|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > May 2005 > LASIK mill visit
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]
|
|
| crvc@wyoming.com 2005-05-02, 11:51 am |
|
I visited LASIKPlus in Salt Lake City last week, where I had a
no-charge exam. My reason for the visit was to look into repair of the
damage caused by my original LASIK 7 years ago. It was a busy place.
What scared me was once my eyes were dilated the tech offhandedly
mentioned, "By the way, now that your eyes are dilated we could do the
surgery right away. You wouldn't need to schedule a second visit."
Yikes! I just wanted info, not surgery! I started with a
receptionist, then on to tech no. 1, then on to tech no. 2.
It was typical of other optho visits I've endured. The only new thing
as abberomtry. The computer image was a blue ball. Small red spots
were clustered within the ball. Red streaks radiated from the spots,
similar to the starbursts I see at night. The tech commented that he'd
never seen red streaks radiate so far, spreading quite a way from the
edge of the blue ball. I never reached the point of talking to the
surgeon. The tech took the readout for the doc to see, then came back
and said they aren't sure they can help me. He gave me names of other
opthomologists I should try for a second opinion. After I'd left it
occured to me I should have gotten copies of the record.
Having finally gotten up the courage to go for a checkup, now finding
that I might not be "fixable", it's depressing as hell.
Thank you LASIK.
| |
|
| In article <1115050770.074419.25350@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
crvc@wyoming.com wrote:
> Having finally gotten up the courage to go for a checkup, now finding
> that I might not be "fixable", it's depressing as hell.
I can imagine that is a blow.
I hope you do go for a second opinion. Relying on a LASIK mill for
advice is probably not a good idea. They are not in the business of
fixing, only generating business. Your best bet would be to go to an
independent ophthalmologist for an evaluation. Skip any place that
relies on technicians. Insist on seeing the surgeon.
Good luck. I hope you find some help.
--
~RT
The truth lies somewhere between Ragnar and LASIKtruth
Two sides of the same coin
| |
| doctor_my_eye@msn.com 2005-05-02, 5:53 pm |
| Excellent advice. The fact that you had "larger than normal" red
spots, which represent high spots on your cornea, might suggest that
you are easier to fix rather than harder.
RT is right on here. Look into a big teaching hospital like
Northwestern university in Chicago, where some of the best academics
are in the field. You need a professional opinion, not a technician's
comments.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-05-02, 5:53 pm |
| I respectfully suggest that when you are seeking filet mignon, do not
visit McDonalds.
Your eyes are already aberrated due to previous refractive surgery.
What you need is a cornea or refractive surgery specialist who has
experience in repairing refractive surgery related problems. This is
not what you will get at a "LASIK mill".
My recommendation would be to visit the cornea specialist at a
teaching hospital with an ophthalmic department.
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 2005-05-02, 5:53 pm |
| I always try to disourage people from LASIK mills. I don't understand
why you went to one to begin with.
When they suggested doing the surgery that same day, did they first
see if you were ready to pay? I know that at LVI, they won't even
let you into the reception area until you have paid in full for your
procedure. In fact, LVI has you pay in full BEFORE you ever see the
informed consent form. Then, if you are like me, it will take over a
month before they return your money if you don't have the surgery
done.
On 2 May 2005 09:19:30 -0700, crvc@wyoming.com wrote:
>
>I visited LASIKPlus in Salt Lake City last week, where I had a
>no-charge exam. My reason for the visit was to look into repair of the
>damage caused by my original LASIK 7 years ago. It was a busy place.
>What scared me was once my eyes were dilated the tech offhandedly
>mentioned, "By the way, now that your eyes are dilated we could do the
>surgery right away. You wouldn't need to schedule a second visit."
>Yikes! I just wanted info, not surgery! I started with a
>receptionist, then on to tech no. 1, then on to tech no. 2.
>
>It was typical of other optho visits I've endured. The only new thing
>as abberomtry. The computer image was a blue ball. Small red spots
>were clustered within the ball. Red streaks radiated from the spots,
>similar to the starbursts I see at night. The tech commented that he'd
>never seen red streaks radiate so far, spreading quite a way from the
>edge of the blue ball. I never reached the point of talking to the
>surgeon. The tech took the readout for the doc to see, then came back
>and said they aren't sure they can help me. He gave me names of other
>opthomologists I should try for a second opinion. After I'd left it
>occured to me I should have gotten copies of the record.
>
>Having finally gotten up the courage to go for a checkup, now finding
>that I might not be "fixable", it's depressing as hell.
>
>Thank you LASIK.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-05-02, 5:53 pm |
| RT fine tuned the issue of the lasik mill. Going to a LASIK mill
for surgery isn't a great idea to begin with. Going to a LASIK mill
for a re-treatment is a TERRIBLE idea. There are many surgeons that
love LVI... because LVI refers their failures to them. They are not
capable nor interested in fixing problems.
The problem of LASIK mills is that LASIK is such a reliable procedure
that these mills try to make more money by cutting corners and taking
shortcuts, etc. They get away with it most of the time.
On Mon, 02 May 2005 16:32:34 GMT, RT <RTMD24@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <1115050770.074419.25350@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> crvc@wyoming.com wrote:
>
>
>I can imagine that is a blow.
