
| |
| Ragnar 2005-11-23, 10:59 am |
| And you are out of your mind.
You seem incapable of telling the truth, and you can't seem to tell
the same lie twice either.
And speaking of authority... considering your expertise is in selling
polyester wedding gowns and white sneakers with glitter glued on them
for discount weddings.
I am amazed that other people in this newsgroup tolerate you at all.
Your long history of lies is outrageous.
On 22 Nov 2005 22:17:31 -0800, "Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>You two are in denial. What studies are you quoting? By what
>authority do you make your claims?
| |
| Ragnar 2005-11-23, 10:59 am |
| The dryness associated with LASIK is very common, and is temporary,
and has nothing to do with the condition known as dry eye.
On 23 Nov 2005 06:30:24 -0800, "Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote:
>my mild dry eyes is another contridiction to lasik. If your eyes are
>too dry to comfortabily wear contacts, this may become worse with lasik
| |
| Lasik Complications 2005-11-25, 5:57 pm |
| Blood pressure, blood pressure, blood pressure, sounds to me like you
are jealous that Sandy has her own business. What difference what cost
the wedding is? Have you had one lately? And of course everyone
except you is a liar. Hang in there Sandy, even if they get mad at
you. Let their blood pressure go up, even with my depression, it tends
to tickle me that in the marching band everyone is out of step except
Johnny or in this case (Ragnar). Not that it matters or makes a
difference but you surely have a lot of hate inside of you.
Lasik Complications
| |
| Ragnar 2005-11-25, 5:57 pm |
| Blood pressure.. hardly. I would characterize it as boredom.
I have nothing against anybody's job as long as they do it well. I
have more respect for a person that cleans toilets and gets them nice
and clean than I do for a doctor who treats patients like a statistic
and provides mediocre care.
However, her credibility could in eye care could not be lower. She
is terrible in that she INTENTIONALLY lies and misleads people. She
is not as ignorant as one might assume. She is WORSE than ignorant,
she intentionally distorts reality.
At least Hanson tries to be credible when posting under his own name.
But his mental illness is another problem. Hanson is consistent.
Here's a general example: Hanson might say "2+2=5" and the next day
he would also say "2+2=5" and a year later, he would still say "2+2=5"
Sandy on the other hand, would say "2+2=5" then the next day say
"2+2=7" then the next day say "2+2=22" then the next day something
else... then a year later she would say "I never said any of that!"
Hanson has a deep bias, Sandy is just a patholigical liar - and
there is no reason for anybody to pay any attention to her.
On 25 Nov 2005 11:17:27 -0800, "Lasik Complications"
<galin99do@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Blood pressure, blood pressure, blood pressure, sounds to me like you
>are jealous that Sandy has her own business. What difference what cost
>the wedding is? Have you had one lately? And of course everyone
>except you is a liar. Hang in there Sandy, even if they get mad at
>you. Let their blood pressure go up, even with my depression, it tends
>to tickle me that in the marching band everyone is out of step except
>Johnny or in this case (Ragnar). Not that it matters or makes a
>difference but you surely have a lot of hate inside of you.
>Lasik Complications
| |
|
| The nerve damage from refractive surgery demonstrated to be long term
and can be assumed to be permanent since the decline was decreasing
toward the end of the study... It actually gets worse between years 2
and 3, which is the last peer-reviewed published update from the Mayo
Clinic. The Mayo Clinic actually measured the corneal nerve loss with a
confocal microscope. Here is the reference. Show us a reference that
shows that corneal nerves recover, Ragnar. In a peer-reviewed journal.
Some patients have induced dry eye from refractive surgery that is so
severe they are disabled by it. The misinformation you are spreading is
vulgar and offensive.
Corneal Nerve Damage Continues to Increase years 2-3 after LASIK
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...5047&query_hl=2
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004 Nov;45(11):3991-6.
Corneal reinnervation after LASIK: prospective 3-year longitudinal
study.
Calvillo MP, McLaren JW, Hodge DO, Bourne WM.
Department of Ophthalmology, Mayo Clinic college of Medicine,
Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
Excerpts:
Between 2 and 3 years they [corneal nerves] decreased again, so that at
3 years the numbers remained <60% of the pre-LASIK numbers (P <0.001).
Both subbasal and stromal corneal nerves in LASIK flaps recover slowly
and do not return to preoperative densities by 3 years after LASIK. The
numbers of subbasal nerves appear to decrease between 2 and 3 years
after LASIK.
| |
|
| Who would you like to believe, Ragnar or the past President of the
American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery testifying for the
FDA?
>From the FDA transcripts:
Dr. I Howard Fine, Past President of the American Society of Cataract
and Refractive Surgery:
"As we all know, Lasik transects the cornea nerves, therefore inducing
dry eyes in most patients."
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac...ipts/3806t1.doc
| |
| Ragnar 2005-11-26, 10:58 am |
| What do you mean Ragnor OR the past President.??
We both AGREE and he is right..
