| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-08-09, 10:59 pm |
| There is always reason for concern, but your stated justification for
that concern is not quite right and really ignores some important and
common uses of the Alcon LADARVision 4000.
One of the reasons the LADARVision laser has a high "retreatment" rate
is because it is often used to correct problems created by other
lasers. If someone is screwed up on a Visx/Nidek/B&L and gets it fixed
on a LADARVision, then it is officially counted as a "retreatment"
surgery. Obviously, fixing problems that occurred with other lasers
does not and should not be held against the LADARVision.
Another reason retreatment rates may be reported higher than reality
is that if someone had previous refractive surgery on the LADARVision
in conventional mode, and then later wanted a wavefront-guided
enhancement surgery to resolve regression or other issues, this too
was counted as a retreatment. In some cases, this really was a
retreatment. In others, it was simply a matter of using the newer
wavefront technology to accommodate the changes that occurred
naturally after an extended period of time.
Since we certified one of the two parties counter suing Alcon, I know
for a fact that his outcomes were within the national norms.
Having had the pleasure of a long conversation with the former medical
director of the re-leasing company that is counter suing Alcon after
Alcon had sued for royalty collection, I do know a bit of what was
happening.
Whenever an Alcon service technician changed major components as a
part of ongoing maintenance or upgrades, the doctors' nomograms needed
to be adjusted. This is true of every excimer laser manufactured.
Unless all doctors using a laser were notified that a major change had
occurred with the machine, the doctors would not have known that a
nomogram adjustment may be in order. Once the doctor's nomogram was
adjusted to the upgraded equipment, everything would be okay. At
least, everything would be okay until the next internal upgrade.
Whether or not Alcon notified/responded in an appropriate and timely
manner is IMO the crux of the counter suit. Alcon claims they did.
The folks who owe Alcon millions in royalties say they did not and so
they withheld payment. It is somewhat a which came first chicken or
egg syndrome.
There is plenty of documentation from both sides on this issue and I
have no doubt that the reality will eventually be sorted out.
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.
|