>
>I hope you do go for a second opinion. Relying on a LASIK mill for
>advice is probably not a good idea. They are not in the business of
>fixing, only generating business. Your best bet would be to go to an
>independent ophthalmologist for an evaluation. Skip any place that
>relies on technicians. Insist on seeing the surgeon.
>
>Good luck. I hope you find some help.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-05-02, 5:53 pm |
| Minarik is showing off his greatest contribution to the field of eye
care... referring patients to OTHER doctors. Good for you!
Kind of like asking a waiter what he would recommend for dinner.. and
he says "the restaurant across the street!"
On 2 May 2005 10:16:21 -0700, doctor_my_eye@msn.com wrote:
>Excellent advice. The fact that you had "larger than normal" red
>spots, which represent high spots on your cornea, might suggest that
>you are easier to fix rather than harder.
>RT is right on here. Look into a big teaching hospital like
>Northwestern university in Chicago, where some of the best academics
>are in the field. You need a professional opinion, not a technician's
>comments.
| |
| serebel 2005-05-02, 10:54 pm |
| Don't blame lasik, the blame lies in the so called doctor who didn't
know what he was doing.
Why would you even set foot in a lasik mill is beyond comprehention.
SErebel
| |
| crvc@wyoming.com 2005-05-03, 8:58 am |
| The doctor at my original LASIK surgery was director of refractive
surgery at Moran Eye Center, a part of the university of Utah system.
Not exactly a LASIK mill. Every patient should know his surgery
outcome will be the result of efforts by the doctor, the techs who fire
the laser, the other techs who calibrate the laser and the other techs
who did the eye measurements pre-op. I'm sure I'm missing some in this
chain.
| |
|
| In article <1115128565.662783.107300@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
crvc@wyoming.com wrote:
> The doctor at my original LASIK surgery was director of refractive
> surgery at Moran Eye Center, a part of the university of Utah system.
> Not exactly a LASIK mill. Every patient should know his surgery
> outcome will be the result of efforts by the doctor, the techs who fire
> the laser, the other techs who calibrate the laser and the other techs
> who did the eye measurements pre-op. I'm sure I'm missing some in this
> chain.
If you had your original eye surgery at U-U, why did you go to a LASIK
mill for an evaluation of your post-LASIK visual problems? Because it
was "free"? Need I say more?
Obviously, there is no *guarantee* of a good outcome based on your
choice of doctor. But if you are having difficulties, you need a
specialist and you'll need to pay for that.
I'm not surprised at all the technician asked you if you wanted to go
through with another LASIK surgery since your eyes were dilated. That's
what they do, after all.
It's like going to MacDonald's and being surprised when the cashier
offers you fries with your burger instead of Rolaids for heartburn.
--
~RT
The truth lies somewhere between Ragnar and LASIKtruth
Two sides of the same coin
| |
| Ragnar 2005-05-03, 11:53 am |
| I think your lasik mill trip was your recent trip?
Why didn't you go back to your original doctor?
What you said about the firing up the laser and doing the calibration
and doing eye measurements pre-op are all things done at lasik mills.
My surgeon does all that himself. The tech is there to hold your head
and do a countdown on the laser. Anything the surgeon can do
themselves should not be done by a tech.
On 3 May 2005 06:56:05 -0700, crvc@wyoming.com wrote:
>The doctor at my original LASIK surgery was director of refractive
>surgery at Moran Eye Center, a part of the university of Utah system.
>Not exactly a LASIK mill. Every patient should know his surgery
>outcome will be the result of efforts by the doctor, the techs who fire
>the laser, the other techs who calibrate the laser and the other techs
>who did the eye measurements pre-op. I'm sure I'm missing some in this
>chain.
| |
| crvc@wyoming.com 2005-05-03, 5:52 pm |
| I didn't go back to Moran BECAUSE they're the ones who did the damage
in the first place. I went back a couple of years ago for a checkup.
They pushed me to get RGP contacts. My guess is they don't make much
money fixing problem patients. Is seven years too long to expect a
free repair job, even though the initial contract promised one free
enhancement? The checkup was pre-wavefront so I may try again.
But I think they've flagged me as a malcontent who might make a scene
in the crowded waiting room. :-)
| |
|
| In article <1115140440.118527.13490@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
crvc@wyoming.com wrote:
> They pushed me to get RGP contacts.
Maybe they suggested the RGPs because that is the best solution for you.
The mill also said there was nothing they could do for your eyes
surgically either. You could keep going places until you find one that
will say what you want to hear, ie. they can fix your eyes surgically,
but it still may not be the best solution for you.
I've heard anecdotally on this NG and others that RGPs are a very
effective solution if you can tolerate them.
> The checkup was pre-wavefront so I may try again.
I think that's a good idea.
> But I think they've flagged me as a malcontent who might make a scene
> in the crowded waiting room. :-)
What do you think? Do you think your behavior warrants such a
designation? I always think you attract more bees with honey. If you
go in confrontational you will only be met with a defensive response.
If you truly go in trying to find the best and reasonable solution for
your problem, they should be supportive and willing to help.
--
~RT
The truth lies somewhere between Ragnar and LASIKtruth
Two sides of the same coin
| |
| Ragnar 2005-05-03, 10:56 pm |
| I'm not sure yet.. but it's possible you are a malcontent. It
troubles me that you would go to a lasik mill, apparently with a chip
on your shoulder.
