|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > August 2005 > Schallhorn's brother had zone widening
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 |
Schallhorn's brother had zone widening
|
|
|
| Schallhorn's brother had zone widening - the story below is discusses
Schallhorn's brother's case. How ironic that Schallhorn would say pupil size
doesn't matter, and then his brother would need a zone widening? Just so you
know, his post-op spherical aberration is still quite high. You wouldn't
want it. It is better than his 'botched' first surgery, but not a desirable
amount of spherical aberration by any means. Most spherical aberration comes
from untreated periphery. It is hard to treat much periphery, especially
with a high correction and large pupil size. This is why patients with high
corrections and large pupils end up with bad outcomes.
Hey, if an ophthalmologist's brother can be this messed up, do you want
LASIK? Also keep in mind that Ophthalmologist Sandra Brown is suing Alcon
over her bad LASIK outcome. When you have Ophthalmologists and their
relatives getting botched, getting only partial or no improvement in their
vision and actually suing a Laser manufacturer.... it's a big hint that you
probably don't want this surgery for your own eyes.
http://www.osnsupersite.com/
MONOGRAPHS
OCULAR SURGERY NEWS March 15, 2004
Better Quality of Vision: A Practical Application of Wavefront-Guided
Customized Ablation
Preoperative
A 51-year-old man who underwent conventional LASIK surgery reported a loss
of contrast at night and blurry vision 2½ years after surgery. His
uncorrected visual acuity was 20/30 and his best-corrected visual acuity was
20/15. His wavefront refraction showed residual myopic astigmatism and many
aberrations, including approximately 0.85 µm of coma and 1.01 µm of
spherical aberration. He was referred for evaluation and possible custom
upgrade by his brother, one of the ophthalmologists contributing to this
Ocular Surgery News supplement.
Postoperative
One week after undergoing surgery with the LADARWave, this patient's
uncorrected visual acuity was 20/15. In addition, his coma decreased to 0.20
µm and his spherical aberration decreased to 0.66 µm. Figure 1 shows the
patient's differential corneal topography map in which the blue in the
periphery represents the effective treatment of preexisting spherical
aberration. Figure 2 shows his wavefront maps before and after CustomCornea.
This patient's aberrations decreased after treatment with CustomCornea.
| |
| serebel 2005-08-06, 10:55 pm |
| Just like any normal person, it seems that this guy didn't just XXXXX
and moan, he actually did something about it.
SErebel
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-08-07, 9:07 am |
| I simply can not understand why the anti-LASIK zealots continue to
claim that Dr. Schallhorn says something he does not say. Dr.
Schallhorn does not say that pupil size is unimportant. He has made
this clear time and time again. What he - or more accurately his and
subsequent studies have proven - is that pupil size alone is a poor
predictor of postoperative night vision problems.
For details on pupil size issues see
http://www.usaeyes.org/faq/subjects..._pupil_size.htm
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.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-08-07, 9:07 am |
| If the anti-lasik zealots did not make claims that were not true, they
would not be claiming much of anything at all.
It is astonishing that there are so few real problems which have
resulted from the several millions of people treated with LASIK.
On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 08:35:15 GMT, Glenn - USAEyes.org
<glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote:
>I simply can not understand why the anti-LASIK zealots continue to
>claim that Dr. Schallhorn says something he does not say. Dr.
>Schallhorn does not say that pupil size is unimportant. He has made
>this clear time and time again. What he - or more accurately his and
>subsequent studies have proven - is that pupil size alone is a poor
>predictor of postoperative night vision problems.
>
>For details on pupil size issues see
>http://www.usaeyes.org/faq/subjects..._pupil_size.htm
>
>
>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.
| |
|
| Notice he developed problems 2 1/2 years after his surgery. Scary. If a
doctor's brother can't get a decent outcome, who can???
"serebel" <serebel@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1123379397.539759.79750@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Just like any normal person, it seems that this guy didn't just XXXXX
> and moan, he actually did something about it.
>
> SErebel
>
| |
|
| Not true. By manipulating pupil size alone, aberrations increase many fold.
This
is why LASIK doctors prescribe pupil-shrinking drugs such as Alphagan
and pilocarpine to patients to 'help' their night vision. Both drugs are
short term
fixes if they help at all, and cause ocular surface problems.
