|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > April 2005 > LASIK complications your doc may not have mentioned
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 |
LASIK complications your doc may not have mentioned
|
|
| Informer 2005-04-11, 6:14 pm |
|
LASIK Complications:
Aniseikonia (difference in image size between the two eyes)
Anisometropia
Aquarium Vision
Arcing
BCVA (loss of)
Blindness
Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion
Cataract Formation
Central Islands
Central Toxic Keratopathy
Contrast Sensitivity Loss
Corneal Abrasions
Corneal Necrosis
Corneal Perforation
Corneal Scars
Corneal Thinning
Corneal Ulcers
Decompensated Strabismus (Possibly)
Depth Perception (loss of)
Diffuse Lamellar Keratitis (DLK, Sands of Sahara)
Dry Eyes
Ectasia
Edema
Endothelial Cell Loss
Epithelial Ingrowth
Epithelial Sloughing
Flap Buttonhole
Flap Decentered
Flap Unfolding
Flap Melt
Flap Striae and Wrinkles
Flap Subluxation
Fluctuating Vision
GASH
Ghosting
Glare
Haloes
Haze
Headache
Hyperopic Shift
Induced Aberrations
Induced Astigmatism
Infectious Keratitis
Interface Debris
Interface Keratitis (infectious and non-infectious, early and late onset)
Irregular Astigmatism
Irregular Wound Healing
Microperforations
Monocular Diplopia
Muscle Spasms
Nerve Fiber Damage and/or Thinning
Night Vision Loss
Nocturnal glare
Optic Nerve Infarction
Optic Nerve Neuropathy
Overcorrection
Pain (persistent)
Palebral fissures (expanding induced),
Photophobia (undesirable visual sensations produced by bright lights)
Progressive Hyperopia
Psychological Problems (induced or exacerbated)
Ptsopis (droopy eyelid)
Quality of Life (loss of)
Reading Problems
Recurrent Erosion
Regression (both naturally occuring and induced via hypoxia)
Retinal breaks/tears/macular holes
Retinal Detachment
Scarring
Starbursts
Steroid Induced Glaucoma
Trigeminal Neuralgia
Undercorrection
Uneven Pupils Sizes
Visual Field Defects
Vitreous Detachment (Floaters)*******
Future Induced Difficulties:
IOL Calculation Difficulties
Difficulty detecting Glaucoma Onset
Induced Contact Lens Intolerance
Increased susceptibility to ocular trauma (i.e., late flap, dislocation)
| |
| serebel 2005-04-11, 6:14 pm |
|
I see that you haven't read a consent form.
SErebel
| |
| CatmanX 2005-04-11, 6:14 pm |
| Last, time I spoke to a refractive surgeon, he tested every one of
these in every patient he saw. Maybe it's just the company I keep, but
any good surgeon actively searches for potential problems and will not
procede unless everything is OK. THen of course, there are.......
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-04-11, 6:14 pm |
| The existence of potential problems with refractive surgery will
always exist. There is always risk in surgery. It is true that
doctors are able to measure and evaluate many of the items listed by
the originator of this thread. Many can be eliminated completely, but
not all. At best, a thorough evaluation by a competent surgeon can
reduce the probability of something going wrong. That is how
something like LASIK can have such a high success rate and why the
success rate was lower in the beginning. Doctors are constantly
learning new ways to detect and prevent problems before they occur, as
well as refining techniques and technology.
The bottom line is, however, that there are no guarantees in surgery
and there will always be some element of risk. For some the risk is
greater than others, and all need to be properly evaluated to
determine if that risk is unacceptable.
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.
| |
| LASIKtruth 2005-04-13, 4:44 pm |
| Has anyone out there read an adequate consent form, that is, one that
actually tells you clearly all the stuff that can go wrong? If ANYONE can
find one that is complete, please post it here as a shining example for
other less forthcoming LASIK surgeons to follow.
"serebel" <serebel@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1113184966.752873.116570@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> I see that you haven't read a consent form.
>
> SErebel
>
| |
| serebel 2005-04-13, 4:44 pm |
| What good would it do? You can't read it anyway.