Have you tried going to a non-lasik mill for an evaluation? They will
all give you a free examination.
You almost sound like a Mr. Hanson... you don't want to go back to
the people who originally did your surgery, yet you want the people
who did your original surgery to do a free enhancment. I'm not
trying to pick a fight with you, but the impression you give by making
such strong and contradictory statements is disturbing.
========
This does remind me of something that happened with me with an oral
surgeon. I have one molar with a porcelain crown on it. That
procedure for that one tooth wound up costing nearly $900. The day
after they put the crown on, it fell off. They put it back on. A
week after that it split in two and fell off. Then they put it on
crooked, but it did stay in for 2 years before a large chunk of it
broke off. Then that office claims they lost my medical records and
don't know that I was ever there. If I want a new crown they want
$500. That place is Florida Dental Center which is a dental mill.
The place is one huge open room with about 8 patients being drilled
simultaneously in this wide open room. You can see, hear, and smell
the grinding going on all around you. The closest description I can
think of is the operating room on the TV show M*A*S*H
On 3 May 2005 10:14:00 -0700, crvc@wyoming.com wrote:
>I didn't go back to Moran BECAUSE they're the ones who did the damage
>in the first place. I went back a couple of years ago for a checkup.
>They pushed me to get RGP contacts. My guess is they don't make much
>money fixing problem patients. Is seven years too long to expect a
>free repair job, even though the initial contract promised one free
>enhancement? The checkup was pre-wavefront so I may try again.
>
>But I think they've flagged me as a malcontent who might make a scene
>in the crowded waiting room. :-)
| |
| Ragnar 2005-05-03, 10:56 pm |
| On Tue, 03 May 2005 23:02:49 GMT, RT <RTMD24@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <1115140440.118527.13490@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> crvc@wyoming.com wrote:
>
>
>Maybe they suggested the RGPs because that is the best solution for you.
>The mill also said there was nothing they could do for your eyes
>surgically either. You could keep going places until you find one that
>will say what you want to hear, ie. they can fix your eyes surgically,
>but it still may not be the best solution for you.
>
>I've heard anecdotally on this NG and others that RGPs are a very
>effective solution if you can tolerate them.
>
>
>I think that's a good idea.
>
>
>What do you think? Do you think your behavior warrants such a
>designation? I always think you attract more bees with honey. If you
>go in confrontational you will only be met with a defensive response.
>If you truly go in trying to find the best and reasonable solution for
>your problem, they should be supportive and willing to help.
I can't resist being a bit crude... but I think it is apropos.
Your comment about "you attract more bees with honey" is completely
true....
In the case of the SE website, "you attract more flies with bullshit"
| |
| serebel 2005-05-03, 10:56 pm |
|
c...@wyoming.com wrote:
> I didn't go back to Moran BECAUSE they're the ones who did the damage
> in the first place. I went back a couple of years ago for a checkup.
> They pushed me to get RGP contacts. My guess is they don't make much
> money fixing problem patients. Is seven years too long to expect a
> free repair job, even though the initial contract promised one free
> enhancement? The checkup was pre-wavefront so I may try again.
>
> But I think they've flagged me as a malcontent who might make a scene
> in the crowded waiting room. :-)
I understand why you don't go back to your original doc. Just because
he has an impressive title doesn't mean he's competant. Your lasik was
early in the field. A doc's title doesn't mean anything without real
experience.
SErebel
| |
| crvc@wyoming.com 2005-05-04, 5:56 pm |
| Thanks to SurgicalEyes, I learned about RGP contact lenses about 4
years ago. The idea is the hard lens creates a smooth surface that
covers the irregular cornea so that light isn't being refracted oddly.
And the lenses do work, giving me good vision.
But for three years , three different ODs, three different sets of
lenses, I haven't found any that are tolerable for more than 2 hours at
a time.
I'm mainly interested in surgical repair because I'm out of options in
trying to make the lenses wearable. Lately I'd been doing scary
experiments, trying to increase the wearing time.
So I've gone full circle. Before LASIK I tried contact lenses. But my
job makes for very dirty hands all day long. The possibility of
transfering bacteria from my fingers to my contacts and ultimately my
eyes was just too unnerving.
I know you guys hate SE but there was a time when SE was all there was.
When doctors weren't admitting that LASIK could leave a person
night-blind. When doctors weren't knowledgeable about RGP lenses.
When I could go online and talk to people with the similar vision
problems post-LASIK.
| |
|
| In article <1115229899.406907.150400@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
crvc@wyoming.com wrote:
> I know you guys hate SE but there was a time when SE was all there was.
> When doctors weren't admitting that LASIK could leave a person
> night-blind. When doctors weren't knowledgeable about RGP lenses.
> When I could go online and talk to people with the similar vision
> problems post-LASIK.
I think SE did play an important role, and conceptually it is a
fantastic idea to support a community of people undergoing a similar
experience. It helped a lot of people. Unfortunately, it became the
victim of contesting egos and some poor choices by the managing
directors.
Please keep us updated on what you decide to do.
