Lasik Eyes Surgery - Cornea ruined by LASIK

Author

Cornea ruined by LASIK

Fernando

2005-07-03, 10:53 pm

http://www.aao.org/aao/news/eyenet/...1/feature1.html

"In southern California, an eye surgeon prepared to perform a corneal
transplant. The patient was anesthetized and the recipient eye readied for
surgery, when suddenly the surgeon had to make an urgent call to the eye
bank. Why? "I was in the middle of trephining a donor cornea, when it fell
apart," he said.

"Fortunately, we were able to send a new cornea right away, and the surgeon
finished the operation," said Ronald E. Smith, MD, medical director of the
Doheny Eye Bank in Los Angeles. Later, back at the eye bank, researchers
examined the ruined cornea and determined that it had had LASIK."

serebel

2005-07-03, 10:53 pm

You had to dig up this very old tidbit. This has been posted on many
BB's severel years ago. Let's try to keep current, how about this
century?

SErebel

Ragnar

2005-07-04, 8:59 am

So you are saying that nobody should have lasik because if they do,
they will not make good body parts to donate?

On Sun, 3 Jul 2005 20:29:52 -0400, "Fernando"
<Fernando@aol_nospam.com> wrote:

>http://www.aao.org/aao/news/eyenet/...1/feature1.html
>
>"In southern California, an eye surgeon prepared to perform a corneal
>transplant. The patient was anesthetized and the recipient eye readied for
>surgery, when suddenly the surgeon had to make an urgent call to the eye
>bank. Why? "I was in the middle of trephining a donor cornea, when it fell
>apart," he said.
>
>"Fortunately, we were able to send a new cornea right away, and the surgeon
>finished the operation," said Ronald E. Smith, MD, medical director of the
>Doheny Eye Bank in Los Angeles. Later, back at the eye bank, researchers
>examined the ruined cornea and determined that it had had LASIK."
>

Denise

2005-07-04, 11:52 am

There may be some people considering LASIK (potential victims) who haven't
been lurking on BBs for people whose vision was ruined by refracive surgery
for years like you. By the way, if your outcome was so great, why haven't
you moved on? Oh, I know... I read about your weak corneas, dry eye (you
must wear plastic plugs in your tear duct because you have nerve damage from
your LASIK) and you also thought someone name ILANA was HANA because you
can't see the computer. Denial is a sad thing. Get some Psychiatric help.

Anyway... we have to warn prospective patients, I think it's great that
things like this get reposted periodically.

"serebel" <serebel@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1120447323.424714.5410@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> You had to dig up this very old tidbit. This has been posted on many
> BB's severel years ago. Let's try to keep current, how about this
> century?
>
> SErebel
>

Denise

2005-07-04, 11:52 am

I guess it damages corneas, that's why...

"Ragnar" <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:pgcic1119k3v83envn44gro3bmgmsrk1ii@4ax.com...
> So you are saying that nobody should have lasik because if they do,
> they will not make good body parts to donate?
>
> On Sun, 3 Jul 2005 20:29:52 -0400, "Fernando"
> <Fernando@aol_nospam.com> wrote:
>
>

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2005-07-05, 12:08 pm

Something that this incident of years back does show is that the LASIK
flap heals well enough that it goes undetected during organ
harvesting. Donors are now screened specifically for previous corneal
surgery.

The supply of donor corneas is more greatly limited due to personal or
religious belief than by previous corneal surgery.

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

2005-07-05, 12:08 pm

Oh, here we go again!!!

Looks like I have to spell it out for Denise.

My corneas are not in the least weak. My plugs went in right after my
surgery. I can remove them at any time because I DO NOT have dry eye.
I like to post here to counter the lies that are spun from the likes of
you, Keller,etc.

SErebel

Ragnar

2005-07-05, 12:08 pm

Frankly, I don't worry about making my body parts useful to someone
else as a donor. I'm not spare parts for somebody else.
This issue is absurd.

