Lasik Eyes Surgery - Contacts that correct vision?

Author

Contacts that correct vision?

Wondering Eyes

2005-03-19, 6:23 pm

I know this is a Lasik group here but I couldn't find anywhere else to ask
this question.

Does anyone know about the contacts that supposedly work over night or with
some use to reshape the cornea and therefore make wearing glasses or ongoing
use of contacts unnecessary.

I know that a person has to wear the contacts on and off over time to keep
up the corrective results... I know that it is never permanent (or is it?)
What I don't know is:

How safe is it?

Does it work?

HOw much does it cost?

Is it worth it?

What is the downside.

Whatever you can tell me is greatly appreciated!

Ragnar

2005-03-19, 6:23 pm

Rigid contacts are great if you can tolerate them. What you are
asking about is "not" wearing contacts - in other words Ortho-K in
which you wear the contacts when sleeping (which is not a good idea)
and then taking them out and getting 4 to 6 hours of relatively good
vision while they are out. OrthoK is very expensive, highly
ineffective, and I have only heard of one person that didn't give up
on ortho K within the first year of treatment.

On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 21:47:20 -0700, "Wondering Eyes"
<daft@the(nospam).com> wrote:

>I know this is a Lasik group here but I couldn't find anywhere else to ask
>this question.
>
>Does anyone know about the contacts that supposedly work over night or with
>some use to reshape the cornea and therefore make wearing glasses or ongoing
>use of contacts unnecessary.
>
>I know that a person has to wear the contacts on and off over time to keep
>up the corrective results... I know that it is never permanent (or is it?)
>What I don't know is:
>
>How safe is it?
>
>Does it work?
>
>HOw much does it cost?
>
>Is it worth it?
>
>What is the downside.
>
>Whatever you can tell me is greatly appreciated!
>

doctor_my_eye@msn.com

2005-03-19, 6:23 pm

In case you haven't noticed from your readings here, Ragnar is a
complete moron who has no medical qualifications to be advising you
here. He enjoys this newsgroup because it is the only place that
people actually talk with him.

What you are asking about is called CRT, or corneal refractive therapy.
It is based on a very old idea called orthokeratology, but the BIG
difference is that orthokeratology never went through the process of
going through the FDA to be certified as safe and effective.
CRT has.

To view the manufacturer's web site, look at this link:

www.ParagonCRT.com

To read a research article about the success of CRT, look at this link:

http://www.revoptom.com/index.asp?page=2_796.htm

Ragnar

2005-03-19, 6:23 pm

Lets just say that at least one of us is a moron. You can decide
which.

I'd suggest that people check that paragoncrt link below. They will
find that CRT is the TRADEMARKED name given to the lenses put out by
Paragon to do Ortho K.

I think wearing rigid contacts are a fine idea that people should try.
NOT wearing them as is the idea of otho-k is a horrible idea and very
expensive.

On 5 Mar 2005 06:29:35 -0800, doctor_my_eye@msn.com wrote:

>In case you haven't noticed from your readings here, Ragnar is a
>complete moron who has no medical qualifications to be advising you
>here. He enjoys this newsgroup because it is the only place that
>people actually talk with him.
>
>What you are asking about is called CRT, or corneal refractive therapy.
> It is based on a very old idea called orthokeratology, but the BIG
>difference is that orthokeratology never went through the process of
>going through the FDA to be certified as safe and effective.
>CRT has.
>
>To view the manufacturer's web site, look at this link:
>
>www.ParagonCRT.com
>
>To read a research article about the success of CRT, look at this link:
>
>http://www.revoptom.com/index.asp?page=2_796.htm

rebeccaNO_SPAM@lasermyeye.org

2005-03-19, 6:23 pm

Wondering Eyes (nospam) wrote:

>
> Is it worth it?
>
> What is the downside.
>

As you've noticed, it's a rather controversial topic.

Rebecca Petris
www.lasermyeye.org

doctor_my_eye@msn.com

2005-03-19, 6:24 pm

Yes, Rebecca, it is controversial. When a contact lens is left on the
eye overnight, there is always the risk that normal bacteria will
cultivate under the lens and can grow into the cornea if it is abraded
by the movement of the lens. However, I have seen eyes post-LASIK that
are horribly disfigured, and I have yet to see a post-CRT eye that
looks 10% as bad as a bad LASIK eye.

As you can tell, I reserved making judgemental statements when I
offered those links. (As apposed to "Doctor Ragnar" who immediately
slammed it.) I don't personally believe in the safety of CRT, but it
is profoundly safer than LASIK. They all work poorer than good old
fashioned daily RGP wear. That is a subject that even Ragnar and I can
agree on.
rebeccaNO_SPAM@lasermyeye.org wrote:
> Wondering Eyes (nospam) wrote:
>
>
> As you've noticed, it's a rather controversial topic.
>
> Rebecca Petris
> www.lasermyeye.org

CatmanX

2005-03-19, 6:24 pm

Ortho K is a very safe and effevctive treatment. The adjustment period
these days is very short and most people will get 20/20 vision is 1-3
days.