--
~RT
The truth lies somewhere between Ragnar and LASIKtruth
Two sides of the same coin
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-05-04, 5:56 pm |
| Based on convenience and proximity, what major cities would you most
prefer to go for any additional evaluations and possible surgery?
Someplace where you have relatives who could assist you would be
ideal.
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 2005-05-04, 5:56 pm |
| yes... but they are supposed to be fully trained and done enough of
the surgeries under supervision of another surgeon to be considered
"experienced" before they start doing surgeries.
But a surgeon is supposed to track their results to fine tune their
technique. Ironically, the LVI docs tend to do more surgeries than
anybody by far... but they don't tract their results at all... so none
of that "experience" amounts to a hill of beans.
My surgeon has expensive equipment which has no other purpose other
than to keep track of all the patients data. LVI didn't even TAKE
those measurements, let alone record them.
On 3 May 2005 19:28:44 -0700, "serebel" <serebel@aol.com> wrote:
>
>c...@wyoming.com wrote:
>
>I understand why you don't go back to your original doc. Just because
>he has an impressive title doesn't mean he's competant. Your lasik was
>early in the field. A doc's title doesn't mean anything without real
>experience.
>
>SErebel
| |
| Ragnar 2005-05-04, 5:56 pm |
| Its sad that you had to go to SE to hear about RGPs.
Doctors don't like to even mention RGPs because they are not big money
makers and a lot of people complain about them being uncomfortable.
To a certain extent, the phrase "no pain, no gain" is true.
On 4 May 2005 11:04:59 -0700, crvc@wyoming.com wrote:
>Thanks to SurgicalEyes, I learned about RGP contact lenses about 4
>years ago. The idea is the hard lens creates a smooth surface that
>covers the irregular cornea so that light isn't being refracted oddly.
>And the lenses do work, giving me good vision.
>
>But for three years , three different ODs, three different sets of
>lenses, I haven't found any that are tolerable for more than 2 hours at
>a time.
>
>I'm mainly interested in surgical repair because I'm out of options in
>trying to make the lenses wearable. Lately I'd been doing scary
>experiments, trying to increase the wearing time.
>
>So I've gone full circle. Before LASIK I tried contact lenses. But my
>job makes for very dirty hands all day long. The possibility of
>transfering bacteria from my fingers to my contacts and ultimately my
>eyes was just too unnerving.
>
>I know you guys hate SE but there was a time when SE was all there was.
> When doctors weren't admitting that LASIK could leave a person
>night-blind. When doctors weren't knowledgeable about RGP lenses.
>When I could go online and talk to people with the similar vision
>problems post-LASIK.
| |
| crvc@wyoming.com 2005-05-04, 10:52 pm |
| I'm not close to anything but I have relatives in Colorado Springs,
Denver, Hartford and San Diego. Denver is a day's drive.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-05-04, 10:52 pm |
| San Diego would have the greatest resources for you. Denver would be
closest. If you would like, I'll do the research and find a doctor of
the quality you need/deserve. Of course, there is no guarantee that
anything can be done or you would want to do what they would suggest,
but at least you would be evaluated by those among the best.
If you would like this assistance, describe please what has previously
been diagnosed.
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.
| |
| Simpledog 2005-05-04, 10:52 pm |
| I was measured for my opthonix lenses yesterday. I won't get them in until
the 13th, and I fly out of country the 15th. I'll post here what I think of
them before I go.
I don't know if they will work for you, or even for me. The OD doing the
work has said he's seen varying degrees of success. He was wearing a pair
when he did the measurements and his vision was about a half line better,
and his night vision was crystal clear (his words) at night, as compared to
normal glasses. He didn't have irregular corneas due to lasik however.
The amount of "work up" time for the glasses is roughly equal to that of a
pre lasik screening, but with different tests. All kinds of stuff. Tilt of
the lens, where the pupil is in relation to frame, etc.
Time will tell. But these are glasses you can take off if all doesn't go
well.
www.opthonix.com
<crvc@wyoming.com> wrote in message
news:1115229899.406907.150400@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Thanks to SurgicalEyes, I learned about RGP contact lenses about 4
> years ago. The idea is the hard lens creates a smooth surface that
> covers the irregular cornea so that light isn't being refracted oddly.
> And the lenses do work, giving me good vision.
>
> But for three years , three different ODs, three different sets of
> lenses, I haven't found any that are tolerable for more than 2 hours at
> a time.
>
> I'm mainly interested in surgical repair because I'm out of options in
> trying to make the lenses wearable. Lately I'd been doing scary
> experiments, trying to increase the wearing time.
>
> So I've gone full circle. Before LASIK I tried contact lenses. But my
> job makes for very dirty hands all day long. The possibility of
> transfering bacteria from my fingers to my contacts and ultimately my
> eyes was just too unnerving.
>
> I know you guys hate SE but there was a time when SE was all there was.
> When doctors weren't admitting that LASIK could leave a person
> night-blind. When doctors weren't knowledgeable about RGP lenses.
> When I could go online and talk to people with the similar vision
> problems post-LASIK.
>
| |
| Ragnar 2005-05-05, 8:59 am |
| Why did you do opthonix instead of z-wave? They seem very similar.
Your OD didn't exactly give it a ringing endorsement. Why is your OD
doing wearing such exotic lenses?