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 00:32:43 GMT, Glenn - USAEyes.org
<glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote:

>Something that this incident of years back does show is that the LASIK
>flap heals well enough that it goes undetected during organ
>harvesting. Donors are now screened specifically for previous corneal
>surgery.
>
>The supply of donor corneas is more greatly limited due to personal or
>religious belief than by previous corneal surgery.
>
>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.

ycdbsoya

2005-07-05, 5:55 pm

Serebel - you have plugs and you don't consider that a complication?
And your cornea is not weakened post-RS? You are as mentally f--ked up
as a football bat. Totally in denial. And stupid to boot if you don't
understand the mechanics of the weakening of your cornea. You should
get a life. Jeez, you just exposed yourself as a total stooge and
idiot.

Ragnar - what is left to say that even science wouldn't be interested
in any of your body parts, detritus, whatever. You live alone for a
reason - you are a disgusting and disingenuous failure of a person -
and you will die alone.

Both of your should just get together, close the windows and doors, and
turn on the gas. Neither of you are worth the skin you're in, and are
living proof that God sometimes does make mistakes.

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2005-07-05, 5:55 pm

There are many people who if provided the option of glasses/contacts
or punctal plugs, they would happily accept punctal plugs. These
people would not consider the need for punctal plugs a complication.

There are others who demand that their vision after LASIK be as good
or better than their vision with glasses/contacts before LASIK, that
they have absolutely no discomfort or period of vision recovery. They
expect and demand the 20-Minute Miracle. These people would
undoubtedly consider punctal plugs as a complication.

ycdbsoya

2005-07-05, 5:55 pm

So, it's OK to move from one crutch to another? Sorry, I just don't
"see" it that way.

Glenn, I would change "demand" to "expect" because people's
expectations about LASIK is what is really driving this. And those
expectations have been fostered by the LASIK industry marketing hype.
There is no denying this aspect.

2005-07-05, 5:55 pm

In article <1120592068.897970.31160@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"ycdbsoya" <the_boydstons@hotmail.com> wrote:

> So, it's OK to move from one crutch to another? Sorry, I just don't
> "see" it that way.

Is it any different than moving from glasses to contacts? that's one
"crutch" to another. People put up with all sorts of discomforts to
wear contact lenses.
>
> Glenn, I would change "demand" to "expect" because people's
> expectations about LASIK is what is really driving this. And those
> expectations have been fostered by the LASIK industry marketing hype.
> There is no denying this aspect.

Absolutely.

--
~RT

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2005-07-05, 5:55 pm

People with unmet expectations can become rather demanding, but your
point is on target.

For some, going from one crutch to another more benign crutch is
totally acceptable. An example would be going from glasses to
contacts. I doubt you would fault someone for that.

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

2005-07-05, 10:55 pm

ycdbsoya wrote:
> Serebel - you have plugs and you don't consider that a complication?
> And your cornea is not weakened post-RS? You are as mentally f--ked up
> as a football bat. Totally in denial. And stupid to boot if you don't
> understand the mechanics of the weakening of your cornea. You should
> get a life. Jeez, you just exposed yourself as a total stooge and
> idiot.
>

Frank,
I'm keeping my plugs in now for one reason, I have'nt had a cold since
they went in. If you have a brain, you'll figure that one out.
Granted, the cornea is not as strong as before surgery, but I have'nt
had to weight lift with my corneas yet to date. Please don't bring up
the ectasia thing, it's been years and I don't have it.

Okay, you dumb XXX, if you're so smart, why the hell did you have
lasik?

This stooge or idiot can see just fine, does'nt it just drive you nuts?

SErebel

..

Ragnar

2005-07-06, 8:56 am

Up yours too, Frank
You are as hopeless as Keller.

On 5 Jul 2005 10:30:07 -0700, "ycdbsoya" <the_boydstons@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Serebel - you have plugs and you don't consider that a complication?
>And your cornea is not weakened post-RS? You are as mentally f--ked up
>as a football bat. Totally in denial. And stupid to boot if you don't
>understand the mechanics of the weakening of your cornea. You should
>get a life. Jeez, you just exposed yourself as a total stooge and
>idiot.
>
>Ragnar - what is left to say that even science wouldn't be interested
>in any of your body parts, detritus, whatever. You live alone for a
>reason - you are a disgusting and disingenuous failure of a person -
>and you will die alone.
>
>Both of your should just get together, close the windows and doors, and
>turn on the gas. Neither of you are worth the skin you're in, and are
>living proof that God sometimes does make mistakes.

