|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > March 2005 > Visual Effects of Lasik
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 |
Visual Effects of Lasik
|
|
|
| There used to be a web site
http://www.surgicaleyes.com/visual_...ual_effects.htm that showed
the visual effects laser surgery could have to the eye. The effects of
haze, double images, starbursts and halos could all be adjusted to
graphically display the different effects that can be experienced post
operatively. It showed a night scene with traffic signs and automobile
lights. This web site is no longer active, but I was wondering if anyone
knew if perhaps the web site had been moved to a different URL.
| |
|
|
| rebeccaNO_SPAM@lasermyeye.org 2005-03-19, 6:23 pm |
|
Buz wrote:
> There used to be a web site
> http://www.surgicaleyes.com/visual_...ual_effects.htm that
showed
> the visual effects laser surgery could have to the eye. The effects
of
> haze, double images, starbursts and halos could all be adjusted to
> graphically display the different effects that can be experienced
post
> operatively. It showed a night scene with traffic signs and
automobile
> lights. This web site is no longer active, but I was wondering if
anyone
> knew if perhaps the web site had been moved to a different URL.
Try www.visionsimulations.com. It has simulators for starbursts, glare,
floaters, etc.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-03-19, 6:23 pm |
| I really don't understand why you associate with those nuts at all
Glenn. Those Roger Davis images and simulations are extremely
misleading. It's obvious that they are intended to scare people,
while at the same time giving no information about the cause or
treatment of real complications.
It doesn't make sense to me why someone would jump onto the Titanic as
it's making it's descent into oblivion.
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 00:40:44 GMT, Glenn - USAEyes.org
<glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote:
>Try http://www.surgicaleyes.org/ImageCenter.htm where some of the
>image files are still available.
>
>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.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-03-19, 6:23 pm |
| The poster simply wanted to find the images that had been previously
viewed.
I'm just pointing out the appropriate gang plank, not jumping on board
the ship.
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.
| |
| crvc@wyoming.com 2005-03-19, 6:23 pm |
|
The Roger Davis photos are exaggerating the vision problems, but only
slightly. At night I see just about as poorly as the photos describe.
During the day, with good light, much of the ghosting and double vision
is gone. As long as I'm wearing my glasses. If I wear RGP contacts,
probably 80% of the problems are gone.
| |
| Lord Frag 2005-03-19, 6:23 pm |
| rebeccaNO_SPAM@lasermyeye.org barfed:
>
> Buz wrote:
> showed
> of
> post
> automobile
> anyone
>
> Try www.visionsimulations.com. It has simulators for starbursts,
> glare, floaters, etc.
Teeheehee... remembering the effects I had when I had my LASIK done the
pictures on that sight are a right laugh. I'd guess the starburst one
is about 1000%+ more than what I experienced. And the rest (for the
things I noticed) are only a bit better.
And does it say that these effects diminish with time? I didn't read
the waffle.
--
Lord Frag of Legworthiness
BOTAFOT#6, exKoTBOTAFOTL, UKRMHRC#11, BOD#7
| |
| Sandy - LASIKdisaster.com - LASIKmemorial.com 2005-03-19, 6:23 pm |
|
crvc@wyoming.com wrote:
> The Roger Davis photos are exaggerating the vision problems, but only
> slightly.
Maybe in your case, but how can you make a sweeping statement like
that? And how about those who cannot tolerate or be fitted with gas
perms?
Dr. Davis worked very hard on those images to simulate as closely as
possible what some post-ops see. Some would be glad to be able to have
that kind of vision, as bad as it is, rather than what they ended up
with.
| |
| rebeccaNO_SPAM@lasermyeye.org 2005-03-19, 6:23 pm |
|
Sandy - LASIKdisaster.com - LASIKmemorial.com wrote:
> crvc@wyoming.com wrote:
only[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Maybe in your case, but how can you make a sweeping statement like
> that? And how about those who cannot tolerate or be fitted with gas
> perms?
>
> Dr. Davis worked very hard on those images to simulate as closely as
> possible what some post-ops see. Some would be glad to be able to
have
> that kind of vision, as bad as it is, rather than what they ended up
> with.
To the extent such images are used for someone to document and
communicate their personal visual experience I fail to see why anything
to do with the images should give rise to controversy except to the
extent somebody chooses to claim that no such visual effects can ever
be iatrogenic. Obviously, no one is claiming that such effects are
routine.