The idea of wavefront glasses sounds a bit like a marketing ploy.
There is just so much effect that glasses can have.
I have a feeling that most people would have to take a long trip to
get these lenses. Don't get your hopes up too high. They are probably
good.. but not as good as one might wish they were. Marketing of just
about anything tends to be unrealistic.
On Thu, 05 May 2005 01:07:50 GMT, "Simpledog" <cburnett1@san.rr.com>
wrote:
>I was measured for my opthonix lenses yesterday. I won't get them in until
>the 13th, and I fly out of country the 15th. I'll post here what I think of
>them before I go.
>
>I don't know if they will work for you, or even for me. The OD doing the
>work has said he's seen varying degrees of success. He was wearing a pair
>when he did the measurements and his vision was about a half line better,
>and his night vision was crystal clear (his words) at night, as compared to
>normal glasses. He didn't have irregular corneas due to lasik however.
>
>The amount of "work up" time for the glasses is roughly equal to that of a
>pre lasik screening, but with different tests. All kinds of stuff. Tilt of
>the lens, where the pupil is in relation to frame, etc.
>
>Time will tell. But these are glasses you can take off if all doesn't go
>well.
>
>www.opthonix.com
>
| |
|
| [vbcol=seagreen]
I hope they help! It's wonderful that you are trying your best to fix
your residual problems from LASIK and even better that you are sharing
your experiences with everyone so they can learn from you.
Looking forward to your report.
--
~RT
The truth lies somewhere between Ragnar and LASIKtruth
Two sides of the same coin
| |
| crvc@wyoming.com 2005-05-05, 11:55 am |
| Thanks for the offer. I don't clearly know what the diagnosis is,
beyond "higher order abberations". I called the LASIK mill about the
chart. They said I could have the record, just pay them $90 first.
The doctor gave me the name of a second opinion doctor and I have an
appointment with her on May 24th. So that's the next step, getting her
opinion. If I can't get answers there, the next step for me would be
a trip to San Diego. My wife is ready to go NOW. But only so she
could go sailing. :-)
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-05-05, 11:55 am |
| Your wife and my wife seem to have the same opinion about San Diego.
It is one of our favorite places to visit.
Let me know what the next doctor finds. That can help me direct you
to a doctor with greater experience with your particular difficulty.
I would ask exactly what tests are in your chart at the "mill" before
paying the best part of a C-note for it. If it has just your
refraction, forget it. If it has a wavefront analysis with a pupil
size of at least 6.0mm, an Orbscan or Pentascan, an OPD scan, and
similar diagnostic evaluations, then it may be worth the cost. I am
doubtful that they would have this level of diagnostic evaluation.
Once they saw they were not going to get you in for surgery, their
motivation level undoubtedly dropped.
There are some great places to charter sailboats in SD. If you are
American Sailing Association certified (I am), you can get a bare boat
without much trouble. Otherwise, you need to search around to find
someone who won't charge you an arm and a leg to skipper. Also, if
you plan to sail into Mexico, you need your US passport. They won't
accept a driver's license anymore.
Too bad Leukoma doesn't post here anymore. We had a nice visit in SD
when he presented his findings on the use of RGPs in post refractive
surgery patients at a conference there.
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.
| |
| Simpledog 2005-05-06, 9:21 am |
| Because I'm getting them for free.
Z-Wave doesn't make glasses, and where I live, the closest Z-Wave fitter was
2 hours away - with very limited experience. Plus, my eyes are a bit drier,
and probably could not tolerate an RGP, save for a Macrolens for long
periods of time. There was no money back guarantee - and the
contacts/fitting started out at 1k for 4 fitting sessions - plus he had the
personality of a shoe. If I lived closer to a better RGP fitter, I'd pursue
them.
I don't take monthly sabbiticals to ODs and Surgeons. When something new
comes out that I think can help me, I go take a look and pay for the
service. My vision is not that bad, and I don't want to make it worse. If
these glasses work, even enough for me to wait longer, that's what I'll do.
VISX and their surgeons have told me 2 for 2, yes, they can fix me but when
you ask them how many people like me they have treated, they all can count
on one hand how many hyperopes with prior lasik with 'issues' they have
treated with the VISX machine - it's still too new. Plus, the WF maps from
two of the surgeons are a bit different in the trefoil and coma readings -
significant enough for me to say "why". Only Rabinowitz (saw him and Assil)
told me to come back for 3 consecutive readings after trying to treat some
mild dry eye. I go see him next week for burst 3 of my WF maps, and I'll
have 4 months in summer time Iraq to think it over. By then, hopefully
Alcon will have their WF solution out for hyperopes in the US, or maybe I'll
stop back on R&R in London and go see Reinstein.
"Simpledog" <cburnett1@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Gleee.16853$Au1.4126@tornado.socal.rr.com...
>I was measured for my opthonix lenses yesterday. I won't get them in until
>the 13th, and I fly out of country the 15th. I'll post here what I think
>of them before I go.
>
> I don't know if they will work for you, or even for me. The OD doing the
> work has said he's seen varying degrees of success. He was wearing a pair
> when he did the measurements and his vision was about a half line better,
> and his night vision was crystal clear (his words) at night, as compared
> to normal glasses. He didn't have irregular corneas due to lasik however.
