Lasik Eyes Surgery - Healthy Eyes?

Author

Healthy Eyes?

Ragnar

2005-03-19, 6:22 pm

One popular theme of the anti-lasik people is that surgery should not
be performed on healthy eyes. I agree entirely! I have seen people
with nearly perfect vision have LASIK done.
Now just what are "healthy eyes"? I certainly didn't consider my
myopic eyes giving me 20/800 vision to be "healthy".
When any part of the body is not funcioning acceptably, I would not
call it healthy. Here's a few examples that come to mind... a cleft
palette is perfectly "healthy" tissue, however it's horrible to look
at and funcionally a problem... is that healthy? Various skin tabs
and lumps and bumps are disease free tissue.. but are they "healthy"?
hardly.

Without rambling on, I don't consider any part of the body that is not
functioning properly to be healthy.

Now.. here's examples of what I am very much against... any type of
body piercing, tattoos, and those "eye decorations" where a sliver of
one's birthstone is inserted into the scleral region of the eye.
These are all surgeries. Surgery for decoration should be banned. It
amazes me that piercings and tattoos can be done with no medical
training at all. Both of those procedures involve a considerable
amount of blood and considerable pain and risk of infection. How they
get away with having non-physicians doing such things is incredible.

damageddoc@yahoo.com

2005-03-19, 6:22 pm

Christopher,

I was forwarned that you are not very bright. I'll try to keep this
simple by sharing this analogy provided by a notable LASIK rehab
specialist. Your eyes before LASIK were like a Nikon camera - they may
have needed special lenses, but the most aberration-free optical system
you are likely to ever have is the one you were born with - before
LASIK. After LASIK, eyes are like a cheap dimestore box camera. Why?
Because of scattering from the untreated regions of the cornea, from
the flap interface, and from a flattened and irregular corneal surface
(the flap folds down into the 'crater' generated by LASIK in
unpredictable ways). FYI, Bowmans crinkles are a universal finding in
post-LASIKs and of course we all know about higher order aberrations
induced by the LASIK procedure. All these factors contribute to
decreased optical quality of the eye, and a degraded retinal image.

Let's talk about your ocular surface health for a moment - specifically
about corneal surface irregularity and tear breakup time (TBUT)
alteration. I had this phenomenon explained to me in elegant detail by
a leading cornea and eye surface disease specialist. True, TBUT depends
on the aqueous tear layer and the lipid component. However, the
condition of the corneal surface is just as important. "Wetability" is
a property that the healthy cornea possesses. "Healthy" meaning smooth
and round with normal epithelial cells and a good coat of mucin. Now
slice and flatten that smooth cornea, crinkle it up some, and stress
out the epithelial cells and what you have is a surface that is
difficult to wet and keep wet...i.e., low TBUT. It's analogous to a
coral reef protruding above the water's surface. The crevices channel
water away and the parts that reside above the water break up the film
and dry out.

Couple this with the nerve damage caused during the creation of the
LASIK flap and subsequent lasering and you have a recipe for ocular
surface disease. An unhealthy eye. Loss of corneal nerve sensation can
also decrase blink rate, exacerbating the problem. Still don't believe
LASIK damages the cornea? A study examining post-LASIK corneas by
histology found that all post-LASIK corneas demonstrate pathology. This
means the eyes are sick after LASIK, Christopher. All of them. Yours
too.

See below:

Study shows permanent pathologic changes present in all post-LASIK
corneas

Pathologic Findings in Postmortem Corneas After Successful Laser In
Situ Keratomileusis.

Cornea. 24(1):92-102, January 2005.

Kramer, Theresa R MD, MBA; Chuckpaiwong, Varintorn MD; Dawson, Daniel G
MD; L'Hernault, Nancy; Grossniklaus, Hans E MD; Edelhauser, Henry F PHD

Abstract:
Purpose: To examine the histologic and ultrastructural features of
human corneas after successful laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK).