The simulators are excellent and unique tools. I know surgeons who
would regularly refer patients to the starburst simulator - which makes
all different sizes and types of starbursts - to help their patients
convey exactly what they are seeing. Very valuable for communication
between doctors and patients.
Rebecca Petris
www.lasermyeye.org
| |
| serebel 2005-03-19, 6:23 pm |
|
Sandy - LASIKdisaster.com - LASIKmemorial.com wrote:
> crvc@wyoming.com wrote:
only[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Maybe in your case, but how can you make a sweeping statement like
> that? And how about those who cannot tolerate or be fitted with gas
> perms?
>
> Dr. Davis worked very hard on those images to simulate as closely as
> possible what some post-ops see. Some would be glad to be able to
have
> that kind of vision, as bad as it is, rather than what they ended up
> with.
Hey Kevin,
How do you like being lectured to by the likes of Keller? She won't
stop till everyone "sees" the way she wants you to.
SErebel
| |
| Ragnar 2005-03-19, 6:23 pm |
| Dr. Davis is no Dr. he has a phd, but that doesn't mean you stick a
Dr. in front of his name. Call him professor Davis if you like, or
Roger Davis, Phd. To call him a doctor is misleading at best.
he's also nuts, but that is not the issue today.
On 28 Feb 2005 18:39:51 -0800, "Sandy - LASIKdisaster.com -
LASIKmemorial.com" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>
>crvc@wyoming.com wrote:
>
>Maybe in your case, but how can you make a sweeping statement like
>that? And how about those who cannot tolerate or be fitted with gas
>perms?
>
>Dr. Davis worked very hard on those images to simulate as closely as
>possible what some post-ops see. Some would be glad to be able to have
>that kind of vision, as bad as it is, rather than what they ended up
>with.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-03-19, 6:23 pm |
| Those simulators are garbage and extremely misleading. I WISH there
were good simulators out there.. with an explanation of the cause and
treatment. There isn't
Any doctor who used those simulators to scare his patients should be
sued.
On 28 Feb 2005 18:57:42 -0800, rebeccaNO_SPAM@lasermyeye.org wrote:
>
>Sandy - LASIKdisaster.com - LASIKmemorial.com wrote:
>only
[vbcol=seagreen]
>The simulators are excellent and unique tools. I know surgeons who
>would regularly refer patients to the starburst simulator - which makes
>all different sizes and types of starbursts - to help their patients
>convey exactly what they are seeing. Very valuable for communication
>between doctors and patients.
>
>Rebecca Petris
>www.lasermyeye.org
| |
| crvc@wyoming.com 2005-03-19, 6:23 pm |
| I was in a rush and my post was poorly worded. My problem with the
photos is that I think they were made with a star filter over the
camera lens. The filter is etched to cause light rays to bend in a
regular fashion, creating the starburst effect.
That said, I think that's part of why LASIK can cause starbursts. My
corneas in effect were etched by the laser.
I had a pair of glasses that were badly scratched. Looking through
them I saw starbursts wherever the scratches were. That simulated my
starbursts more than the photos do. For me the starbursts aren't
regular. For the left eye, sharp rays of light streak out from the
real source of light in the 2 O'Clock and 8 O'Clock positions. In the
right eye, the starbursts are regularly positioned all around the point
source of light.
To simulate what I see, you'd need two photos side-by-side with the
starburst patterns I described. Then crossing your eyes so the photos
overlap would be a closer simulation.
I think the photos give people a vague of what they might be stuck
with. But until it happens to you, you won't really appreciate how
HOAs can screw with your life.
| |
| rebeccaNO_SPAM@lasermyeye.org 2005-03-19, 6:23 pm |
|
crvc@wyoming.com wrote:
> I had a pair of glasses that were badly scratched. Looking through
> them I saw starbursts wherever the scratches were. That simulated my
> starbursts more than the photos do. For me the starbursts aren't
> regular. For the left eye, sharp rays of light streak out from the
> real source of light in the 2 O'Clock and 8 O'Clock positions. In the
> right eye, the starbursts are regularly positioned all around the
point
> source of light.
Out of curiosity I played around with the starburst simulator at
www.visionsimulations.com and was able to produce what you described. I
never really looked closely at that simulator till now but I realise
now why it's got so many fans. You can control the direction, opacity
and (to an extent) symmetry, as well as overall size, of the
starbursts, and create anything from the most trivial little bits of
glare on up. Other than the lack of control over the quality of the
background image (which fact is clearly pointed out on the page) I
think it does a good job of simulating how much various types or sizes
of starbursts may or may not distort or obscure vision.
