|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > April 2005 > Patients 20/20 after LASIK retreated for symptoms!
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 |
Patients 20/20 after LASIK retreated for symptoms!
|
|
| LASIKtruth 2005-04-24, 11:00 pm |
| Patients with 20 20 retreated for symptoms
http://www.escrs.org/eurotimes/August2003/highres.asp
Please note these patients had 20/15 or 20/20 vision but were being treated
for higher order aberrations that produced visual symptoms.
High-resolution WASCA system shows good refractive outcomes for customised
ablation
Dermot McGrath in Rome
THE latest version of Carl Zeiss Meditec's wavefront aberration-supported
corneal ablation system (WASCA) offers surgeons a valuable tool in the
measurement and treatment of highly aberrated corneas, according to Dan
Reinstein MD.
The higher resolution of the WASCA system, incorporating the latest
CRS-Master software, allows more accurate wavefront measurements and
consequently better refractive outcomes for customised ablation for patients
with higher order aberrations, he told a session of 7th ESCRS Winter Surgery
Refractive Meeting.
Dr Reinstein treated 15 eyes in 13 patients in a prospective study. All
patients presented with serious post-LASIK or PRK optical disturbances such
as chronic night vision problems, multiple or ghost image difficulties or,
in one case, focusing strain disorder.
He first measured infrared scotopic pupil size. He then performed WASCA
aberrometry to determine the ocular wavefront calculated for the scotopic
pupil size. Patients underwent treatment with the MEL 70 excimer flying spot
laser. Some patients were re-treated at three months by the same protocol if
undercorrected
Dr Reinstein reported that of the 12 eyes which had BCVA of either 20/15 or
20/20 before surgery, none of them had a worse BCVA as a result of the
re-treatment. Three eyes which were 20/25 BCVA before surgery improved to
20/15. Many of the treated eyes had shown an improvement for UCVA, which
wasn't surprising given the known effect of higher order aberrations on
uncorrected visual acuity, he noted
Subjectively, 80% of the eyes achieved at least a 70% improvement. The
procedure seemed to produce better results for multiple image problems.
"If we rank the patients by the type of complaint, it is clear that in terms
of night vision disorders we had a very mixed success rate, but in terms of
removing multiple images or ghost images, it seems to have been effective,"
Dr Reinstein said.
In relation to the wavefront data, he said the subjective metrics of success
were generally noted to have been higher than would have been indicated by
comparison on preoperative and postoperative wavefront data.
Nevertheless, he said that the treatment resulted in a statistically
significant reduction in trefoil, which was encouraging. Less positive,
however, was the result for quadrafoil, which found a statistically
significant increase postoperatively. The outcome for spherical aberrations
also fell somewhat short of expectations, Dr Reinstein said.
"We were disappointed that we didn't get better results for the treatment of
the wavefront aberration term Z4.0. This is the term we were hoping we could
actually correct. There are millions of eyes out there with increased Z4.0
and we'd love to be able to treat that, but unfortunately we did not achieve
a statistically significant change," he said.
The treatments were safe, with no eyes losing lines of acuity. Three eyes
which experienced a reduction in BCVA subsequently recovered. The move to
small spot lasers, better registration and better tracking should improve
the ability to correct spherical aberration, providing even better
refractive outcomes, he added.
"The CRS-Master is a work in progress and is not yet released on the market.
The aim of this software is to provide surgeons for the first time with one
software platform that will integrate patient clinical data with the type of
data we would like to be able to use to treat patients. In other words, we
now have dynamic access to both the wavefront and the surface shape data we
need for accurate diagnosis and treatment," he said.
He explained that when all of this information was taken together rather
than separately, it made it possible to optimise the ablation profile
desired for a particular patient. Giving surgeons this level of control, as
a final factor in the equation, should make it possible, with certain safety
and tissue limitations, to fit compromises into the treatment which may be
required for specific eyes.
Dan Z Reinstein MD
Reinstein Institute, London, UK
| |
| serebel 2005-04-24, 11:00 pm |
| This was a study, no one put a gun to these people's heads.
SErebel
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-04-25, 8:54 am |
| Since long before wavefront became a tool to objectively measure
higher order aberrations (HOA), we have been helping patients with
20/20 aberrated vision and attempting to educate those considering
refractive surgery that the Snellen "Big E" chart is not the only
system by which to measure vision quality.
The author of the study, Dan Reinstein MD, is a well known figure in
ophthalmology with whom I chat at about every medical conference we
both attend.
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.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-04-25, 8:54 am |
| On 24 Apr 2005 19:13:37 -0700, "serebel" <serebel@aol.com> wrote:
>This was a study, no one put a gun to these people's heads.
