|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > November 2005 > Contact Lens and Spectacle Industries Show Tremendous Growth
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 |
Contact Lens and Spectacle Industries Show Tremendous Growth
|
|
| doctor_my_eye@msn.com 2005-11-23, 10:59 am |
| One of the myths about LASIK is that it has "replaced" contact lenses.
According to the November Issue of "Review of Optometry," the June 2005
contact lens market was 40 million wearers in the U.S. alone! That's a
20% increase from 1998's 33.2 million wearers. The spectacle market
just hit 146 million wearers in the US, down 2% from 2002.
All the boasting about the 2 million LASIK patients sure looks kinda
small after looking at the big picture.
| |
| doctor_my_eye@msn.com 2005-11-23, 10:59 am |
| Another note....even though the spectacle lens and frame market shrunk
by 2%, those 146 million glasses wearers spent 15 BILLION dollars on
glasses in the past 12 months, the same as the "glory year" of 2000
before LASIK ads were all over the media.
| |
| Sheila G. 2005-11-23, 10:59 am |
| What is so surprising about that?
"There are now more people over 65 in our population than there are
teenagers."
"Every day in America, 10,068 people turn 50"
"The number of Americans over 65 is expected to double by 2030 to 65
million; 9 million will be over 85, compared with 4 million today."
University of Nevada
| |
|
| many of those wear glasses for reading or driving only. Many of the
contact wearers dont wear contacts full time either. But yea its much
more popular than lasik cause its cheaper and safer and many arent
candidates or dont like the lasik risks
| |
| Ragnar 2005-11-23, 10:59 am |
| What is your problem Dr. Demento?
Is there some contest of contacts vs lasik?
Who is boasting about how many contacts or lasik procedures are done
other than you?
If you want to be useful, since you can't do lasik, you can still
improve people's vision by encouraging them to use rigid contacts
instead of soft ones. Soft contacts do a very poor job of correcting
for astigmatism.
You really need to retire. No matter how much experience and knowlege
you have, you are mentally off your rocker. An elderly relative of
mine is the same way. He is extremely knowlegeable and has a lifetime
of experience, but is also going senile and is not mentally fit to be
doing his job anymore.
And while we are at it, only 3% of LASIK patiens have complaints 6
months after surgery, and that percentage drops off considerably over
time. 5% of contact lens wearers have complains during their entire
lifetime! In fact, they have MORE complaints the longer they wear
them.
On 23 Nov 2005 07:27:43 -0800, "doctor_my_eye@msn.com"
<doctor_my_eye@msn.com> wrote:
>One of the myths about LASIK is that it has "replaced" contact lenses.
>According to the November Issue of "Review of Optometry," the June 2005
>contact lens market was 40 million wearers in the U.S. alone! That's a
>20% increase from 1998's 33.2 million wearers. The spectacle market
>just hit 146 million wearers in the US, down 2% from 2002.
>
>All the boasting about the 2 million LASIK patients sure looks kinda
>small after looking at the big picture.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-11-23, 10:59 am |
| I don't know that I've ever heard anyone in the industry claim that
LASIK was going to replace glasses or contacts. LASIK has been
performed on only about 5% of those who would likely be eligible. At
an average of $3912 for both eyes, not everyone will consider
refractive eye surgery an attainable alternative to contacts and/or
glasses.
According David Harmon, President of MarketScope, about 685,000
individuals in the US have refractive surgery each year -1.4 million
procedures. Incidentally, about 8% of those patients requested a
direct referral to a CRSQA Certified Refractive Surgeon through out
website, representing about $214 million of the market.
It may be that the trend will change in the future, but it seems that
the current volume of refractive surgery patients is consistent with
the number of new candidates entering the US market. That would mean
that refractive surgery has just about met the point of maintenance
saturation.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
USAEyes.org
"Consider and Choose With Confidence"
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
| doctor_my_eye@msn.com 2005-11-23, 12:55 pm |
| The spectacle and contact lens industries have had a "gut check"
reaction to LASIK, even when the actual threat to their well being
wasn't really there. For example, the new emphasis on extended wear
contact lenses is a "fear response" to LASIK, to attempt to make
contacts seem as effortless and maintenance-free as possible. I hold
the opinion that continuous wear of contact lenses is based on bad
science, or pop culture...but not on the true needs of an eyeball under
a closed eyelid while sleeping. It seems that every frame salesman who
has had a bad year or contact rep that is complaining about market
share is complaining about LASIK, but their fears are not really based
on much reality.
| |
|
| you are very correct about sleeping in contacts as a competition to
lasik. Truth is sleeping in contacts is very bad for your eyes. In fact
I believe its even worse than lasik! However its a moot point since
there is NO point sleeping in contacts(ortho-k is one but thats a
different story and still risky) My own optometrist said its very bad
and he gets patients all the time that ruin their eyes sleeping in
contacts, any kind, even focus day and night. Its sad they are too lazy
to practice inserting and removing contacts. I can do that in one
minute! Contact lenses are quite safe if used correctly, pescribed
correctly, cared for correctly and not slept in. Many people are just
careless and ruin their eyes. Lasik can ruin eyes, so can contacts.
| |
|
| In article <1132772302.192321.132410@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Lasik can ruin eyes, so can contacts.
So can hot pokers.