Methods: Corneas from 48 eyes of 25 postmortem patients were processed
for histology and transmission electron microscopy (TEM). The 25
patients had LASIK between 3 months and 7 years prior to death.
Evaluation of all 5 layers of the cornea and the LASIK flap interface
region was done using routine histology, periodic acid-Schiff
(PAS)-stained specimens, toluidine blue-stained thick sections, and
TEM.

Results: In patients for whom visual acuity was known, the first
postoperative day uncorrected visual acuity was 20/15 to 20/30. In
patients for whom clinical records were available, the postoperative
corneal topography was normal and clinical examination showed a
semicircular ring of haze at the wound margin of the LASIK flap.
Histologically, the LASIK flap measured, on average, 142.7 [mu]m
(range, 100-200). A spectrum of abnormal histopathologic and
ultrastructural findings was present in all corneas. Findings at the
flap surface included elongated basal epithelial cells, epithelial
hyperplasia, thickening and undulations of the epithelial basement
membrane (EBM), and undulations of Bowman's layer. Findings in or
adjacent to the wound included collagen lamellar disarray; activated
keratocytes; quiescent keratocytes with small vacuoles; epithelial
ingrowth; eosinophilic deposits; PAS-positive, electron-dense granular
material interspersed with randomly ordered collagen fibrils; increased
spacing between collagen fibrils; and widely spaced banded collagen.
There was no observable correlation between postoperative intervals and
the severity or type of pathologic change except for the accumulation
the electron-dense granular material.

Conclusions: Permanent pathologic changes were present in all
post-LASIK corneas. These changes were most prevalent in the lamellar
interface wound. These changes along with other pathologic alterations
in post-LASIK corneas may change the functionality of the cornea after
LASIK.

Richard Wood

2005-03-19, 6:22 pm

damageddoc@yahoo.com barfed:

> Christopher,
>
> I was forwarned that you are not very bright. I'll try to keep this
> simple by sharing this analogy provided by a notable LASIK rehab
> specialist.

<snip>

Funny isn't it that people like me, and thousands of others, have
had great results from LASIK. And I'm still getting great results
approx 5.5 years later.

You seem to assume every LASIK operatee will suffer from every problem
there is to be suffered from. Sorry to disillusion you, but whilst
these minor problems may exist in all LASIK patients, they make
absolutely no difference to my sight. No reduced contrast. No problems
driving at night.

Now please don't think I'm belittling your plight, and I do hope they
develop a solution that can "fix" you soon, but what you're implying in
your posts is just not true.

Educate prospective LASIK patients, don't scaremonger.

--
frag

damageddoc@yahoo.com

2005-03-19, 6:22 pm

You were lucky, Richard because many have been harmed and had their
lives ruined by LASIK, an elective and medically unneccessary
procedure. Richard, you may THINK that you do not have reduced
constrast sensitivity because you don't have a 'good' eye to compare
with. You deserved to know up front that you would lose some visual
quality with LASIK surgery. Perhaps you would have elected to go
forward with the operation anyway, but you would have made something
closer to an 'informed consent' if you had known that your contrast
sensitivity and corneal integrity would be compromised.
It's a fact that LASIK surgeons disagree on how much residual stromal
tissue is required under the bed to be 'safe' from ectasia. An accepted
standard has been 250 microns, however patients with 300 microns have
deveopled ectasia. Sandy Keller was recently contacted by a woman who
developed ectasia years after her 'successful' LASIK surgery. No
scaremongering needed, Richard - LASIK is dangerous business and this
fact needs to become part of the public consciousness pronto before
more lives are ruined. Every LASIK patient is a ticking time bomb for a
future complication.

serebel

2005-03-19, 6:22 pm

Sandy Keller makes up these "people" as she goes along just to feed the
frenzy.