But this is the surgeon's lame solution to the problems he/she causes by
performing
LASIK. He must say to himself "Gee, I'll give some drugs with only a
temporary effect that wears off with repeated
useage and actually has a rebound effect that's worse. These drugs have
nasty side effects
too, like ocular surface damage (both drugs) and increased risk of retinal
detachment (pilocarpine).
But hey, patients are damaged for life and they'll expect me to smile and
give them SOMETHING.
I need to make them go away quietly so I can keep cutting other corneas to
make money!"
"Glenn - USAEyes.org" <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message
news:qmhbf1pt5rmmf7a97o1q52cromvakesn1o@4ax.com...
>I simply can not understand why the anti-LASIK zealots continue to
> claim that Dr. Schallhorn says something he does not say. Dr.
> Schallhorn does not say that pupil size is unimportant. He has made
> this clear time and time again. What he - or more accurately his and
> subsequent studies have proven - is that pupil size alone is a poor
> predictor of postoperative night vision problems.
>
> For details on pupil size issues see
> http://www.usaeyes.org/faq/subjects..._pupil_size.htm
>
>
> 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 2005-08-07, 6:04 pm |
| It seems that you erroneously assume the eyes of a sibling of a
physician are somehow different than the eyes of everyone else, or
that the same procedure when performed on the eyes of a physician's
sibling would somehow be different. The element of risk exists in all
surgery, no matter what the family tree.
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 2005-08-07, 6:04 pm |
| Yet again the zealots attempt to twist the rather simple and empirical
evidence that pupil size is a poor predictor of night vision problems
into something it is not.
Dr. Schallhorn and subsequent studies determined that one cannot
reliably PREDICT who will and who will not have night vision problems
by pupil size alone. Dr. Schallhorn's studies have nothing to do with
TREATMENT of vision difficulties, be that through RGP lenses that
smooth irregularities and enlarge the functional optical zone,
Alphagan P to cause limited constriction of pupil size, pilocarpine to
cause extreme reduction of pupil size, or any other method of
treatment of aberrations in the cornea.
Alphagan P is a medication for glaucoma that by medical standards has
virtually no side effect when used for the reduction of pupil size,
although like all drugs, some individuals will be intolerant. In fact,
many people will use Alphagan P every day for the remainder of their
lives to treat natural occurring glaucoma. Pilocarpine causes a more
severe response and can cause problems when used consistently
long-term. Most of the doctors I know provide Alphagan P as the
primary pupil constrictor agent, and provide pilocarpine for extreme
situations.
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.
| |
|
| If you claim that pupil size is not an excellent predictor of night vision
problems you're an
idiot or you're lying.
Explain how Dr. Schallhorn came to the conclusion that outcome cannot be
predicted
on the basis of pupil size when he had only one patient with 7mm pupils in
the study. Schallhorn's
data was requested in a court of law... he claimed it was a military secret
and that he cannot provide
it. Hiding data flies in the face of acceptable medical research practices.
If Schallhorn's data were
credible, he'd produce them.
People who have had LASIK often have a hard time tolerating alphagan, as one
Opthalmologist
put it, it is "hell on the ocular surface". The last thing you need when
you've had LASIK is a drug
that is "hell on the ocular surface" because your ocular surface is
traumatized enough.
"Glenn - USAEyes.org" <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message
news:b7kcf1h0ps5s22s4hq81u99b7e22t9bk40@4ax.com...
> Yet again the zealots attempt to twist the rather simple and empirical
> evidence that pupil size is a poor predictor of night vision problems
> into something it is not.
>
> Dr. Schallhorn and subsequent studies determined that one cannot
> reliably PREDICT who will and who will not have night vision problems
> by pupil size alone. Dr. Schallhorn's studies have nothing to do with
> TREATMENT of vision difficulties, be that through RGP lenses that
> smooth irregularities and enlarge the functional optical zone,
> Alphagan P to cause limited constriction of pupil size, pilocarpine to
> cause extreme reduction of pupil size, or any other method of
> treatment of aberrations in the cornea.