--
~RT
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-11-24, 1:00 am |
| If the optometric side of the industry has anything to fear, it is not
LASIK. What they probably should fear is wavefront. IMO this
diagnostic is so far ahead of anything else in the average
optometrist's office that it seems almost malpractice for patients not
to receive routine wavefront analysis.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
USAEyes.org
"Consider and Choose With Confidence"
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
| serebel 2005-11-24, 1:00 am |
|
doctor_my_eye@msn.com wrote:
> One of the myths about LASIK is that it has "replaced" contact lenses.
> According to the November Issue of "Review of Optometry," the June 2005
> contact lens market was 40 million wearers in the U.S. alone! That's a
> 20% increase from 1998's 33.2 million wearers. The spectacle market
> just hit 146 million wearers in the US, down 2% from 2002.
>
> All the boasting about the 2 million LASIK patients sure looks kinda
> small after looking at the big picture.
No one says lasik replaced lenses. Lots of people cannot have RS for
various reasons.
How does the increase in CL sales make RS look bad?
| |
| Ragnar 2005-11-24, 10:59 am |
| Everything is money with you.
BTW.. those glasses sales are largely the $150 frames that the
opticians buy for $5
Glasses are fine for farsighted people and Kareem Abdul Jabbar...
everyone else needs contacts or LASIK
On 23 Nov 2005 08:14:04 -0800, "doctor_my_eye@msn.com"
<doctor_my_eye@msn.com> wrote:
>Another note....even though the spectacle lens and frame market shrunk
>by 2%, those 146 million glasses wearers spent 15 BILLION dollars on
>glasses in the past 12 months, the same as the "glory year" of 2000
>before LASIK ads were all over the media.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-11-24, 10:59 am |
| Good point.. even though contacts can be removed... they still have a
far higher complaint rate than LASIK.
On 23 Nov 2005 08:39:40 -0800, "Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote:
>many of those wear glasses for reading or driving only. Many of the
>contact wearers dont wear contacts full time either. But yea its much
>more popular than lasik cause its cheaper and safer and many arent
>candidates or dont like the lasik risks
| |
| Ragnar 2005-11-24, 10:59 am |
| One thing that disgusts me is that the fees for eye exams have not
increased much at all in 20 years. They certainly have not kept up
with inflation. There are some places that give FREE eye exams if
you buy glasses.
On 23 Nov 2005 09:49:16 -0800, "doctor_my_eye@msn.com"
<doctor_my_eye@msn.com> wrote:
>The spectacle and contact lens industries have had a "gut check"
>reaction to LASIK, even when the actual threat to their well being
>wasn't really there. For example, the new emphasis on extended wear
>contact lenses is a "fear response" to LASIK, to attempt to make
>contacts seem as effortless and maintenance-free as possible. I hold
>the opinion that continuous wear of contact lenses is based on bad
>science, or pop culture...but not on the true needs of an eyeball under
>a closed eyelid while sleeping. It seems that every frame salesman who
>has had a bad year or contact rep that is complaining about market
>share is complaining about LASIK, but their fears are not really based
>on much reality.
| |
| CatmanX 2005-11-24, 10:59 am |
| Not so, Glenn. As with all new technology, anything worth having will
prove itself as a viable and reliable technique in the first
generation. After that, the mass market will decide to buy in and the
cost of such will drop to an affordable (acceptable) level.
The problem with wavefront is there is little benefit of spending the
money as you can't do anything with it. Eventually, aberration control
will be incorporated into lens design and things will change. One
international lens manufacturer (that I know of) is already looking at
incorporating aberration control in its next generation of multifocals
and high tech SV lens range, but there is no point manufacturing until
optoms have the gear to test with.
When it finally hits, wavefront may make glasses so much better that
noone wants RS!!! Moreso, it may make RS redundant by improving optics
to a degree noone goes myopic anymore.
Cheers,
dr grant
| |
|
| Wavefront glasses already are out. Several people have said its a
gimmic and it makes no measurable difference for 9 out of 10 people. My
friend who had a bad lasik experience knows others with bad lasik
experience who got wavefront glasses. It didnt help them so back to
custom RGP lenses for them. Its already a fact RGP lenses are famous
for giving exceptionally crisp vision and are popular for those with a
high refractive error, especially with lots of astigmastim. Sorry
Grant, I dont see lasik going away in the next 10-20 years. Its very
useful for soldiers, pilots, athlates and those working in jobs where
glasses/contacts just wont work out. Take an athlate whos a swimmer and
dives, he wont be able to use glasses and definately not contacts. Then
its either ortho-k or refractive surgury for him or go with blurry
vision.
"BTW.. those glasses sales are largely the $150 frames that the
opticians buy for $5"
you can bring your own frames. Buy some reading glasses, pop out the
lenses and hand them that frame and just pay for the lenses. If you
dont need tint, antiglare, antiscratch, high index, progressives, etc
you can get lenses cheap then. They make their money with the
"features" on the lense. It costs like a dollar to put various coatings
on the lense but charge quite a few for that. High index isnt even
needed for lower amounts of refractive errors.
"Good point.. even though contacts can be removed... they still have a
far higher complaint rate than LASIK."
technicially yes, but this is the rules of averages which include all
those who sleep in their contacts and dont care for them. I think
contacts are safer than lasik if you properly care for them and dont
sleep in them. If you dont take proper care then yes your just asking
for trouble. My own optometrist warns against sleeping in contacts, he
told me patients come in all the time with ruined eyes from sleeping in
their contacts. I think those people should probably just get lasik if
they want crisp vision 24/7
|
| |
|
|