Ragnar

2005-07-06, 8:56 am

Which is another reason for a surgeon to talk 1 on 1 with a patient
before surgery - which his never done at lasik mills such as LVI.
For instance, if identical twins came in for LASIK, both with 20/600
vision. The surgeon is confident he can achieve 20/20 vision on both
of them. One of the twins says "I hate my glasses/contacts and want
to see well enough to be free of wearing them". That is a good
candidate. The other twin says "I want 20/20 vision or better and I
will not be happy unless I get 20/20 vision". That is a bad candidate
and the surgeon should not do the procedure on that twin. Both are
likely to get the same results, however the expectations of the one
twin are not likely to be met. That twin can continue to reach for
the glasses or contacts every morning.

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 19:39:41 GMT, Glenn - USAEyes.org
<glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote:

>People with unmet expectations can become rather demanding, but your
>point is on target.
>
>For some, going from one crutch to another more benign crutch is
>totally acceptable. An example would be going from glasses to
>contacts. I doubt you would fault someone for that.
>
>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.

ycdbsoya

2005-07-06, 11:54 am

You are still on the rag about LVI, Ragnar. Talk about not getting off
the dime. You are trapped in yesteryear, my friend, yet you blame
others for the same. Projection, dude.

You are a big loser hanging out on an obscure LASIK board, desperately
trying to drum up business. And you have no friends ad nothing to do,
as seen by your multiple 7/4 postings, one of which said you had lots
to do. If so, why are you posting? Absolutely pathetic.

All you can come up with is "up yours?" Shows what an inconsequential
XXXXer of an ineffective little man you are. Miscreant and malcontent
is what you are. Projection again. I'd love to be your therapist...I'd
be buying that fully loaded LS430 on your dime!

ycdbsoya

2005-07-06, 11:54 am

Don't need plugs. Why did I have LASIK? Same reason you did, I'm sure.
What a stupid XXXXing question.

No, it doesn't drive me nuts that a stooge like you had a good result,
in fact I'm happy for you. Unfortuntaely, I'd be much happier for you
if you actually had a human side. But you don't. You have a "I've got
mine, screw the rest of you" attitude as shown by the lack of insight
and compassion in your posts.

Ectasia...I don't even think about it for you. What I'm hoping for is a
nice fat case of bilateral cataracts for you. Combined with ocular
shingles, of course. Then you'll get on a website looking for answers,
and everyone will bash you. Then you live a long time mostly blind and
disabled, but no one understands. Yeah, that's it.

serebel

2005-07-06, 10:58 pm

Looks like when you get your own cataracts you're really screwed. then
you can whine on even more with your woe is me hum drum. Go have a good
cry Frank.

SErebel

Ragnar

2005-07-07, 8:54 am

You are a fool. My efforts to end the abuses of LVI, two surgeons, 2
consultants and some other major characters have been amazingly
successful. I dare to say that I have done more to improve the lasik
industry than all the malcontents combined here have. Hanson had some
success also, but he's caused nearly as many problems as he has
solved.
You and Keller have been consistently been completely worthless at
best and damaging in some instances.

My reasons for posting here are primarily a means for me to learn how
to deal with insane people such as yourself. In a case like you or
Keller, I would tell you to get lost or call a mental hospital to come
pick you up.
My business is primarily computer related, so unlike your gloom and
doom pals, I am not trying to scare people into going to some quack.
However, just because people have LASIK done does not mean they should
stop going to their optometrist yearly. Everyone should go to their
optometrist yearly even if their eyes are in perfect condition. For
one reason, there are quite a few people who go blind from glaucoma
every day. If these people were treated in a timely manner, they
would not have gone blind. People like Kathy Griffin are a danger to
themselves with their terrible decision making. With her, a simple
15 minute trivial procedure turned into a 90 minute ordeal involving
stitches in her eye because she intentionally delayed having her
condition treated.