>
> Alphagan P is a medication for glaucoma that by medical standards has
> virtually no side effect when used for the reduction of pupil size,
> although like all drugs, some individuals will be intolerant. In fact,
> many people will use Alphagan P every day for the remainder of their
> lives to treat natural occurring glaucoma. Pilocarpine causes a more
> severe response and can cause problems when used consistently
> long-term. Most of the doctors I know provide Alphagan P as the
> primary pupil constrictor agent, and provide pilocarpine for extreme
> situations.
>
>
> 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.
| |
|
| No, it's astonishing that the LASIK industry and LASIK surgeons
got away with mauling millions of people, just like the tobacco industry
got away with harming millions. Every LASIK patient has damaged
eyes. Keep up with the medical literature, why don't you? You're
so mistaken and so behind... it's becoming tiresome.
"Ragnar" <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0cobf1h1s70p27qmc97736h2mdv4qrqo31@4ax.com...
> If the anti-lasik zealots did not make claims that were not true, they
> would not be claiming much of anything at all.
> It is astonishing that there are so few real problems which have
> resulted from the several millions of people treated with LASIK.
>
>
> On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 08:35:15 GMT, Glenn - USAEyes.org
> <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote:
>
>
| |
|
| The point is, a prominent LASIK surgeon's own brother is screwed up by
LASIK.
If Schallhorn can't protect his own brother, LASIK isn't safe for the
masses.
"Glenn - USAEyes.org" <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message
news:n1kcf1d6tcsb060ab1mpks06lqdqvhq233@4ax.com...
> It seems that you erroneously assume the eyes of a sibling of a
> physician are somehow different than the eyes of everyone else, or
> that the same procedure when performed on the eyes of a physician's
> sibling would somehow be different. The element of risk exists in all
> surgery, no matter what the family tree.
>
> 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 2005-08-07, 10:58 pm |
| More screaming bull from the fringe.
1) comparing lasik to tobacco is ridiculous.
2) If millions of eyes were mauled, does anyone in their right mind
think this surgery would be legal?
3) According to your own words Jane, Schallhorn's brother is just fine
after the second surgery.
SErebel
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-08-08, 11:53 am |
| "(M)auling millions of people" is the kind of statement that
evaporates any semblance of credibility someone may have briefly
possessed. The millions of people who had LASIK are our co-workers,
neighbors, friends, acquaintances, and family. To a reasonable
individual it would seem odd that they never mentioned being "mauled".
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-08-08, 11:53 am |
| I am neither an idiot, nor am I lying. Study after study from many
doctors in many countries have shown that pupil size alone is a poor
predictor of who will and who will not develop night vision problems
after refractive surgery. If you don't like Schallhorn's study, please
review the scores of additional studies that come to the same
conclusion.
This really is nothing new. Anyone who has had even a cursory
knowledge of refractive surgery outcomes has known that some people
with large pupils do not have night vision problems, and some people
with small pupils do develop night vision problems. One cannot predict
reliably who will and who will not develop problems.
More recent studies, including some by Schallhorn, indicate that the
amount of myopic (nearsighted, shortsighted) correction is much more
closely correlated to night vision disturbances postoperatively. It
appears that there is a related combination of pupil size, amount of
myopia, optical ablation zone, transition zone, and percentage of
tissue ablated that is developing into a better predictor.
For details on pupil size and refractive surgery, visit
http://www.usaeyes.org/faq/subjects..._pupil_size.htm
If you want to promote the idea that Alphagan P is "hell on the ocular
surface", could you please explain why tens of thousands of people use
Alphagan P in greater dosage for glaucoma management than is commonly
used for pupil restriction, and yet they do not have ocular
disturbance? Yet again, inaccurate statements are made and are
attributed to an unnamed "ophthalmologist I know" in an apparent
attempt to make them appear valid.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-08-10, 12:01 pm |
| Yet again the zealots attempt to twist the rather simple and empirical
evidence that pupil size is a poor predictor of night vision problems
into something it is not.
Dr. Schallhorn and subsequent studies determined that one cannot
reliably PREDICT who will and who will not have night vision problems
by pupil size alone. Dr. Schallhorn's studies have nothing to do with
TREATMENT of vision difficulties, be that through RGP lenses that
smooth irregularities and enlarge the functional optical zone,
Alphagan P to cause limited constriction of pupil size, pilocarpine to
cause extreme reduction of pupil size, or any other method of
treatment of aberrations in the cornea.