Lasik does transect the corneal nevers and does induce dry eyes in
most patients. However, there is more to it than that... 33% or 66%
of the nerves are severed.. not 100%. The nerves are microscopic and
translucent.. and they do regenerate. Dry eyes is referring to the
TEMPORARY (3 months) of dryness following LASIK which has absolutely
nothing to do with the condition known as "Dry Eye" Dry eye is a
chronic, usually permanent condition which is severre. The dryness of
"dry eye" is a result of an entirely different processes in the eye.
Saying that "anyone with dry eyes has "dry eye" is like saying anyone
who coughs has tuberculosis or than anyone who sneezes has pneumonia.
Note that in the subject line, "Eye" aka Hanson said "Dry Eye" when
the document referenced clearly says dry eyes.
Again, "Dry Eye" is the name given to a very serious condition which
has nothing whatsoever to do with temporary dry eyes (dryness).
What is annoying is that this topic has been covered thoroughly dozens
of times here. "Eye" isn't stupid, he KNOWS the difference between
dry eyes and "Dry Eye". However, he chooses to intentionally and
maliciously deceive others into thinking that dry eyes = "dry eye"
Here's 2 more analogies... if someone's eyes are bloodshot, one might
describe them as having pink eyes. That does not mean they have the
condition known as "pink eye". Also, if someone eats at Taco Bell
and gets heartburn (which is actually an irritation of the stomach
which sits next to the heart) does not mean their heart is burning or
affected in any way at all.
Finally, note how Hanson (Eye) has misused a quote of a credible
expert to support his garbage. This is a classic Sandy trick in which
the subject line actually actually contradicts the content of the
message. Unfortunately, many people only look at the subject line and
don't read the supporting text closely.
It would be nice if the other people in this newsgroup who know what
they are talking about would point out the deceptive tricks of the
handful of malcontent kooks that infect this newsgroup and other
forums. I used to point them out daily as the "axis of evil" Keller,
Hanson, Link. All the other malcontents combined don't put out as
much false and misleading information as any one of the three axis
members.
On 25 Nov 2005 16:26:02 -0800, "Eye" <eyetooamdamaged@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>Who would you like to believe, Ragnar or the past President of the
>American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery testifying for the
>FDA?
>
>Dr. I Howard Fine, Past President of the American Society of Cataract
>and Refractive Surgery:
>
>"As we all know, Lasik transects the cornea nerves, therefore inducing
>dry eyes in most patients."
>http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac...ipts/3806t1.doc
| |
|
| Why would would anyone say that LASIK does NOT cause nerve damage
leading to dry eye that can be permanent when the relationship between
cutting and frying corneal nerves and dry eye is well established?
LASIK severs the corneal nerves. Then the nerves are burned with a
laser. Studies by the Mayo Clinic show that nerve damage is actually
WORSE at the 3 year point than the 2 year point after surgery. In fact,
corneal nerve density is decreased more than 40% at the 3 year mark. A
vicious cycle of dryness from nerve damage...and further nerve damage
from dryness may be initiated by refractive surgery.
The past President of the American Society of Cataract and Refractive
Surgery admitted during FDA hearings that LASIK induces dry eye. Do you
really expect us to believe YOU when you tell us that LASIK has nothing
to do with dry eye? Where is the medical literature that you provide to
back up your point of view?
>From the FDA transcripts:
Dr. I Howard Fine, Past President of the American Society of Cataract
and Refractive Surgery:
"As we all know, Lasik transects the cornea nerves, therefore inducing
dry eyes in most patients."
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac...ipts/3806t1.doc
| |
|
| Why would would anyone say that LASIK does NOT cause nerve damage
leading to dry eye that can be permanent when the relationship between
cutting and frying corneal nerves and dry eye is well established?
LASIK severs the corneal nerves. Then the nerves are burned with a
laser. Studies by the Mayo Clinic show that nerve damage is actually
WORSE at the 3 year point than the 2 year point after surgery. In fact,
corneal nerve density is decreased more than 40% at the 3 year mark. A
vicious cycle of dryness from nerve damage...and further nerve damage
from dryness may be initiated by refractive surgery.
The past President of the American Society of Cataract and Refractive
Surgery admitted during FDA hearings that LASIK induces dry eye. Do you
really expect us to believe YOU when you tell us that LASIK has nothing
to do with dry eye? Where is the medical literature that you provide to
back up your point of view?
>From the FDA transcripts:
Dr. I Howard Fine, Past President of the American Society of Cataract
and Refractive Surgery:
"As we all know, Lasik transects the cornea nerves, therefore inducing
dry eyes in most patients."
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac...ipts/3806t1.doc
| |
| Ragnar 2005-11-26, 12:55 pm |
| You completely ignored by entire previous post.
The article you reference says that LASIK induces dry eyes. That is
true.. lasik usually does induce temporary dryness. That dryness has
absolutely nothing to do with the permanent condition known as "dry
eye".
Also, those nerves do regenerate, and even if they didn't the eyes
adjust to perform with the remaining 1/3rd of the untouched nerves.