>
> The amount of "work up" time for the glasses is roughly equal to that of a
> pre lasik screening, but with different tests. All kinds of stuff. Tilt
> of the lens, where the pupil is in relation to frame, etc.
>
> Time will tell. But these are glasses you can take off if all doesn't go
> well.
>
> www.opthonix.com
>
>
>
>
> <crvc@wyoming.com> wrote in message
> news:1115229899.406907.150400@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>
| |
| Ragnar 2005-05-06, 9:21 am |
| I knew they didn't make glasses.
I am trying not to be biased - especially since I have no data on
those glasses, but I fear you are going to be disappointed in them.
I'm interested to hear about them. I wonder if the lenses are heavier
than normal lenses. When I wore glasses, the weight of the lenses was
enough to be a problem. I am very skeptical that those spectacles are
going to provide a wavefront effect to your eyes. It makes sense that
a custom RGP could effectively utilize wavefront technology, but
glasses? We shall find out I guess.
How much are those glasses?
On Fri, 06 May 2005 05:13:11 GMT, "Simpledog" <cburnett1@san.rr.com>
wrote:
>Because I'm getting them for free.
>
>Z-Wave doesn't make glasses, and where I live, the closest Z-Wave fitter was
>2 hours away - with very limited experience. Plus, my eyes are a bit drier,
>and probably could not tolerate an RGP, save for a Macrolens for long
>periods of time. There was no money back guarantee - and the
>contacts/fitting started out at 1k for 4 fitting sessions - plus he had the
>personality of a shoe. If I lived closer to a better RGP fitter, I'd pursue
>them.
>
>I don't take monthly sabbiticals to ODs and Surgeons. When something new
>comes out that I think can help me, I go take a look and pay for the
>service. My vision is not that bad, and I don't want to make it worse. If
>these glasses work, even enough for me to wait longer, that's what I'll do.
>VISX and their surgeons have told me 2 for 2, yes, they can fix me but when
>you ask them how many people like me they have treated, they all can count
>on one hand how many hyperopes with prior lasik with 'issues' they have
>treated with the VISX machine - it's still too new. Plus, the WF maps from
>two of the surgeons are a bit different in the trefoil and coma readings -
>significant enough for me to say "why". Only Rabinowitz (saw him and Assil)
>told me to come back for 3 consecutive readings after trying to treat some
>mild dry eye. I go see him next week for burst 3 of my WF maps, and I'll
>have 4 months in summer time Iraq to think it over. By then, hopefully
>Alcon will have their WF solution out for hyperopes in the US, or maybe I'll
>stop back on R&R in London and go see Reinstein.
>
>
>
>"Simpledog" <cburnett1@san.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:Gleee.16853$Au1.4126@tornado.socal.rr.com...
>
| |
| CatmanX 2005-05-06, 9:21 am |
| Of course you aren't trying to be biased, you enjoy others problems.
It is good to see that simpledog is getting some degree of improvement
in technology.
Why wouldn't glasses with aberration control work? THe aberrations are
in the eye and this can be incorporated into the lens. It is just
different technology than we have been used to in the past.
dr grant
| |
| crvc@wyoming.com 2005-05-06, 12:01 pm |
| Yesterday I got a phone call from the referral doctor. I had called
her and left a message and she actually got back to me. I had already
made an appointment but she didn't know that, she was just responding
to messages. She says if I'm 20:20 then more lasering can't be done to
correct HOA's. But from Simpledog's note they're working on a protocol
for fixing HOAs in hyperopic eyes.
Why is there a difference? I said I could live with being farsighted
if only I had my night vision back but she didn't care for that. Oh
well. I'll keep the appointment which is in two weeks. But I'm
feeling about as bad as when I first saw what my night vision had
become, that first evening after LASIK.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-05-06, 5:58 pm |
| I hope Simpledog remembers Mason's comments when he gets his glasses.
It's ironic that you say I enjoy others problems when you make a
business out of scaring people into thinking they have problems they
don't and taking the most extreme negative position on everything to
do with refractive surgery. I wonder why in the region of west
central florida which has roughly 6 million people that their are
several dozen surgeon's doing LASIK but there is not one doctor
offering Ortho-K which is what you push on people.
For those reading this who can make up their own minds, consider this
about glasses. The lenses are about an inch from the eye itself, and
the eye is moving about in all directions, the lenses stay in exactly
the same fixed position. Just how are the very minor nuances of the
wavefront pattern supposed to effectively correct the vision of the
eye in this manner?
At least with custom made rigid contacts, the wavefront pattern is on
the contact lens and the lens is sitting right on top of the cornea -
in contact with it - and the lens moves with the eye. Theoretically
such a lens should have a wavefront effect upon one's vision. Even
the effectiveness of having the wavefront pattern right on the contact
lens is debateble, but I would consider those lenses if I needed
further correction.
Here's another irony. We are here discussing the effectiveness of
wavefront glasses / contacts. Meanwhile Mason is pushing his ortho-k
lenses which you don't even wear during the day. Does anybody think
that putting a wavefront pattern on a lens that isn't even worn is
going to have any affect at all? I think it's absurd to expect
people to live with vision quality that degrades as the day goes on
because their lenses have been out for 1 hour.. 2 hours.. 3.. 4... 5..