SErebel
| |
| LASIKtruth 2005-04-13, 4:44 pm |
| Glenn Hagele quote to save:
"The existence of potential problems with refractive surgery will always
exist"???
What kind of sentence is that? Do you have serebel ghostwriting for you
these days?
NEWS FLASH, the success rate of LASIK is not as high as most believe, and
damage to the eye is a CERTAINTY.
"Glenn - USAEyes.org" <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message
news:16bl51l7q15qecolboqk2cqm8beqjd7gil@4ax.com...
> The existence of potential problems with refractive surgery will
> always exist. There is always risk in surgery. It is true that
> doctors are able to measure and evaluate many of the items listed by
> the originator of this thread. Many can be eliminated completely, but
> not all. At best, a thorough evaluation by a competent surgeon can
> reduce the probability of something going wrong. That is how
> something like LASIK can have such a high success rate and why the
> success rate was lower in the beginning. Doctors are constantly
> learning new ways to detect and prevent problems before they occur, as
> well as refining techniques and technology.
>
> The bottom line is, however, that there are no guarantees in surgery
> and there will always be some element of risk. For some the risk is
> greater than others, and all need to be properly evaluated to
> determine if that risk is unacceptable.
>
> 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.
| |
|
| CatmanX wrote:
> Last, time I spoke to a refractive surgeon, he tested every one of
> these in every patient he saw. Maybe it's just the company I keep,
but
> any good surgeon actively searches for potential problems and will
not
> procede unless everything is OK. THen of course, there are.......
Did this refractive surgeon test for corneal thinning? Because he
caused corneal thinning during LASIK surgery and it can be progressive.
Does he have an orbscan so that he can do a posterior float on every
patient and notice that nearly every LASIK patient's eyes are BULGING?
Does he compare HOAs before and after surgery and observe the almost
universal increase in these distortions?
Does he tell his patients about this fact?
Does he tell his patients that loss of contrast sensitivity is also
almost universal with LASIK?
I am still astonished at the magnitude of my loss of contrast
sensitivity and the visual impairment I live with as a result. Not in
my consent forms. Never mentioned by my doctor. Does your refractive
surgeon friend do pre and post-op contrast sensitivity testing????
If you're going to trash an aspect of a patient's visual quality you
may as well know what you're doing, eh mate? And be up front with the
patients about it.
| |
| serebel 2005-04-14, 8:42 am |
| Oh, stop you big baby. You forgot to mention how mentally disturbed
you are.
SErebel
| |
| serebel 2005-04-14, 8:42 am |
| Oh, stop you big baby. You forgot to mention how mentally disturbed
you are.
SErebel
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-04-19, 10:51 am |
| Corneal thinning during LASIK is due to the removal of tissue by an
excimer laser. LASIK related corneal thinning is not "progressive".
When the laser stops, the thinning stops too.
If the cornea is diseased, thinning may occur, however LASIK is not
the cause of corneal thinning other than to the extent the laser
removes tissue.
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.
| |
| Linda 2005-04-19, 10:51 am |
| "LASIKtruth" <LASIKtruth@Yahoo_nospam.com> wrote in message news:<1113363619.30c8a9a320ca29305ab08e532c804397@teranews>...
> Has anyone out there read an adequate consent form, that is, one that
> actually tells you clearly all the stuff that can go wrong? If ANYONE can
> find one that is complete, please post it here as a shining example for
> other less forthcoming LASIK surgeons to follow.
The lasik industry is one of the very few industries that offer a
consent form. The main reason for consent forms is to stop frivolous
lawsuits. It is unrealistic to expect a consent form to list
EVERYTHING. Some of the examples of things that can go wrong are so
remote and unlikely, that you have more chance of being struck by
lightning! That is why they don't put them oj the consent form. The
standard consent forms also lists some things that are remote and
unlikely to happen such as blindness. I remember reading the consent
form for my first surgery and also for the enhancement. I was
frightened by some of the things listed, but I was also smart enough
to realise that they HAD to list them to constitute informed consent.
Rather than trying to scare people senseless Brent, why not simply
accept that you had a less than ideal outcome, but you are in a tiny
minority of all Lasik patients.