Rebecca Petris
www.lasermyeye.org
| |
|
|
"Ragnar" <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rdd821dkd0ot8o1aauk4arsim04lmergth@4ax.com...
> Those simulators are garbage and extremely misleading. I WISH there
> were good simulators out there.. with an explanation of the cause and
> treatment. There isn't
Well Rags I'd have to dissagree with you there mate.
Although in general I am very happy with my Lasik results (in the day time
at least) at nights I still get Halo's and these simulators and pics
although exagerated alot in some are very similar to what I see. The pics
with showing Glare are exactly what I see in the mild version of it. Maybe
you don't see halo's or glare or any of the other faults there but others
may / do. I am now thinking of printing some of these images to take to my
doc on my next visit in 2 weeks time. I don't see a problem with this. Why
do you have a problem with it? If it makes explaining the problem to the doc
then it has to be good doesn't it?
There may not be any explaination on how to treat it but thats what the doc
is for isn't it?
Wal
| |
| Ragnar 2005-03-19, 6:23 pm |
| my point was that those simulations are so lacking in information and
so exagerrated that they are less than useless.. they are misleading
and intended to scare people.
I was also pointing out that Roger Davis is a nut.. and has no
business putting a DR in front of his name.
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 10:31:26 +1000, "Wal" <notmewally@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
>"Ragnar" <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:rdd821dkd0ot8o1aauk4arsim04lmergth@4ax.com...
>
>Well Rags I'd have to dissagree with you there mate.
>Although in general I am very happy with my Lasik results (in the day time
>at least) at nights I still get Halo's and these simulators and pics
>although exagerated alot in some are very similar to what I see. The pics
>with showing Glare are exactly what I see in the mild version of it. Maybe
>you don't see halo's or glare or any of the other faults there but others
>may / do. I am now thinking of printing some of these images to take to my
>doc on my next visit in 2 weeks time. I don't see a problem with this. Why
>do you have a problem with it? If it makes explaining the problem to the doc
>then it has to be good doesn't it?
>
>There may not be any explaination on how to treat it but thats what the doc
>is for isn't it?
>
>Wal
>
| |
|
| "Ragnar" <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mird21psr6fbsrkj78v1gj1n8nf87sndvg@4ax.com...
> my point was that those simulations are so lacking in information and
> so exagerrated that they are less than useless.. they are misleading
> and intended to scare people.
> I was also pointing out that Roger Davis is a nut.. and has no
> business putting a DR in front of his name.
Well Rags I don't know or care whether this Roger Davis guy is a nut or a
doctor or what he is.
I think some of the simulations may be exagerated a bit too - well most are
for my eyes but I don't have that big a problem like some may have. The
"glare" pics aren't that far off the mark for me though. My halo's aren't
near as bad as most examples but at least it gives you something to use to
help explain your vision. Without something like this the degree of problem
must be near impossible to determine or explain to others.
Example: Soon after my lasik I was seeing halo's. I didn't really worry
about them much at the time as I was so "Over the moon" with the general
success of it all. I did however mention to my doc that I was seeing halo's.
She didn't bother asking me to elaborate or explain just how bad they were.
At least with the pictures you can visually explain how bad they are and
then the doc may take you more seriously and explain what can or can't be
done to help you. I think in the early days docs are more concerned with the
healing and the eye chart tests.
I know some people may use these sorts of pics as a scare tool but there is
a more positive use for them as well.
Anyway I found them useful and will be using them at my next Doctors visit
in a few weeks.
Wal
PS Don't worry Rags, I am not turning into a "anti lasik 'er." I am still
wrapt with my results but they aren't perfect especially at nights or in
glare situations. Is a minor annoyance for me but is real all the same.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-03-19, 6:23 pm |
| Describing to someone who does not suffer from glare, halo, or
starbursting how it affects vision is like describing the color blue.
If you have not experienced it, it is difficult to comprehend.
The illustrations created by Dr. Davis and others are simply tools
that can be useful in showing to others the effects experienced by the
afflicted. Even saying, "I see like that, but not nearly so bad." can
help in diagnosis and treatment.
All tools can be used inappropriately, and these can be used as scare
tactics by those so inclined.
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.
| |
|
| "Wal" <notmewally@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<38qa6bF5r8i94U1@individual.net>...
> "Ragnar" <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:mird21psr6fbsrkj78v1gj1n8nf87sndvg@4ax.com...
>
> Well Rags I don't know or care whether this Roger Davis guy is a nut or a
> doctor or what he is.