Let's just hope that by the end of the day they can drive home without
needing a seeing eye dog in the passenger's seat.
Lastly, I don't understand why nobody is bothered by Mr. Grant Mason
calling himself Dr. Grant. He is not a doctor, and if he ever
became a doctor his name would be Dr. Mason not Dr. Grant.
Its funny that Glenn bends over backwards to point out that he isn't a
doctor, yet Mr. Mason goes out of his way to mislead people into
thinking that he IS a doctor.
On 6 May 2005 04:51:20 -0700, "CatmanX" <grantm@connexus.net.au>
wrote:
>Of course you aren't trying to be biased, you enjoy others problems.
>
>It is good to see that simpledog is getting some degree of improvement
>in technology.
>
>Why wouldn't glasses with aberration control work? THe aberrations are
>in the eye and this can be incorporated into the lens. It is just
>different technology than we have been used to in the past.
>
>dr grant
| |
| Ragnar 2005-05-06, 5:58 pm |
| How long ago was your surgery?
Remember the condition of your eyes before surgery. I think you are
expecting too much from surgery. 20/20 is nothing to complain about.
When you get older, you are going to have to deal with presbyopia,
cataracts, floaters, etc. just like every other eldery person does.
Without knowing more, I would recommend that your wear something like
a MacroLens at night if you are going to be out in darkness.
On 6 May 2005 08:32:02 -0700, crvc@wyoming.com wrote:
>Yesterday I got a phone call from the referral doctor. I had called
>her and left a message and she actually got back to me. I had already
>made an appointment but she didn't know that, she was just responding
>to messages. She says if I'm 20:20 then more lasering can't be done to
>correct HOA's. But from Simpledog's note they're working on a protocol
>for fixing HOAs in hyperopic eyes.
>
>Why is there a difference? I said I could live with being farsighted
>if only I had my night vision back but she didn't care for that. Oh
>well. I'll keep the appointment which is in two weeks. But I'm
>feeling about as bad as when I first saw what my night vision had
>become, that first evening after LASIK.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-05-06, 5:58 pm |
| No excimer laser is approved for the correction of higher order
aberrations (HOA). Even wavefront-guided lasers do not treat HOA, but
do consider HOA in their ablation profiles. Since overall, all
ablations induce HOA, the attempt of a wavefront-guided ablation is to
induce HOA to a lesser extent. This is accomplished rather well.
Many studies have shown that HOAs are induced less with
wavefront-guided ablations than conventional ablations.
Alcon has been working on a special algorithm for Complex Wavefront
Retreatment (CWR), but it is not released, nor is it FDA approved at
this time.
It is possible for wavefront-guided ablation to lower HOA, but this is
not terribly predictable. As a (very) general rule, wavefront-guided
ablations do best with the HOA spherical aberration, coma, and
secondary astigmatism, as related in Zernike Polynomials.
No excimer laser is approved for the treatment of an eye with previous
refractive surgery. This is an off-label use of the medical device
that is appropriate, but does not benefit from the process of peer
review and clinical trial that occur with an device FDA approved for a
particular procedure.
Only one excimer laser is currently approved to treat hyperopia with a
wavefront-guided ablation, and that is the Visx S4. At this time it
is much too early to tell what the real-world results are like with
hyperopic wavefront-guided Visx.
Night vision difficulties tend to be caused by spherical aberration
and coma. These are two of the HOA that do well with CWR, however
this is in myopic eyes. I have no credible information regarding CWR
for hyperopic eyes with elevated spherical aberration.
My bet is that the original surgery not only made you hyperopic, but
created a very small functional optical zone. If I am correct, you
not only need to have the hyperopia resolved, but you need also to
have this functional optical zone expanded. This is almost mutually
exclusive. The process of conventional hyperopic treatment tends to
decrease the size of the functional optical zone. I have no idea what
wavefront-guided hyperopic treatment does to the functional optical
zone, but I soon will. I'm scheduling a trip to Visx to get as much
detail as possible and will be visiting with doctors who use hyperopic
wavefront-guided Visx.
Excuse my asking if you have already answered previously, but how is
your vision in RGPs? The most you can expect from current surgery
techniques is vision that is close to what you get with RGPs. If RGP
vision is good, then there is real and reasonable hope that something
can be done surgically. If not, improvement from surgery is doubtful.
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.
| |
| doctor_my_eye@msn.com 2005-05-06, 5:58 pm |
| Rags, you XXXXXXX...give it a rest. Doctor Grant Mason is a fully
licensed and credentialed Doctor of Optometry, who is legally qualified
to diagnose and treat diseases of the eyes. His treatment options are
only limited by the fact that he cannot cut the eye, that is reserved
for ophthalmology. BUT, he can prescribe drugs, diagnose diseases and
only has trouble removing XXX pimples like you.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-05-06, 5:58 pm |
| I don't know about the potential "XXX pimple" problem, but I tend to
agree.
Whether or not it is customary to refer to an optometrist as "doctor"
in his home country, I think any reasonable person would agree that an
optometrist who is licensed to prescribe drugs, diagnose diseases, and
prescribe lenses for the correction of refractive error is a doctor.
Even if you don't agree, making an issue of what an optometrist is (or
is not) called down under just takes away from any salient point you
are trying to make. My suggestion is to focus on the point, rather
than on the semantics of the name for the person with whom you
disagree.