>
>SErebel
This just in on the Surgikal Eyes forum...
an ophthamologist named Dr. Auric Goldfinger has been charged with
attempting to use his Ladarvision laser system to cut a Mr. James Bond
in half starting at his balls. This surgeon is known to have hands
with the midas touch.... a spider's touch if you will.
That is about how credible some of these tales are.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-04-25, 8:54 am |
| On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 04:20:05 GMT, Glenn - USAEyes.org
<glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote:
>Since long before wavefront became a tool to objectively measure
>higher order aberrations (HOA), we have been helping patients with
>20/20 aberrated vision and attempting to educate those considering
>refractive surgery that the Snellen "Big E" chart is not the only
>system by which to measure vision quality.
>
>The author of the study, Dan Reinstein MD, is a well known figure in
>ophthalmology with whom I chat at about every medical conference we
>both attend.
>
>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.
Dan Reinstein is the surgeon who was twice announced as the director
of some silly organization... only nobody told Dr. Reinstein that he
was being made the director! whoops! Seems to me that Dr. Reinstein
could sue for libel out of that fiasco. His reputation certainly
suffered in a tangible way as a result of those false declarations.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-04-25, 8:54 am |
| Whatever his reputation suffered when Ron Link announced that Dan
Reinstein was SurgicalEyes' co-medical director, it was immediately
restored when the truth that he had never, ever, agreed to such a
position was made clear.
The thread in this newsgroup where Link states again and again that
Dr. Reinstein is associated with SurgicalEyes, and demands that I
retract the truth (twice) when I point out that Dr. Reinstein himself
states he is not associated with SurgicalEyes, is illustrative of Ron
Link's total lack of credibility and limited concern for accuracy and
truth that so negatively affected the organization he founded and
subsequently drove in the ground.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?F548524FA
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.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-04-25, 5:52 pm |
| yes... but you missed a subtle point I was making... the claim was
made, and refuted... fine..
BUT then months later, the claim was made AGAIN and was never refuted.
He reminds me of this guy I used to know who insisted he taught Bobby
Fisher how to play chess and that he was good friends with Frank
Sinatra. The truth is that he once watched a Bobby Fisher chess
tournament on TV and he waved to Frank in a restaurant.
Another whacko I encountered was this lady who says she was neighbors
with JonBon Jovi and went to highschool with him. She actually lived
10 miles from him in NJ and there is an 8 year age difference, so I
doubt they went to school together.
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 13:28:46 GMT, Glenn - USAEyes.org
<glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote:
>Whatever his reputation suffered when Ron Link announced that Dan
>Reinstein was SurgicalEyes' co-medical director, it was immediately
>restored when the truth that he had never, ever, agreed to such a
>position was made clear.
>
>The thread in this newsgroup where Link states again and again that
>Dr. Reinstein is associated with SurgicalEyes, and demands that I
>retract the truth (twice) when I point out that Dr. Reinstein himself
>states he is not associated with SurgicalEyes, is illustrative of Ron
>Link's total lack of credibility and limited concern for accuracy and
>truth that so negatively affected the organization he founded and
>subsequently drove in the ground.
>
>http://makeashorterlink.com/?F548524FA
>
>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 2005-04-26, 8:51 am |
| A point to add here is that the date of the original surgery is not
specified, nor the original prescriptions, pupil sizes, or anything
really. Larger ablation zones, better blends using the original
equipment can resolve the 20/20 but fuzzy problems in many patients.
The HOA problems are often seen as original problems in many myopes
(myopes have poorer corneal optics than non-myopes) and healing issues
are one significant reason for post RS blur with 20/20 issues.
It is good to see that guidance systems are now becoming specific for
the eye and corneal shape.
Good work dr dan.
dr grant
| |
| Ragnar 2005-04-26, 11:49 am |
| On 26 Apr 2005 05:19:47 -0700, "CatmanX" <grantm@connexus.net.au>
wrote:
>A point to add here is that the date of the original surgery is not
>specified, nor the original prescriptions, pupil sizes, or anything
>really. Larger ablation zones, better blends using the original
>equipment can resolve the 20/20 but fuzzy problems in many patients.
>The HOA problems are often seen as original problems in many myopes
>(myopes have poorer corneal optics than non-myopes) and healing issues
>are one significant reason for post RS blur with 20/20 issues.
>
>It is good to see that guidance systems are now becoming specific for
>the eye and corneal shape.
>
>Good work dr dan.
>
>dr grant
Dr. Dan wouldn't let you mow his lawn, let alone consider you to be
any type of peer to him.
| |
| Ron Link 2005-04-26, 10:59 pm |
| Dr. Dan Reinstein communicated to both Dr. Gregg Russell and I that he
would be "honored" to be co-medical director of Surgical Eyes.
I have the proof, but why suffer Dr. Reinstein and Dr. Russell the
indignity of having to grouse here with the likes of you. "Here" is not
a bad place. You make it that way, in my opinion.