Linda[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> "serebel" <serebel@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1113184966.752873.116570@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| |
| MDessayist 2005-04-19, 10:51 am |
| I am in a procedure-intensive specialty and I have some knowledge of the
informed consent. The consent form offered up by most refractive surgeons is
a sorry document which is guided by legal standards and doesn't give the
patient realistic information by which to make their decision. I fully
believe that that constitutes malpractice in the setting of an elective
procedure. There is also too much reliance on patient satisfaction surveys
and not enough emphasis on real science. Sure, if you were trying to market
an expensive surgical procedure, glowing patient testimonials are better for
the bottom line than evidence-based medicine. Not even a marketing 101
flunkie would submit a brochure which lists these real, possible outcomes...
-likely decrease in low light and night vision
-definite decrease in tear quantity and/or quality...no real way to estimate
if you will be symptomatic or not -eye fatigue and/ or eye
pain -unpredictable quantities of metallic debris left behind -permanent
denervation or paresthesias of the cornea -retinal detachment or ischemia
during surgery
If I would have suspected that any of the above outcomes were possible, I'd
be sitting here right now CLEARLY viewing my computer screen with my old
trustworthy glasses on.
"Linda" <lindakendall3155@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:78420532.0504151610.6882e94c@posting.google.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> "LASIKtruth" <LASIKtruth@Yahoo_nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:<1113363619.30c8a9a320ca29305ab08e532c804397@teranews>...
>
> The lasik industry is one of the very few industries that offer a
> consent form. The main reason for consent forms is to stop frivolous
> lawsuits. It is unrealistic to expect a consent form to list
> EVERYTHING. Some of the examples of things that can go wrong are so
> remote and unlikely, that you have more chance of being struck by
> lightning! That is why they don't put them oj the consent form. The
> standard consent forms also lists some things that are remote and
> unlikely to happen such as blindness. I remember reading the consent
> form for my first surgery and also for the enhancement. I was
> frightened by some of the things listed, but I was also smart enough
> to realise that they HAD to list them to constitute informed consent.
> Rather than trying to scare people senseless Brent, why not simply
> accept that you had a less than ideal outcome, but you are in a tiny
> minority of all Lasik patients.
> Linda
| |
| LASIKtruth 2005-04-19, 10:51 am |
| Linda,
You must sign an informed consent for any medical procedure. LASIK isn't
special in this regard. What's shocking about LASIK is that patients are not
informed that they will have a fragile, split cornea for life, that their
weakened cornea will likely bulge forward, that they will acquire
aberrations during the procedure that cannot be corrected by glasses and
that their corneal nerves will be trashed.
I am not Brent. I am not trying to scare people senseless. The LASIK
industry is hurting people the way the tobacco industry hurt people, the way
Vioxx was allowed to hurt people... those responsible know the problems and
keep the industry running for profit. That's sickening.
Your odds of having pathology from LASIK are 100%. That's a bit higher than
the odds of being struck by lightening, wouldn't you say so, Linda?
"Linda" <lindakendall3155@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:78420532.0504151610.6882e94c@posting.google.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> "LASIKtruth" <LASIKtruth@Yahoo_nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:<1113363619.30c8a9a320ca29305ab08e532c804397@teranews>...
>
> The lasik industry is one of the very few industries that offer a
> consent form. The main reason for consent forms is to stop frivolous
> lawsuits. It is unrealistic to expect a consent form to list
> EVERYTHING. Some of the examples of things that can go wrong are so
> remote and unlikely, that you have more chance of being struck by
> lightning! That is why they don't put them oj the consent form. The
> standard consent forms also lists some things that are remote and
> unlikely to happen such as blindness. I remember reading the consent
> form for my first surgery and also for the enhancement. I was
> frightened by some of the things listed, but I was also smart enough
> to realise that they HAD to list them to constitute informed consent.
> Rather than trying to scare people senseless Brent, why not simply
> accept that you had a less than ideal outcome, but you are in a tiny
> minority of all Lasik patients.