On 6 Jul 2005 08:33:48 -0700, "ycdbsoya" <the_boydstons@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>You are still on the rag about LVI, Ragnar. Talk about not getting off
>the dime. You are trapped in yesteryear, my friend, yet you blame
>others for the same. Projection, dude.
>
>You are a big loser hanging out on an obscure LASIK board, desperately
>trying to drum up business. And you have no friends ad nothing to do,
>as seen by your multiple 7/4 postings, one of which said you had lots
>to do. If so, why are you posting? Absolutely pathetic.
>
>All you can come up with is "up yours?" Shows what an inconsequential
>XXXXer of an ineffective little man you are. Miscreant and malcontent
>is what you are. Projection again. I'd love to be your therapist...I'd
>be buying that fully loaded LS430 on your dime!

Casey

2005-07-09, 12:17 pm

How many doctors warn patients up front that they may have permanent nerve
damage requiring
lifetime plugging of their tear ducts with little plastic bits? That can
irritate, fall out, etc. It's the truth...
this happens to MANY LASIK patients, but are they informed up front?

Where do 'Doctors' get the idea that it is OK to cause permanent nerve
damage by an elective
procedure, especially without some really frank informed consent about what
the consequences may
be?

Kathy Griffin is right, LASIK does equal bad. Worse than bad. LASIK equals
malpractice.

"Glenn - USAEyes.org" <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message
news:9fmlc1lnlgf34d76ndkvu04s06u54m1eh7@4ax.com...
> There are many people who if provided the option of glasses/contacts
> or punctal plugs, they would happily accept punctal plugs. These
> people would not consider the need for punctal plugs a complication.
>
> There are others who demand that their vision after LASIK be as good
> or better than their vision with glasses/contacts before LASIK, that
> they have absolutely no discomfort or period of vision recovery. They
> expect and demand the 20-Minute Miracle. These people would
> undoubtedly consider punctal plugs as a complication.

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2005-07-09, 12:17 pm

The informed consents recommended by the major malpractice insurance
companies include such warnings. Whether or not the patient heeds
those warnings, or eve actually reads the informed consent is another
matter.

What you call "nerve damage" is a part of the process of refractive
surgery. You cannot reshape the cornea with an excimer laser without
removing tissue, some of that tissue being nerves. Studies have shown
that nerve sensitivity returns rather quickly and nerve density
returns to preoperative levels after a few years. What is more
important, of course, is the functionality, which for nearly all
patients returns within the normal six month healing period.

Doctors and patients alike decide that the "damage" necessary to
effect a desired result is appropriate. That is the essence of
elective surgery.

If you don't like this, simply elect to not have surgery. No one can
legitimately claim to not understand that surgery causes changes. If
you don't want the changes, don't have surgery.

Lasikinformer

2005-07-09, 5:53 pm

Actually, Glenn... there is no warning about dry eye in my consent forms
or in other consent forms I have seen.

Glenn, you flat out lied when you said nerves recover after LASIK. Doctors
at the Mayo clinic
did a 1 year study showing nerves are LESS THAN HALF of the pre-surgical
density at the one year point.

A subsequent three year study showed that NERVE LOSS CONTINUES TO DECLINE
BETWEEN TWO AND THREE
YEARS AFTER LASIK. This NERVE LOSS from LASIK translates into loss of NERVE
FUNCTION, which
is WHY SO MANY PEOPLE NEED PERMANENT PUNCTAL PLUGS AND ARE MISERABLE FROM
DRY EYE YEARS AFTER LASIK.

I HAVE DRY EYE STILL... OVER A YEAR OUT FROM LASIK. Please don't tell people
that nerves recover
in 6 months. Besides, who are they going to believe? LASIK peddler and
non-doctor Glenn Hagele or the published research
by the Mayo Clinic?

Please show us some studies that show that corneal nerves are just dandy
after a few years as you claim.
Hint: there are none, because this is not the case.

I would like to hear from ONE PATIENT that their surgeon told them they
would have permanent nerve damage
as a trade-off for the possibility of freedom from glasses and asked if that
was "OK".

I never would have consented if I had known, and I also would not have
consented to LASIK if I were aware that almost
every patient receives induced corneal aberrations that cannot be corrected
by glasses (these are called 'higher order
aberrations' for you newcomers).

These facts were not in my consent forms. Would you provide us with an
example of consent forms from one of
your CRSQA surgeons that explicitly states that patients will likely have
induced corneal distortions (higher order
aberrations) and that their corneal nerves will be severed by LASIK,
resulting in dry eye?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002 Dec;43(12):3660-4.
Reinnervation in the cornea after LASIK.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...t_uids=12454033
Lee BH, McLaren JW, Erie JC, Hodge DO, Bourne WM.
Department of Ophthalmology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.