SErebel

doctor_my_eye@msn.com

2005-03-19, 6:22 pm

This is the type of disgusting and contempful response that damages any
credibility yoiu once had, SERebel. In any context, you are "outing"
the damaged patient. You are lying that the patient does not exist, so
that when they come forward they can be subject to your ridicule.
There are physicians, nurses, lab technicians and even ophthalmologists
that have told me personally that they could never post here because
they don't have the "stomach" for your ridicule.
I encourage them to remain anonymous, but tell their story whenever
they can. They have been violated once already, they don't need to
deal with scum like you and Ragnar.

damageddoc@yahoo.com

2005-03-19, 6:22 pm

I know the person who was elected to contact the family of this
individual, and the patient most surely does exist - and is enduring a
frightening and vision-compromising emergency. SErebels comment was
unconscionable. Unusual! SE rebels comments are usually merely stupid.

Richard Wood

2005-03-19, 6:22 pm

damageddoc@yahoo.com barfed:

> You were lucky, Richard because many have been harmed and had their
> lives ruined by LASIK, an elective and medically unneccessary
> procedure. Richard, you may THINK that you do not have reduced
> constrast sensitivity because you don't have a 'good' eye to compare
> with.

The contrast sensitivity I have is perfectly good enough for all the
day to day (and night to night) things I do. I used to drive around the
Lake District in Cumbria (in the UK) before I moved to where I am now,
so I have a lot of experience in how my eyes performed at night under
difficult conditions (dark country lanes with the occasional headlights
coming towards me). I can still drive in the same situations and as far
as I can determine, see the same amount of detail, and my eyes recover
just as fast when the headlights go out of view, as they did. So whilst
technical measurements may show I do indeed have reduced contrast
sensitivity, it hasn't affected my life.

> You deserved to know up front that you would lose some visual
> quality with LASIK surgery.

I did know. I spent about 3 months doing all sorts of research and
weeks talking to the doctor about things.

I decided that for me, the risk was worth taking.

I mean, I could get killed tomorrow driving somewhere. I've spent the
past 3.75 years with a broken leg trying to get it to heal, which I got
from a motorbike accident (which wasn't my fault).

Life is full of risks. If I could rewind time would I not ride
motorbikes? No way. I love them. (and I only rode for a couple of years
before the accident)

> No scaremongering needed, Richard - LASIK is dangerous

No, not *is* but *maybe*

> business and this fact needs to become part of the public
> consciousness pronto before more lives are ruined. Every LASIK

No, again, not *are* but *are possibly*, and *every* -> *some*

> patient is a ticking time bomb for a future complication.

Again, without wishing to belittle anyone who has experienced any
problems, what is the percentage for problems post LASIK? 5%? Thats 95%
happy patients. So saying *is* and *Every* is just plain silly isn't it?
Heck, I've had 6 operations on my leg, spent a total of more than 24
hours under general anasthetic and the knife. I know full well that the
chance of dying on the operating table is about 1% or slightly more,
but that fact will not stop me if I need more ops. It doesn't stop the
vast majority of people. The MRSA bug doesn't stop the majority of
people going to hospital. (I'm aware that LASIK is regarded by people
as a kind of cosmetic surgery and the ops on my leg were anything but,
but thats not the point I'm making, its that if there is a risk that
something bad will happen in something, you can't say every person
doing that thing *WILL* suffer, otherwise I'd be dead!)

I completely agree that patients need to be made aware of the full
facts and risks involved and *potential* problems that *may* arise, and
then they can make a properly informed decision as to wether the risk
is worth it to them. To shove "perfect" advertising waffle under their
noses, extolling the virtues of a "miracle cure" is misleading them and
I'm glad that (as far as I know) in the UK we've got laws preventing
that sort of misleading advertising happening.