Glenn - there is such thing as karma. You walk around the ophthalmic
conventions with your suit that even your wife, can't stand, as you've
noted per her opinion of your taste in clothing. No wonder that others
in this newsgroup have termed you a pimp in a pimpmobile, in my
opinion.
In my opinion, you are nothing more than an opportunist who happened
upon a surgery that you sought to capitalize upon to get your slice of
the envisioned pie. Your challenge to SE was a mere prop....unfinished
sections that speak to your true motive, once again, only my opinion.
www.complicatedeyes.org? more like complicatedlies.org thanks to the
motivating force that runs in your veins, in my opinion.
Surgical Eyes was created to help people. That's it. The TRUTH is that
you can't handle that kind of motivation, in my opinion.
If you are such a PATIENT ADVOCATE, why do you spend most of your time,
downplaying, deflecting, defaming, dodging and downright being an
*******, in my opinion.
Damn straight that you're not a doctor. I don't think Hippocrates ever
envisioned that the day would come when a person like you could ever
even possibly be considered a whisp of the hint of an arbiter of
QUALITY, in my opinion.
TRUTH and GLENN HAGELE are like two words pulled out of a pot of
antonyms. Do I have to state that that's my opinion? So be it. It's my
opinion.
Glenn - did you ever or are you now taking medication for depression,
severe or otherwise? If you are or if you did, do you think that if you
had stopped or were to stop taking it- would you feel or would you have
felt disabled in any way to communicate or interact with the world?
It's just a question. I'll leave it up to you to answer truthfully.
Glenn - USAEyes.org wrote:
> Whatever his reputation suffered when Ron Link announced that Dan
> Reinstein was SurgicalEyes' co-medical director, it was immediately
> restored when the truth that he had never, ever, agreed to such a
> position was made clear.
>
> The thread in this newsgroup where Link states again and again that
> Dr. Reinstein is associated with SurgicalEyes, and demands that I
> retract the truth (twice) when I point out that Dr. Reinstein himself
> states he is not associated with SurgicalEyes, is illustrative of Ron
> Link's total lack of credibility and limited concern for accuracy
and
> truth that so negatively affected the organization he founded and
> subsequently drove in the ground.
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?F548524FA
>
> 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.
| |
| serebel 2005-04-27, 8:53 am |
| Surgical Eyes is just another internet scam to grab money. It just
didn't work the way you wanted it to. Funny, you call Glenn everything
int the book, but you still send e-mails begging for money. Link, you
are just too pathetic.
SErebel
| |
|
|
| Ron Link 2005-04-27, 8:53 am |
| Surgical Eyes worked just the way that I wanted it to. It helped
people. That you define yourself as a "rebel" against something that
doesn't exist anymore is actually pathetic and downright sad.
Might I suggest a different moniker - how about your own name? An act
of courage by "serebel"? Never.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-04-27, 11:50 am |
| Jeeze Link. If you still can't handle the truth now, why don't you
just read your own posts at the time in the link I referenced
previously.
You had announced for months that Reinstein was your co-medical
director, yet he was not, had never agreed to be, and had not made a
single effort as a SurgicalEyes co-medical director.
One would think that someone who you have as a co-medical director
would have been co-medical directing during those months. One would
also think that the person who is suppose to be in charge of the
organization might notice that his co-medical director wasn't
co-medical directing.
The "proof" is that Reinstein was never SE's co-medical director. You
screwed up big time Link. If you can't see that, that is your
problem. If you want to go on and on about your incompetence and try
to blame others, that also is your problem.
As for your opinion, the opinion of someone such as you has absolutely
no value for me. Good heavens Link, you are so desperate to find some
way to denigrate me that you stoop to critiquing my clothing.
You blew it Link. You had an opportunity to create something valuable
and helpful. Despite your antics and shenanigans, SurgicalEyes WAS
able to help many people, but because of your antics and shenanigans
it is now the hollow shell of what it once could be. A sad ending to
a sad story. An ending that you obviously simply cannot accept.
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.
| |
| Ron Link 2005-04-27, 11:50 am |
| Once and for all Hagele - I left Surgical Eyes in the fall of 2003.
Surgical Eyes had sustained at the level it did because of sweat equity
and sacrifice. It had grown to the point where it required
siginificant grant money to continue. I was also tired of being
assaulted on all fronts - from those with a passionate belief that
lasik should be ended and you and your cronies on the other end. Mostly
because of your efforts, the industry perception of SE began to zero in
on its bulletin board. For months on a daily basis, you attempted to
glue the work of SE to radicalism with declarations and libel. No
matter how many conferences I organized, the information on the latest
surgical or prosthetic lenses, no matter how many doctors (surgeons and
ods) whose home numbers I had and would talk to on a regular basis
because THEY KNEW that what I was doing had the right motivation and I
was delivering, I chose to exit. Your zeal to discredit has now shifted
to www.lasermyeye.org . The financial hit that I took as a result of SE
is staggering. Your continued attacks are indicative of your character
or lack thereof. You require something to kick and even when the dog
has left the building, you flail around in your self adulating puffery
and anger. I accept the ending of something that did good work which
was SE. I should have folded it and the end of 2002, but I took on the
financial burden by loaning it money which paid operating expenses. You
can lie all you want. The truth is the truth.