CONCLUSIONS: In the corneal flap, the number of subbasal and stromal nerve
fiber bundles decreases by 90% immediately after LASIK. During the first
year after LASIK, subbasal nerve fiber bundles gradually return, although by
1 year their number remains less than half of that before LASIK.

Corneal Reinnervation after LASIK: Prospective 3-Year Longitudinal Study
http://www.iovs.org/cgi/content/abstract/45/11/3991
(Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. 2004;45:3991-3996.)
© 2004 by The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Inc.
Corneal Reinnervation after LASIK: Prospective 3-Year Longitudinal Study
Martha P. Calvillo,1 Jay W. McLaren,1 David O. Hodge,2 and William M.
Bourne1
1From the Departments of Ophthalmology and 2Biostatistics, Mayo Clinic
College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota.
CONCLUSIONS. Both subbasal and stromal corneal nerves in LASIK flaps recover
slowly and do not return to preoperative densities by 3 years after LASIK.
The numbers of subbasal nerves appear to decrease between 2 and 3 years
after LASIK. The orientation of the regenerated subbasal nerves remains
predominantly vertical.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Functionality is related to nerve loss. This is why so many patients who are
fairly young, and not in risk groups for dry eyes end up stuck with plastic
pieces in their eyes in an attempt to control the surgically induced
dryness.

Doctors do not adequately inform patients of the damage that is done to
their eyes. That is why there is no such thing, currently, as informed
consent
for LASIK.

I know a medical doctor who had this surgery within the past 18 months. He
had NO IDEA of the damage that LASIK does.... most medical doctors know
very little about LASIK and its consequences. I have found
many LASIK surgeons to be woefully uninformed. Perhaps they are taking the
"ostrich"
strategy of burying their heads in the sand so as not to fact the truth
about damage
to patients visual acuity and ocular health.

LASIK AND OCULAR SURFACE DISEASE.... THE PUBLIC SHOULD
KNOW! If you would REALLY like to be a patient advocate, Glenn, perhaps you
should start
spreading the word.

"Glenn - USAEyes.org" <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message
news:hfnvc1tkkv8anqs6t5aonk6qpai7en8gcl@4ax.com...
> The informed consents recommended by the major malpractice insurance
> companies include such warnings. Whether or not the patient heeds
> those warnings, or eve actually reads the informed consent is another
> matter.
>
> What you call "nerve damage" is a part of the process of refractive
> surgery. You cannot reshape the cornea with an excimer laser without
> removing tissue, some of that tissue being nerves. Studies have shown
> that nerve sensitivity returns rather quickly and nerve density
> returns to preoperative levels after a few years. What is more
> important, of course, is the functionality, which for nearly all
> patients returns within the normal six month healing period.
>
> Doctors and patients alike decide that the "damage" necessary to
> effect a desired result is appropriate. That is the essence of
> elective surgery.
>
> If you don't like this, simply elect to not have surgery. No one can
> legitimately claim to not understand that surgery causes changes. If
> you don't want the changes, don't have surgery.

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2005-07-09, 10:54 pm

I did not lie. Additional studies have shown that three years after
PRK, corneal nerves regenerate to preoperative levels and after five
years the same happens with LASIK. Just do a search in this newsgroup
and see the thread. There are several other references mentioned.

Yes, it is possible to have dry eye a year after LASIK. It is possible
to have dry eye a year before LASIK too. Dry eye is a naturally
occurring event that can be exacerbated by LASIK. It is also possible
for LASIK induced temporary dry eye to occur as well.

It is very rare that someone who had no preexisting dry eye problems
to have dry eye problems a year after LASIK, but it most certainly is
possible. We have a detailed article on LASIK induced temporary dry
eye and treatment options at
http://www.complicatedeyes.org/dry_eye_treatment.htm

serebel

2005-07-09, 10:54 pm

For Lasikinformer:

The dry eye thing is in all lasik consent forms, you actually have to
read them.

For Casey:

Kathy Griffin is as nuts as you. Why then did you consent to have
"malpractice" done to yourself?