> Linda
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-04-19, 10:51 am |
| Not true. The Mayo Clinic has not used consent forms for years,
perhaps never.
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.
| |
| lindakendall3155@gmail.com 2005-04-19, 10:51 am |
|
LASIKtruth wrote:
> Linda,
>
> You must sign an informed consent for any medical procedure. LASIK
isn't
> special in this regard. What's shocking about LASIK is that patients
are not
> informed that they will have a fragile, split cornea for life, that
their
> weakened cornea will likely bulge forward, that they will acquire
> aberrations during the procedure that cannot be corrected by glasses
and
> that their corneal nerves will be trashed.
>
> I am not Brent. I am not trying to scare people senseless. The LASIK
> industry is hurting people the way the tobacco industry hurt people,
the way
> Vioxx was allowed to hurt people... those responsible know the
problems and
> keep the industry running for profit. That's sickening.
>
> Your odds of having pathology from LASIK are 100%. That's a bit
higher than
> the odds of being struck by lightening, wouldn't you say so, Linda?
O.K, I'm confused. Pathology is the study of diseases of the body. If
you are saying that all people will suffer diseases of the body, then
you are probably correct. I'm just confused about how you are applying
the word to Lasik. What exactly are you trying to say? I would also
argue that the tobacco industry and the lasik industry are vastly
different. Every cigarette does damage and the tobacco industry knows
that. All medical procedures carry risk. Did you know that anaethesia
carries the highest risk of all? I know this because my brother is an
anaethetist. Should we, therefore, carry out surgery minus anaethestic?
Of course not, people would then die of shock related to the pain. Did
you know that a very high percentage of people become clinically
depressed after heart bypass surgery? Should we no longer do bypass
surgery because some patients become so depressed that they end their
life? Personaly, my eyes are less diseased now than they were before
Lasik. I had a HUGE visible blood vessel in my left eye due to lack of
oxygen caused by contact lenses. I also had chronic GPC despite
cleaning and removing my contacts regularly. I also no longer have the
pain associated with both the GPC and oxygen deprivation. No more
medicated eye drops. I could go on and on. My eyes look and feel
healthier.
Linda[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> "Linda" <lindakendall3155@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:78420532.0504151610.6882e94c@posting.google.com...
that[vbcol=seagreen]
ANYONE can[vbcol=seagreen]
example for[vbcol=seagreen]
frivolous[vbcol=seagreen]
consent[vbcol=seagreen]
enough[vbcol=seagreen]
consent.[vbcol=seagreen]
tiny[vbcol=seagreen]
| |
| serebel 2005-04-19, 10:51 am |
|
MDessayist wrote:
> I am in a procedure-intensive specialty and I have some knowledge of
the
> informed consent. The consent form offered up by most refractive
surgeons is
> a sorry document which is guided by legal standards and doesn't give
the
> patient realistic information by which to make their decision. I
fully
> believe that that constitutes malpractice in the setting of an
elective
> procedure. There is also too much reliance on patient satisfaction
surveys
> and not enough emphasis on real science. Sure, if you were trying to
market
> an expensive surgical procedure, glowing patient testimonials are
better for
> the bottom line than evidence-based medicine. Not even a marketing
101
> flunkie would submit a brochure which lists these real, possible
outcomes...
>
> -likely decrease in low light and night vision
>
> -definite decrease in tear quantity and/or quality...no real way to
estimate
> if you will be symptomatic or not -eye fatigue and/ or eye
> pain -unpredictable quantities of metallic debris left behind
-permanent
> denervation or paresthesias of the cornea -retinal detachment or
ischemia
> during surgery
>
> If I would have suspected that any of the above outcomes were
possible, I'd
> be sitting here right now CLEARLY viewing my computer screen with my
old
> trustworthy glasses on.
>
>
If you had a lousy outcome from lasik, of course you would be biased
against everything from the consent form to the surgery itself. It
doesn't change the facts. The consent forms I have read are fine. More
detailed than most surgeries.
SErebel
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-04-19, 10:51 am |
| It would appear that you are attempting to use reason and logic with a
person for whom reason and logic do not apply.
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.
|
| |
|
|