|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > July 2005 > LME floaters
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]
|
|
| serebel 2005-07-05, 10:55 pm |
| There's a thread on LME where Mary whines about floaters that she had
BEFORE lasik. Of course she blames it on lasik.
Then the rest of the usual hypocondriacs chime in how they had floaters
BEFORE lasik and of course still blame it on lasik.
BTW, Phyllis's eyes still hurt. They all knew that they had floaters
before surgery, yet they still lay blame on lasik. They should call
that site HYPOCONDRIACS MY EYE.
SErebel
| |
| ycdbsoya 2005-07-06, 11:54 am |
| Hey shithead, I didn't have floaters before LASIK. I do now. They are
almost as annoying as your useless posts.
What other lack of compassion can you demonstrate today. Pull wings off
flies? What a XXXXing loser you are. Get a real life.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-07-06, 11:54 am |
| Floaters are small particles of the retina or vitreous that float
around in the vitreous. Floaters are only problematic when they are in
the visual axis and "seen".
Floaters occur naturally. People with myopic (nearsighted,
shortsighted) vision are predisposed to floaters because of the stress
on the retina due to an elongated eye, but floaters can happen to
anyone.
Any eye surgery can cause ocular material to dislodge and become a
floater, or disturb the existing floaters and move them into the
visual axis.
During LASIK, IntraLASIK, and Epi-LASIK, the intraocular pressure
(IOP) is dramatically raised. This process may disrupt existing
floaters or cause new floaters, however this is rather rare.
The surface ablation techniques PRK and LASEK do not raise the IOP.
For this reason, PRK or LASEK may be a better choice for patients with
existing floater problems.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
USAEyes.org
"Consider and Choose With Confidence"
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
| serebel 2005-07-06, 10:58 pm |
| Looks like Frank is off his distemper meds again.
Blaming lasik for pre existing floaters is typical of the loonie
fringe.
SErebel
| |
| Ragnar 2005-07-07, 8:54 am |
| It is very rarely considered that floaters were present before any
type of refractive surgery - especially the invasive cataract
procedure. Before the surgery, the floaters are not notices because
light is not passing through the clouded cataract or light is being
scattered all over the place out of focus in the pre-lasiked eye.
After surgery, the light entering the eye is properly focused on the
retina without being blocked. A side-effect of that visual
improvement is that now the floaters that were there all along can now
be seen.
In the case of ycdboya, the small particle floating around inside his
head is probably his brain.
Ycdboya is not even worthy of a reply.
On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 15:24:53 GMT, Glenn - USAEyes.org
<glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote:
>Floaters are small particles of the retina or vitreous that float
>around in the vitreous. Floaters are only problematic when they are in
>the visual axis and "seen".
>
>Floaters occur naturally. People with myopic (nearsighted,
>shortsighted) vision are predisposed to floaters because of the stress
>on the retina due to an elongated eye, but floaters can happen to
>anyone.
>
>Any eye surgery can cause ocular material to dislodge and become a
>floater, or disturb the existing floaters and move them into the
>visual axis.
>
>During LASIK, IntraLASIK, and Epi-LASIK, the intraocular pressure
>(IOP) is dramatically raised. This process may disrupt existing
>floaters or cause new floaters, however this is rather rare.
>
>The surface ablation techniques PRK and LASEK do not raise the IOP.
>For this reason, PRK or LASEK may be a better choice for patients with
>existing floater problems.
>
>Glenn Hagele
>Executive Director
>USAEyes.org
>
>"Consider and Choose With Confidence"
>
>Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
>
>http://www.USAEyes.org
>http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
>
>I am not a doctor.
| |
| Sandy 2005-07-09, 12:17 pm |
| Another stupid attempt at explaining away a known side effect of lasik,
Ragnar/Christopher.
| |
| ycdbsoya 2005-07-11, 5:56 pm |
| Yes, Rags may be the first test subject in history to register a
negative IQ score. Rags believes in the Fang, err, Tooth Fairy as well.
Sandy, you're in the wedding biz, can't you get him hooked up? He
spends his time discussing falsehoods about VD (vitreous detachments)
when he really would be very grateful to contract an actual case of VD
(venereal disease).
| |
| serebel 2005-07-12, 11:12 pm |
| Now, if you call pre lasik floaters a complication of lasik over and
over does it then become true?
SErebel
| |
| Ragnar 2005-07-12, 11:12 pm |
| Stop picking on Sandy. Not everyone can afford a royal wedding. If
someone doesn't mind 100% wedding gowns and white sneakers, then Sandy
is your savior. And why spend thousands of dollars on a 5 tier
wedding cake when a few boxes of Twinkies will do?
On 11 Jul 2005 11:24:28 -0700, "ycdbsoya" <the_boydstons@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>Yes, Rags may be the first test subject in history to register a
>negative IQ score. Rags believes in the Fang, err, Tooth Fairy as well.
>
>
>Sandy, you're in the wedding biz, can't you get him hooked up? He
>spends his time discussing falsehoods about VD (vitreous detachments)
>when he really would be very grateful to contract an actual case of VD
>(venereal disease).
| |
| Sandy 2005-07-12, 11:12 pm |
| Actually, I may have just the person for him. A customer from Germany
just returned a string bikini, complete with string ties all over it,
and wrote "THIS IS NOT A STRING BIKINI!!"
| |
| serebel 2005-07-12, 11:12 pm |
| Kinda wonder what this customer considers a string bikini. 
SErebel
|
| |
|
|