Alphagan P is a medication for glaucoma that by medical standards has
virtually no side effect when used for the reduction of pupil size,
although like all drugs, some individuals will be intolerant. In fact,
many people will use Alphagan P every day for the remainder of their
lives to treat natural occurring glaucoma. Pilocarpine causes a more
severe response and can cause problems when used consistently
long-term. Most of the doctors I know provide Alphagan P as the
primary pupil constrictor agent, and provide pilocarpine for extreme
situations.
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.
| |
|
| It is unbelievable that LASIK is legal. IT is only legal because data were
hidden, massaged, and misrepresneted in the
FDA clinical trials. Insiders had voting privelages which is a no-no. LASIK
should never have been approved, and those
responsible for its spread and the damage it causes to millions of eyes
should be prosecuted.
Comparing LASIK to tobacco is not ridiculous. Two cases where the FDA
failed to protect the public.
Hey, I read that article and Schallhorn's brother is NOT just fine. His
aberrations are still not anywhere near normal.
He's screwed up.
"serebel" <serebel@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1123468015.522740.315900@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> More screaming bull from the fringe.
> 1) comparing lasik to tobacco is ridiculous.
> 2) If millions of eyes were mauled, does anyone in their right mind
> think this surgery would be legal?
> 3) According to your own words Jane, Schallhorn's brother is just fine
> after the second surgery.
>
> SErebel
>
| |
| serebel 2005-08-11, 10:56 pm |
| What a fantasy world you live in there Marky poo. Funny how even though
Schallhorn's brother says he's fine, you just happen to know better.
Just because you are a really stupid moron don't think people can't
figure out your crap. You're a miserable person so lasik shouln't be
legal. Good thing you carry no clout. By the time i finish typing this,
many more good outcomes will happen, don't you just hate it?
SErebel
| |
| Andrea 2005-08-13, 5:55 pm |
| No such thing as a good outcome. All LASIK corneas are damaged. See below.
Study shows permanent pathologic changes present in all post-LASIK corneas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pathologic Findings in Postmortem Corneas After Successful Laser In Situ
Keratomileusis.
Cornea. 24(1):92-102, January 2005.
Kramer, Theresa R MD, MBA; Chuckpaiwong, Varintorn MD; Dawson, Daniel G MD;
L'Hernault, Nancy; Grossniklaus, Hans E MD; Edelhauser, Henry F PHD
Abstract:
Purpose: To examine the histologic and ultrastructural features of human
corneas after successful laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK).
Methods: Corneas from 48 eyes of 25 postmortem patients were processed for
histology and transmission electron microscopy (TEM). The 25 patients had
LASIK between 3 months and 7 years prior to death. Evaluation of all 5
layers of the cornea and the LASIK flap interface region was done using
routine histology, periodic acid-Schiff (PAS)-stained specimens, toluidine
blue-stained thick sections, and TEM.
Results: In patients for whom visual acuity was known, the first
postoperative day uncorrected visual acuity was 20/15 to 20/30. In patients
for whom clinical records were available, the postoperative corneal
topography was normal and clinical examination showed a semicircular ring of
haze at the wound margin of the LASIK flap. Histologically, the LASIK flap
measured, on average, 142.7 [mu]m (range, 100-200). A spectrum of abnormal
histopathologic and ultrastructural findings was present in all corneas.
Findings at the flap surface included elongated basal epithelial cells,
epithelial hyperplasia, thickening and undulations of the epithelial
basement membrane (EBM), and undulations of Bowman's layer. Findings in or
adjacent to the wound included collagen lamellar disarray; activated
keratocytes; quiescent keratocytes with small vacuoles; epithelial ingrowth;
eosinophilic deposits; PAS-positive, electron-dense granular material
interspersed with randomly ordered collagen fibrils; increased spacing
between collagen fibrils; and widely spaced banded collagen. There was no
observable correlation between postoperative intervals and the severity or
type of pathologic change except for the accumulation the electron-dense
granular material.
Conclusions: Permanent pathologic changes were present in all post-LASIK
corneas. These changes were most prevalent in the lamellar interface wound.