Even if it was only honorary, I still call him "Colonel" when I buy
Mr. Sander's fried chicken.
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 2005-05-06, 5:58 pm |
| I'll take your last two sentences as a glimmer of hope. I see quite
well with RGP lenses. I am able to drive after sunset and even go
jogging at night. But with a 1-2 second tear break up time, my eyes
can't tolerate lenses very long. Believe me, I researched TBUT
solutions extensively before giving up on RGPs. When I found I was
using proparacaine eyedrops several times a day I decided enough was
enough.
| |
| CatmanX 2005-05-06, 5:58 pm |
| Sorry, how did that go cliff? Blah, blah, blah.........
Have you actually got anything to say? Do you have anything to add to
the conversation?,If not, then shut up and butt out.
Simpledog will get improved vision with glasses as long as the correct
aberrations are incorporated into his glasses. Wyoming.com will get
better vision once the technology is there to actually creat the curve
that is necessary. It may not be at this point in time.
Post back when you have something that is going to be positive cliffy.
dr grant
| |
| serebel 2005-05-06, 10:52 pm |
| Do you kiss your daughter with that foul mouth of yours, Minarik ?
SErebel
| |
| Simpledog 2005-05-06, 10:52 pm |
| That's what I'm hoping!
Just sorta blew me off my seat when I went back after a few weeks of dry eye
treatment (my symptoms were very mild) and Dr. Rabinowitz remapped me (he
does it himself) and my coma was just about gone. My vision is better, but
still a bit off.
I'm just gonna wait for now, see if the glasses work, then focus on my job.
I am fairly good at compartmentalizing things, so I can wait.
"CatmanX" <grantm@connexus.net.au> wrote in message
news:1115419010.552377.287770@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Sorry, how did that go cliff? Blah, blah, blah.........
>
> Have you actually got anything to say? Do you have anything to add to
> the conversation?,If not, then shut up and butt out.
>
> Simpledog will get improved vision with glasses as long as the correct
> aberrations are incorporated into his glasses. Wyoming.com will get
> better vision once the technology is there to actually creat the curve
> that is necessary. It may not be at this point in time.
>
> Post back when you have something that is going to be positive cliffy.
>
> dr grant
>
| |
| Ragnar 2005-05-07, 8:57 am |
| He is not a doctor.
Amazing who sticks up for him > Dr. Minarik.
Dr Minarik is a doctor - which is a frightening thought!
On 6 May 2005 13:07:59 -0700, doctor_my_eye@msn.com wrote:
>Rags, you XXXXXXX...give it a rest. Doctor Grant Mason is a fully
>licensed and credentialed Doctor of Optometry, who is legally qualified
>to diagnose and treat diseases of the eyes. His treatment options are
>only limited by the fact that he cannot cut the eye, that is reserved
>for ophthalmology. BUT, he can prescribe drugs, diagnose diseases and
>only has trouble removing XXX pimples like you.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-05-07, 8:57 am |
| One ironic thing about rigid lenses is that they work better with
drier eyes than wet ones. However, soft lenses don't do well on drier
eyes.
On 6 May 2005 14:13:14 -0700, crvc@wyoming.com wrote:
>I'll take your last two sentences as a glimmer of hope. I see quite
>well with RGP lenses. I am able to drive after sunset and even go
>jogging at night. But with a 1-2 second tear break up time, my eyes
>can't tolerate lenses very long. Believe me, I researched TBUT
>solutions extensively before giving up on RGPs. When I found I was
>using proparacaine eyedrops several times a day I decided enough was
>enough.
| |
| FDAgoldminer 2005-05-07, 10:52 pm |
| Gee, wouldn't it be nice if patients were just told up front about these
sorts of problems, that induced aberrations are pretty much a sure thing as
is dry eye so that they can run screaming from the LASIK surgeon's office
instead of having their eyes damaged?
Simpledog shouldn't have to be compartmentalizing his life to deal with his
LASIK problems and Wyoming has some really serious aberrations that he's
been living with for a very long time. The 'fix' still isn't ready but this
doesn't stop LASIK surgeons from giving aberrations to new patients every
day. I just hate to see a new damaged patient popping up on VSRN, but it
keeps happening.
WHAT IS THE FDA DOING ABOUT THIS???
"Simpledog" <cburnett1@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:%AWee.18861$Au1.10313@tornado.socal.rr.com...
> That's what I'm hoping!
>
> Just sorta blew me off my seat when I went back after a few weeks of dry
> eye treatment (my symptoms were very mild) and Dr. Rabinowitz remapped me
> (he does it himself) and my coma was just about gone. My vision is
> better, but still a bit off.
>
> I'm just gonna wait for now, see if the glasses work, then focus on my
> job. I am fairly good at compartmentalizing things, so I can wait.
>
>
> "CatmanX" <grantm@connexus.net.au> wrote in message
> news:1115419010.552377.287770@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
| |
| serebel 2005-05-07, 10:52 pm |
| What are you doing about this Goldie ? Easy to pawn something off to
the gov't isn't it?
They just change up some of the names on VSRN just to keep things
going. VSRN is just another internet scam.
SErebel
|
| |
|
|