>
> I think some of the simulations may be exagerated a bit too - well most are
> for my eyes but I don't have that big a problem like some may have. The
> "glare" pics aren't that far off the mark for me though. My halo's aren't
> near as bad as most examples but at least it gives you something to use to
> help explain your vision. Without something like this the degree of problem
> must be near impossible to determine or explain to others.
>
> Example: Soon after my lasik I was seeing halo's. I didn't really worry
> about them much at the time as I was so "Over the moon" with the general
> success of it all. I did however mention to my doc that I was seeing halo's.
> She didn't bother asking me to elaborate or explain just how bad they were.
> At least with the pictures you can visually explain how bad they are and
> then the doc may take you more seriously and explain what can or can't be
> done to help you. I think in the early days docs are more concerned with the
> healing and the eye chart tests.
>
> I know some people may use these sorts of pics as a scare tool but there is
> a more positive use for them as well.
>
> Anyway I found them useful and will be using them at my next Doctors visit
> in a few weeks.
>
> Wal
>
> PS Don't worry Rags, I am not turning into a "anti lasik 'er." I am still
> wrapt with my results but they aren't perfect especially at nights or in
> glare situations. Is a minor annoyance for me but is real all the same.
Hi Wal,
I also had night vision disturbance after my 1st Lasik surgery. It was
due to be undercorrected. I was -1.00 in each eye and it seemed pretty
good during the day, but at night it was hopeless. After my
enhancement, everything is fine. Have you checked whether you are
undercorrected? I would also like to say that the general fluctuations
in my vision continued for about 12 months until everything settled.
It took a little while for me, but absolutely thrilled with my results
now.
Regards,
Linda
| |
|
| Hi Linda,
> Hi Wal,
> I also had night vision disturbance after my 1st Lasik surgery. It was
> due to be undercorrected. I was -1.00 in each eye and it seemed pretty
> good during the day, but at night it was hopeless. After my
> enhancement, everything is fine. Have you checked whether you are
> undercorrected? I would also like to say that the general fluctuations
> in my vision continued for about 12 months until everything settled.
> It took a little while for me, but absolutely thrilled with my results
> now.
> Regards,
> Linda
Good to hear from you.
I don't think I am under corrected as on the charts I can read the bottom
line - close to 20/10 in both eyes so doesn't get any better than that. Well
was that 6 months ago when I was last tested. I am due for my yearly
examination now and going in 2 weeks time so will ask all about these
problems. They aren't major problems by any means but just annoying. Even if
there is no cure I am still very happy with the results. I think the glare
problem is the worst one. The other day I was working in quite a dark
building and the light was streaming through the doors at the end of the
building. There was a person that entered the building who was virtually
invisable to me because of the glare. They were talking to me and I was
saying I can't see you , come closer over here. In normal lighting theres no
problem.
I'll ask the doc if theres any cure and let you know.
Glad your eyes are so good now. You don't see any halo's etc at night??
Hope the business is going well too Linda
Regards
Wal
| |
| Ragnar 2005-03-19, 6:23 pm |
| what are you doing putting Dr. in front of Davis? that is
misleading.. call hiim Roger Davis phd if you like.
If this were a psychiatric newsgroup, then it would be appropriate to
call a psychiatrist a doctor. Since LASIK is surgery, and this forum
is a lasik forum, the only people who should be called doctors in this
newsgroup are medical doctors. Any medical doctor can be certified to
do LASIK, although almost all of them are ophthalmologists.
Optometrists should post here as "name" O.D. to avoid confusion.
One of the leading malcontent "doctors" that infest the lasik arena is
actually a doctor of LAW and has nothing to do with anything medical.
There are doctors of folk dancing. When someone screams for a doctor
that man does not go waltzing over to offer his assistance.
I don't dispute that Roger Davis is a tool though. When I read his
posts, I often say to myself "what a tool!"
On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 17:11:27 GMT, Glenn - USAEyes.org
<glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote:
>Describing to someone who does not suffer from glare, halo, or
>starbursting how it affects vision is like describing the color blue.
>If you have not experienced it, it is difficult to comprehend.
>
>The illustrations created by Dr. Davis and others are simply tools
>that can be useful in showing to others the effects experienced by the
>afflicted. Even saying, "I see like that, but not nearly so bad." can
>help in diagnosis and treatment.
>
>All tools can be used inappropriately, and these can be used as scare
>tactics by those so inclined.
>
>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.
|
| |
|
|