These changes along with other pathologic alterations in post-LASIK corneas
may change the functionality of the cornea after LASIK.
"serebel" <serebel@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1123815014.766129.319900@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> What a fantasy world you live in there Marky poo. Funny how even though
> Schallhorn's brother says he's fine, you just happen to know better.
> Just because you are a really stupid moron don't think people can't
> figure out your crap. You're a miserable person so lasik shouln't be
> legal. Good thing you carry no clout. By the time i finish typing this,
> many more good outcomes will happen, don't you just hate it?
>
> SErebel
>
| |
| Andrea 2005-08-13, 5:55 pm |
| And when you ask these people some 'tough questions' about their vision they
report things
like some dry eye, some problems seeing at night. They don't want to ADMIT
that LASIK
was a MISTAKE because it is permanent, but I have never met a patient who
didn't have
some issue with their LASIK.
The fact that patients are not informed that they will likely experience an
increase
in corneal distortions that are not correctable by glasses, that most
patients are not aware that
they will have an unhealed flap or 'lasik interface' for life, that patients
are unaware that corneal
nerve damage lasts for years and may be progressive and permanent... these
issues make performing
LASIK malpractice. And that's why it is correct to say these patients have
been mauled -the surgeons and the industry
know these facts about LASIK, they know LASIK will harm every eye and they
don't tell patients
about it.
Because they know that like YOU Glenn, if the public knew these facts about
LASIK they would
not WANT LASIK. There go the fat profits!
P.S. PRK causes lots of permanent visual problems, too.
"Glenn - USAEyes.org" <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message
news:g2odf1dciqn2727uma0frb7tkuaop0aq1s@4ax.com...
> "(M)auling millions of people" is the kind of statement that
> evaporates any semblance of credibility someone may have briefly
> possessed. The millions of people who had LASIK are our co-workers,
> neighbors, friends, acquaintances, and family. To a reasonable
> individual it would seem odd that they never mentioned being "mauled".
| |
| Andrea 2005-08-13, 5:55 pm |
| Gee, everyone loses contrast sensitivity after LASIK Glenn! You know that!
That's not a function of pupil size, but the larger your pupils, the more of
your
LASIK-induced aberrations you will see. There are multiple risk factors for
a bad LASIK outcome, pupil size being a huge predictor.
If you have thin corneas and a high correction as well, you are nearly
guaranteed
miserable vision.
"Glenn - USAEyes.org" <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message
news:b9akf1h5i0jc6ufvl11vkuvmhnn656tp8o@4ax.com...
> Yet again the zealots attempt to twist the rather simple and empirical
> evidence that pupil size is a poor predictor of night vision problems
> into something it is not.
>
> Dr. Schallhorn and subsequent studies determined that one cannot
> reliably PREDICT who will and who will not have night vision problems
> by pupil size alone. Dr. Schallhorn's studies have nothing to do with
> TREATMENT of vision difficulties, be that through RGP lenses that
> smooth irregularities and enlarge the functional optical zone,
> Alphagan P to cause limited constriction of pupil size, pilocarpine to
> cause extreme reduction of pupil size, or any other method of
> treatment of aberrations in the cornea.
>
> Alphagan P is a medication for glaucoma that by medical standards has
> virtually no side effect when used for the reduction of pupil size,
> although like all drugs, some individuals will be intolerant. In fact,
> many people will use Alphagan P every day for the remainder of their
> lives to treat natural occurring glaucoma. Pilocarpine causes a more
> severe response and can cause problems when used consistently
> long-term. Most of the doctors I know provide Alphagan P as the
> primary pupil constrictor agent, and provide pilocarpine for extreme
> situations.
>
>
> 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 2005-08-13, 10:54 pm |
| Once again the loon squad chimes in with the same old spiel.
The point of lasik is to make changes in the cornea.(please read the
actual defination of pathology)
So is the point of every other surgery. Should we ban all surgeries?
Why would a person admit problems when there are none?
Sorry Andrea, we all can't be as miserable as you.
SErebel
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-08-14, 10:55 pm |
| It appears that you equate "mauling" with imperfections so slight that
the average patient does not mention them. That is nonsensical to me,
but consistent with the anti-LASIK rhetoric you have been putting
forth..
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.
|
| |
|
|