I created something valuable and helpful. You did your best to destroy
its name with libel and declarations because that suited your
overriding purpose which is to serve the industry of refractive
surgery's money making ability. I worked with it to help people. You
are a marketing device. That's what you do. You spin and conceal. As
has once been said, the hallmark of evil is its ability to cloak
itself. It's a shame that somebody as bright as you are ended up doing
what you do but it's all about choices Hagele. I chose to leave SE, it
wasn't run into the ground. You can go on and on but the truth isn't
changed.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-04-27, 11:50 am |
| You get yourself all in a snit over just about nothing, Link. You
failed. Big deal. Failures happen. You made mistakes. So what,
everybody does.
You had a great idea, you gave it a shot, it didn't work out for you.
Welcome to the real world. Your obsession with me and CRSQA
notwithstanding, you can be given credit for trying.
Along the way some people got help. The fact that the resource you
created is pretty much defunct does not change the help those people
received. There are new resources now. As you mentioned, LaserMyEye
and ComplicatedEyes. Patients are getting better results and having
less severe complications. The need for something like SurgicalEyes
is less. Frankly, that is a good thing.
I, for one, would be delighted to see you get on with your life. Your
fifteen minutes are over, and you seem to only embarrass yourself and
the memory of what SurgicalEyes might have been each time you attempt
to revive them.
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.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-04-27, 5:58 pm |
| Here's another interpretation of what happened...
After tailoring your always misleading propaganda to whomever would
give you a donation.. you found that nobody was interested in your
propaganda machine anymore and your donations dried up. Then you
tried to squeeze the last gasp of life out of the organization by
charging exhorbitant fees for working on it's website. Then you got
some crazy idea that the organization owed you money. Then
mysteriously - Minarik magically came up with a website and bulletin
board which is a virutal clone of SE. Incidentally, early versions of
SE looked like a clone of another eye website..hmm. Then you went
and tried to latch onto LME with your bag of tricks.
Why don't you quit while your behind and use your skills at something
like selling used cars or being a cop?
On 27 Apr 2005 08:26:26 -0700, "Ron Link" <ronjohnlink@aol.com> wrote:
>Once and for all Hagele - I left Surgical Eyes in the fall of 2003.
>Surgical Eyes had sustained at the level it did because of sweat equity
>and sacrifice. It had grown to the point where it required
>siginificant grant money to continue. I was also tired of being
>assaulted on all fronts - from those with a passionate belief that
>lasik should be ended and you and your cronies on the other end. Mostly
>because of your efforts, the industry perception of SE began to zero in
>on its bulletin board. For months on a daily basis, you attempted to
>glue the work of SE to radicalism with declarations and libel. No
>matter how many conferences I organized, the information on the latest
>surgical or prosthetic lenses, no matter how many doctors (surgeons and
>ods) whose home numbers I had and would talk to on a regular basis
>because THEY KNEW that what I was doing had the right motivation and I
>was delivering, I chose to exit. Your zeal to discredit has now shifted
>to www.lasermyeye.org . The financial hit that I took as a result of SE
>is staggering. Your continued attacks are indicative of your character
>or lack thereof. You require something to kick and even when the dog
>has left the building, you flail around in your self adulating puffery
>and anger. I accept the ending of something that did good work which
>was SE. I should have folded it and the end of 2002, but I took on the
>financial burden by loaning it money which paid operating expenses. You
>can lie all you want. The truth is the truth.
>
>I created something valuable and helpful. You did your best to destroy
>its name with libel and declarations because that suited your
>overriding purpose which is to serve the industry of refractive
>surgery's money making ability. I worked with it to help people. You
>are a marketing device. That's what you do. You spin and conceal. As
>has once been said, the hallmark of evil is its ability to cloak
>itself. It's a shame that somebody as bright as you are ended up doing
>what you do but it's all about choices Hagele. I chose to leave SE, it
>wasn't run into the ground. You can go on and on but the truth isn't
>changed.
| |
| serebel 2005-04-27, 10:54 pm |
| How would you know what an act of courage was? You threaten to sue the
world, then come out of the woodwork to beg for money. You even
e-mailed my account with your beg letter. Face it, you ran SE off the
loonie cliff and now you are just a washed up clown.
SErebel (and proud)
|
| |
|
|