It is important to get an experienced lens fitter and OK is much more
complicated than other GP lens fitting.

As far as price, it will vary. I charge $1250.00 for the treatment,
which includes all consultations and lenses.

FDA approval is not required for OK lenses, so it is not critical that
the lenses you get are not FDA approved. This is only required for the
marketing of the lenses. All OK lenses use FDA approved overnight wear
materials.

There are many good OK lens systems on the market, CRT is just one
(which has been dumbed down so any bozo can start selling OK lenses).
There are BE, R&R, Tabb and Dreim lenses that all work exceptionally
well.

I find around half my patients wear the lenses every second night and
love the freedom from any optical device during the day.

Hope this helps,

grant

Ragnar

2005-03-19, 6:24 pm

Effective? You must be kidding.
I'd like to see a guarantee similar to the following:
"20/40 vision or better that lasts at least 4 hours after OK lenses
taken out or your money back".
That would put an end to OK.

On 12 Mar 2005 19:13:15 -0800, "CatmanX" <grantm@connexus.net.au>
wrote:

>
>Ortho K is a very safe and effevctive treatment. The adjustment period
>these days is very short and most people will get 20/20 vision is 1-3
>days.
>
>It is important to get an experienced lens fitter and OK is much more
>complicated than other GP lens fitting.
>
>As far as price, it will vary. I charge $1250.00 for the treatment,
>which includes all consultations and lenses.
>
>FDA approval is not required for OK lenses, so it is not critical that
>the lenses you get are not FDA approved. This is only required for the
>marketing of the lenses. All OK lenses use FDA approved overnight wear
>materials.
>
>There are many good OK lens systems on the market, CRT is just one
>(which has been dumbed down so any bozo can start selling OK lenses).
>There are BE, R&R, Tabb and Dreim lenses that all work exceptionally
>well.
>
>I find around half my patients wear the lenses every second night and
>love the freedom from any optical device during the day.
>
>Hope this helps,
>
>grant

CatmanX

2005-03-19, 6:24 pm

Hey Cliffy, shooting your big mouth off again???

I guarantee 20/20 for the full day, or your money back. Half get 20/20
for 2 days. THis has been my practice for 13 years now and still they
come in for OK.

Once again, you shoot your trap off without knowing anything about what
you are saying. Go back to Cheers Cliffy and bore Sam and Woody to
death with your crap.

Ragnar

2005-03-19, 6:24 pm

Really? wow. I have never seen a guarantee like that. If that is
true, you should post your guarantee for people to see. I would like
to see how you handle it so I can get ODs in the US to do the same
thing.
With a guarantee like that... I would even have tried OK!

The one problem in this is who determines that the patient has 20/20
vision? You or can someone go someplace else to have their vision
checked? 20/20 is not much more than a doctor's evaluation which
can be extremely biased. I know in my own experiences that doctors
say a patient's vision is better than it actually is.

I don't believe your claims nor that you have that guarantee.. but if
you do.. please prove me wrong.

Another thought strikes me.. could it be that you have this guarantee
and that people don't hold you to it?

On 13 Mar 2005 14:42:41 -0800, "CatmanX" <grantm@connexus.net.au>
wrote:

>Hey Cliffy, shooting your big mouth off again???
>
>I guarantee 20/20 for the full day, or your money back. Half get 20/20
>for 2 days. THis has been my practice for 13 years now and still they
>come in for OK.
>
>Once again, you shoot your trap off without knowing anything about what
>you are saying. Go back to Cheers Cliffy and bore Sam and Woody to
>death with your crap.

CatmanX

2005-03-19, 6:24 pm

Cliffy, you are so full of cr#p I am amazed.

You you want me to have the balls to guarantee a 20/40 or your money
back, when I give 20/20 or your money back. It is in writing. Now you
try and worm out of it by giving some concoluted who determines the
result.

It is very simple. Now pay attention and you may learn something. It
works to my patients satisfaction or they get their money back. THey
determine if they are happy. To date I have refunded 3 patients of a
total of 800. The remainder love it.

Now you can go and bore Dianne and Carla.

Ragnar

2005-03-19, 6:24 pm

I would suggest that you are a liar.
I still would like to see that guarantee you offer.
You seem awfully defensive about this.
And you are correct.. I don't believe that your "20/20" would be
called "20/20" by any other optometrist.

Just some history on Catmanx for those of you new to this newsgroup.
He is not a doctor. He advocates the use of ortho-k rigid lenses on 4
year olds with the idea that this prevents myopia (that theory has
been found to be completely false). He has some fascination with my
penis and promised to send me a penis enlargement kit (which I have
yet to receive I might add).

Basically, he has no credibility even amongst his own peers. I am
sure anybody with a moderate knowlege of eyecare can read his posts
and determine for themselves whether or not he is credible.