On 26 Nov 2005 09:22:57 -0800, "Eye" <eyetooamdamaged@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>Why would would anyone say that LASIK does NOT cause nerve damage
>leading to dry eye that can be permanent when the relationship between
>cutting and frying corneal nerves and dry eye is well established?
>LASIK severs the corneal nerves. Then the nerves are burned with a
>laser. Studies by the Mayo Clinic show that nerve damage is actually
>WORSE at the 3 year point than the 2 year point after surgery. In fact,
>corneal nerve density is decreased more than 40% at the 3 year mark. A
>vicious cycle of dryness from nerve damage...and further nerve damage
>from dryness may be initiated by refractive surgery.
>
>The past President of the American Society of Cataract and Refractive
>Surgery admitted during FDA hearings that LASIK induces dry eye. Do you
>really expect us to believe YOU when you tell us that LASIK has nothing
>to do with dry eye? Where is the medical literature that you provide to
>back up your point of view?
>
>
>Dr. I Howard Fine, Past President of the American Society of Cataract
>and Refractive Surgery:
>
>"As we all know, Lasik transects the cornea nerves, therefore inducing
>dry eyes in most patients."
>http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac...ipts/3806t1.doc
| |
| Ragnar 2005-11-26, 12:55 pm |
| And why do you keep repeating the same misinformation after I have
gone to great lenghts to point out your mistakes? Your claim below
is completely false.
On 26 Nov 2005 09:24:09 -0800, "Eye" <eyetooamdamaged@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>Why would would anyone say that LASIK does NOT cause nerve damage
>leading to dry eye that can be permanent when the relationship between
>cutting and frying corneal nerves and dry eye is well established?
>LASIK severs the corneal nerves. Then the nerves are burned with a
>laser. Studies by the Mayo Clinic show that nerve damage is actually
>WORSE at the 3 year point than the 2 year point after surgery. In fact,
>corneal nerve density is decreased more than 40% at the 3 year mark. A
>vicious cycle of dryness from nerve damage...and further nerve damage
>from dryness may be initiated by refractive surgery.
>
>The past President of the American Society of Cataract and Refractive
>Surgery admitted during FDA hearings that LASIK induces dry eye. Do you
>really expect us to believe YOU when you tell us that LASIK has nothing
>to do with dry eye? Where is the medical literature that you provide to
>back up your point of view?
>
>
>Dr. I Howard Fine, Past President of the American Society of Cataract
>and Refractive Surgery:
>
>"As we all know, Lasik transects the cornea nerves, therefore inducing
>dry eyes in most patients."
>http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac...ipts/3806t1.doc
| |
| serebel 2005-11-27, 12:59 am |
| Eye is the drama queen in the mold of Keller.
| |
| ycdbsoya 2005-11-28, 5:59 pm |
| It just caused dry eye in you, right?
Pretty funny coming from someone who has permanent punctal plugs
installed for a dry eye condition that you claim doesn't exist. Sort of
like using a tampon when you're not menstruating.
| |
| ycdbsoya 2005-11-28, 5:59 pm |
| Boy, your knowledge of biology and physiology is astoundingly
primitive.
Hey if I poke your eye out, it's ok, you'll just grow another one.
| |
| serebel 2005-11-29, 1:01 am |
|
ycdbsoya wrote:
> It just caused dry eye in you, right?
>
> Pretty funny coming from someone who has permanent punctal plugs
> installed for a dry eye condition that you claim doesn't exist. Sort of
> like using a tampon when you're not menstruating.
For the millionth time, nope, no dry eye at all. I haven't used drops
in years, how many times an hour do you douse? You just can't help
yourself, the lies just pour out of you.
| |
| ycdbsoya 2005-11-29, 10:59 am |
| Magic Mirror time for you serebel. People don't use plugs unless they
have dry eye. Period. End of story. Ask any eye professional.
You are the liar and the one in denial. Of course, reading your posts
reveals you to be a primary loon and malcontent here. Just more
projection and transference on your part. Your posts are a road map for
mental illness.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-11-29, 12:59 pm |
| Advice for SERebel.. don't even bother replying to Frank. You and I
have explained this probably over 100 times. Frank just isn't going
to stop lying. Just let him rot in his own lies. Nobody is paying
attenting to him anyway. He is a hypocrite to be criticizing
permanent plugs. He needs to take out that permanent plug in his XXX
which is holding his brains in.
On 29 Nov 2005 08:29:47 -0800, "ycdbsoya" <the_boydstons@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>Magic Mirror time for you serebel. People don't use plugs unless they
>have dry eye. Period. End of story. Ask any eye professional.
>
>You are the liar and the one in denial. Of course, reading your posts
>reveals you to be a primary loon and malcontent here. Just more
>projection and transference on your part. Your posts are a road map for
>mental illness.
| |
| ycdbsoya 2005-11-29, 12:59 pm |
| Back to the scatological thing aye Raggie? Putting up for your weak
little "friend" (the only one here for you)?
That's all you have to offer: weakness and puerile stupidity. You
define it.
| |
| serebel 2005-11-30, 1:02 am |
| Ooh looky, frankie looked up some four dollar words. Impressive.
|
| |
|
|