SErebel

lasikinformer

2005-07-10, 11:51 am

Please provide a link to ONE SCIENTIFIC STUDY that shows that corneal nerves
regenerate
to preoperative levels >1 year after LASIK. Show us ONE STUDY Glenn. A
specific example.

You gave a reference with NO STUDIES showing this and said there were at
least several
references. Well, provide the journal link to the abstract and paste the
conclusion here for us.

Guess what? You can't. Because you're not telling the truth. You say you're
being honest. Support
your case with some scientific studies.

"Glenn - USAEyes.org" <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message
news:4ku0d192hh85mrnbijfncd4t5bflo789fg@4ax.com...
>I did not lie. Additional studies have shown that three years after
> PRK, corneal nerves regenerate to preoperative levels and after five
> years the same happens with LASIK. Just do a search in this newsgroup
> and see the thread. There are several other references mentioned.
>
> Yes, it is possible to have dry eye a year after LASIK. It is possible
> to have dry eye a year before LASIK too. Dry eye is a naturally
> occurring event that can be exacerbated by LASIK. It is also possible
> for LASIK induced temporary dry eye to occur as well.
>
> It is very rare that someone who had no preexisting dry eye problems
> to have dry eye problems a year after LASIK, but it most certainly is
> possible. We have a detailed article on LASIK induced temporary dry
> eye and treatment options at
> http://www.complicatedeyes.org/dry_eye_treatment.htm

lasikinformer

2005-07-10, 11:51 am

Not in mine. I read them. Completely. I was decieved by my doctor and the
LASIK
industry. NO PATIENT WHO WAS TRULY INFORMED WOULD CONSENT
TO LASIK SURGERY. Not these days when so much research documenting
adverse consequences of LASIK has hit the medical journals. Which you don't
read.

"serebel" <serebel@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1120960902.755717.172570@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> For Lasikinformer:
>
> The dry eye thing is in all lasik consent forms, you actually have to
> read them.
>
> For Casey:
>
> Kathy Griffin is as nuts as you. Why then did you consent to have
> "malpractice" done to yourself?
>
> SErebel
>

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2005-07-10, 5:50 pm

It is a common cry of the "I was lied to" group that no one would have
LASIK if this or if that or if the other thing. usually this is not
true by a wide margin.

I have many people contact us who are contemplating LASIK and are very
well informed. They seek additional information and become even better
informed. Most doctors now have an informed consent video,
questionnaire, as well as the legal document that needs to be signed
- often at multiple locations.In some cases, the patient must write
out informed sentences in their own hand.

I think what the anti-LASIK zealots really mean is that no one would
have LASIK if everyone BELIEVED what the zealots believe, such beliefs
too often having little regard for reality.

LASIK, like all surgery, has risk. For some that risk is not
acceptable, for others it is fine. To suggest that the multiple
millions of people who have had LASIK only did it because they were
too stupid to know better is idiotic, an insult to those who did their
research and made an informed decision and is consistent with the
usual ravings of the zealots.

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.

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2005-07-10, 5:50 pm

I never said that corneal nerves return to preoperative density in
less than a year after LASIK. I said that they return in three years
for PRK and five years for LASIK, however the sensitivity (which is
what is actually important) normally returns to preoperative levels
within the six month healing period.

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

2005-07-10, 10:50 pm

Lasikinformer posted previously that his/her surgery was done about a
year ago. Your "informed consent" forms contained way more info than
mine (they are updated every year). You were not deceived. They covered
dye eye and you know it.

SErebel

CatmanX

2005-08-08, 5:59 pm

This is assuming that thise who did the research actually knew what
function they were testing for. One problem we have is that corneal
sensitivity is not all that these nerves function for. Tear film quality
depends on afferent input from the cornea, so any change heere is going
to affect tear film quality. I have seen no research into this yet. The
problem with any of these types of procedure is that we don't fully
understand the full impact of what we are doing until further down the
track and have seen problems and then begun to work on them, such as
aberrations, zone size etc.

Cheers dude,

dr grant

serebel

2005-08-08, 10:58 pm

We won't know a lot of these things till long term data is analysed.
This applied to many different surgeries. People who have elective
surgery are informed as to what is up to date at the time.

SErebel