On 14 Mar 2005 12:38:51 -0800, "CatmanX" <grantm@connexus.net.au>
wrote:

>Cliffy, you are so full of cr#p I am amazed.
>
>You you want me to have the balls to guarantee a 20/40 or your money
>back, when I give 20/20 or your money back. It is in writing. Now you
>try and worm out of it by giving some concoluted who determines the
>result.
>
>It is very simple. Now pay attention and you may learn something. It
>works to my patients satisfaction or they get their money back. THey
>determine if they are happy. To date I have refunded 3 patients of a
>total of 800. The remainder love it.
>
>Now you can go and bore Dianne and Carla.

CatmanX

2005-03-19, 6:24 pm

Oh, you sad pathetic thing, Cliff.

OK has been shown to slow the progression of myopia, you may want to
update your knowledge.

Second, the 6 year old was 13 last I saw him and still wearing his OK
lenses every second night. Pity they didn't work for him!!!!

Now you can go and bore Norm.

serebel

2005-03-19, 6:24 pm

Not wanting to get in between a good "cat fight" here, if you are
having so much success with OK and I would assume other OD's are having
success also, why wouldn't OK be more prevalent?

SErebel

Ragnar

2005-03-19, 6:24 pm

That is false. Quite the opposite in fact. OK has been shown to NOT
slow the progression of myopia as was the theory. That determination
was made over a year ago.

If you want to do that 13 year old a favor, have him WEAR his lenses
during the day and take them out at night.

Now of course, one of the big controversies about OK lenses is that
they screw up the cornea over time by stretching them repeatedly like
a rubber band and thinning the epithiliieum permanently - which is not
good.

I really hope you don't continue this ortho K garbage in this
newsgroup. Go post in some OrthoK group instead of the LASIK group.

On 15 Mar 2005 14:20:19 -0800, "CatmanX" <grantm@connexus.net.au>
wrote:

>Oh, you sad pathetic thing, Cliff.
>
>OK has been shown to slow the progression of myopia, you may want to
>update your knowledge.
>
>Second, the 6 year old was 13 last I saw him and still wearing his OK
>lenses every second night. Pity they didn't work for him!!!!
>
>Now you can go and bore Norm.

Ragnar

2005-03-19, 6:24 pm

Exactly. In the Tampa Bay region, nobody is doing OK on a regular
basis anymore. About 2 years ago, one OD was pushing them heavily on
TV commercials. His results were so bad the patient complaints so
high that he got fired from the facility he was working for and he nor
that facility no longer do OK.
CatmanX showed what a liar he is with his outrageous claims of
success. His claims of success exceed what is expected by actually
WEARING the lenses. Obviously taking the lenses out during the day is
going to result in varying visual acuity that will degrade as the day
goes on.

On 15 Mar 2005 20:38:28 -0800, "serebel" <serebel@aol.com> wrote:

>Not wanting to get in between a good "cat fight" here, if you are
>having so much success with OK and I would assume other OD's are having
>success also, why wouldn't OK be more prevalent?
>
>SErebel

CatmanX

2005-03-19, 6:24 pm

Still boring Cliff.

Someone asked a question, I answered. Given that I am the only person
here who knows anything on the topic, I figure I should put the record
straight, not have the rhetoric you spout seen as anything near the
truth.

Now about this permanent corneal thinning? I'll tell you what, when
your Lasik cronies stop permanent corneal thinning, I'll give up
temporary corneal thinning.

How's that for a deal bozo?

Time for you to go and bore Woody now.

CatmanX

2005-03-19, 6:24 pm

Why more OD's don't do OK is beyond my comprehension.

Firstly, it is a modality that belongs to optometry alone, it is very
effective as long as the target group is correctly adhered to and the
appropriate testing is performed and finally it is highly complementary
to RS. In fact several RS clinics in the US have srarted their OD's
doing OK to pick up on those not wishing to get the laser blast but
still keen on ditching glasses.

There has been much bad publicity due to poor science in the 70's, more
recently microbial keratitis (although this was mostly in China) and
most OD's either are not willing to commit the money for equipment,
time to learn or are not competent enough in CL fitting to do this.

Really, OK is another means of correction, like any other CL, glasses
and RS.

CatmanX

2005-03-19, 6:24 pm

I can't comment on what goes on in Tampon Bay, but one report I heard
was that all the residents were Stuck-Up Bloody C@#$s. THat is heresay
as I haven't been there.

Once again, your unbelievable intellect has discerned that anything you
know nothing about makes you an expert.

Ragnar

2005-03-19, 6:24 pm

I think you need to get your psychiatric meds refilled.

On 16 Mar 2005 12:52:34 -0800, "CatmanX" <grantm@connexus.net.au>
wrote:

>Still boring Cliff.
>
>Someone asked a question, I answered. Given that I am the only person
>here who knows anything on the topic, I figure I should put the record
>straight, not have the rhetoric you spout seen as anything near the
>truth.
>
>Now about this permanent corneal thinning? I'll tell you what, when
>your Lasik cronies stop permanent corneal thinning, I'll give up
>temporary corneal thinning.
>
>How's that for a deal bozo?
>
>Time for you to go and bore Woody now.