--
frag

serebel

2005-03-19, 6:23 pm

doctor_my_eye@msn.com wrote:
> This is the type of disgusting and contempful response that damages
any
> credibility yoiu once had, SERebel. In any context, you are "outing"
> the damaged patient. You are lying that the patient does not exist,
so
> that when they come forward they can be subject to your ridicule.
> There are physicians, nurses, lab technicians and even
ophthalmologists
> that have told me personally that they could never post here because
> they don't have the "stomach" for your ridicule.
> I encourage them to remain anonymous, but tell their story whenever
> they can. They have been violated once already, they don't need to
> deal with scum like you and Ragnar.

Okay Minarik,

I'll spell it out for you. I posted about Sandy Keller not any one
else.
I see your reading comprehension still sucks.

SErebel

Ragnar

2005-03-19, 6:23 pm

This is ripe...
Dr. Minarik calling anyone else disgusting and contemptful.
What is disgusting is that Dr. Minarik has a valid license to practice
for the moment.
It reminds me of some triva:
The term "nutty as a fruitcake" originated from former barber turned
mafia kingpin Frank Nitty. Al Capone was released from Alcatraz early
because his mind was literally being eaten away by untreated syphilis.
After that, Frank visited Al in Florida where Al was fishing in his
swimming pool. Someone asked Frank how Al was.. and he said "Al is as
nutty as a fruitcake!"
I just thought I'd add that tidbit of historical trivia so a post
regarding Dr. Insanity wouldn't be a complete waste of time.

On 20 Feb 2005 12:56:00 -0800, doctor_my_eye@msn.com wrote:

>This is the type of disgusting and contempful response that damages any
>credibility yoiu once had, SERebel. In any context, you are "outing"
>the damaged patient. You are lying that the patient does not exist, so
>that when they come forward they can be subject to your ridicule.
>There are physicians, nurses, lab technicians and even ophthalmologists
>that have told me personally that they could never post here because
>they don't have the "stomach" for your ridicule.
>I encourage them to remain anonymous, but tell their story whenever
>they can. They have been violated once already, they don't need to
>deal with scum like you and Ragnar.

Ragnar

2005-03-19, 6:23 pm

I know the neighbor of the gardener of the lady whose son went to
school with somebody who knew...
Spare us your baloney D.D. you know the person that was elected to
contact the family of the individual? Was this individual's name
Kevin Bacon?

On 20 Feb 2005 13:42:50 -0800, damageddoc@yahoo.com wrote:

>I know the person who was elected to contact the family of this
>individual, and the patient most surely does exist - and is enduring a
>frightening and vision-compromising emergency. SErebels comment was
>unconscionable. Unusual! SE rebels comments are usually merely stupid.

Ragnar

2005-03-19, 6:23 pm

Well.. one thing that should not be overlooked about Keller is that
her condition is largely the result of misleading information, lies,
and incompetence of doctors she trusted. Doctors much like Minarik.

This is a good time to recall that one Dr Friedman is constantly on
the theme that LASIK is bad and ophthalmologists should not be
performing it.... yet he is also on the theme that optometrists SHOULD
be permitted to perform LASIK... hmmmm... very interesting.

On 20 Feb 2005 18:59:02 -0800, "serebel" <serebel@aol.com> wrote:

>
>doctor_my_eye@msn.com wrote:
>any
>so
>ophthalmologists
>
>Okay Minarik,
>
>I'll spell it out for you. I posted about Sandy Keller not any one
>else.
>I see your reading comprehension still sucks.
>
>SErebel

Sandy - LASIKdisaster.com - LASIKmemorial.com

2005-03-19, 6:23 pm

I take it that serebel has been writing about me again. I never see
"its" posts, so I usually don't know, but I have to deduce this from
Dr. Minarik and Ragnar's posts. Since "it" doesn't seem to be able
to stop posting about me, I have to wonder if "it" is jealous or
obsessed or something. I wonder if I have met "it" in person...maybe
at a lasik support group meeting? Did I do something to tick "it" off?
Did I fail to pay "it" the attention "it" wanted?

serebel

2005-03-19, 6:23 pm

Aw Sandy,

"it" hurts. "it"won't be waiting by the mailbox for your next greeting
card.

SErebel