|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > August 2005 > Glenn spreads more falsehoods and won't back up his statements with published literatu
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 |
Glenn spreads more falsehoods and won't back up his statements with published literatu
|
|
|
| Glenn, there is no 5 year study. Please cite this imaginary study. The study
stopped in 2004 at 3 years. See below. If there
werera current study it would be a 4 year study. Why do you continually lie
to patients? Oh yeah,
to pad your wallet because you're a LASIK profiteer and you don't care what
happens to patients.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...5047&query_hl=3
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004 Nov;45(11):3991-6.
Corneal reinnervation after LASIK: prospective 3-year longitudinal study.
Calvillo MP, McLaren JW, Hodge DO, Bourne WM.
Department of Ophthalmology, Mayo Clinic college of Medicine, Rochester, MN
55905, USA.
PURPOSE: To measure the return of innervation to the cornea during 3 years
after LASIK. METHODS: Seventeen corneas of 11 patients who had undergone
LASIK to correct myopia from -2.0 D to -11.0 D were examined by confocal
microscopy before surgery, and at 1, 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months after
surgery. In all available scans, the number of nerve fiber bundles and their
density (visible length of nerve per frame area), orientation (mean angle),
and depth in the cornea were measured. RESULTS: The number and density of
subbasal nerves decreased >90% in the first month after LASIK. By 6 months
these nerves began to recover, and by 2 years they reached densities not
significantly different from those before LASIK. Between 2 and 3 years they
decreased again, so that at 3 years the numbers remained <60% of the
pre-LASIK numbers (P <0.001). In the stromal flap most nerve fiber bundles
were also lost after LASIK, and these began recovering by the third month,
but by the third year they did not reach their original numbers (P <0.001).
In the stromal bed (posterior to the LASIK flap interface), there were no
significant changes in nerve number or density. As the subbasal nerves
returned, their mean orientation did not change from the predominantly
vertical orientation before LASIK. Nerve orientation in the stromal flap and
the stromal bed also did not change. 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.
Corneal nerve density is related to corneal sensitivity. Please show a study
where sensitivity is normal.
Especially at the 5 year mark. There is such profound nerve damage after
LASIK patients can't possibly
be normal. What will happen when dry eye increases naturally with aging, and
LASIK patients already have
substantial nerve loss?
I'm sitting here with both upper and lower plugs. Dry eye was not in my
consent forms. My eyes hurt like hell
every day. Maybe that's sensitivity... but it doesn't help much with tear
secretion. The lack of adequate tear film
makes my vision blurry. I have been diagnosed with conjuctivitis sicca. Not
present before LASIK. As a matter
of a fact, it's a contraindication.
The FDA still says tobacco is OK and won't take a stand to regulate it as a
drug. Is it a surprise that they
won't set firm limits on minimal residual stromal thickness? Patients are
getting ectasia at 300 microns
under the flap. Are you calling anything less than 300 microns SAFE? If you
are, there are patients out there who
have ectasia with 300 microns that would like to hold you responsible for
spreading misinformation.
LASIK, even custom LASIK almost ALWAYS increases higher order aberrations,
except in very unusual circumstances
which usually represent a retreatment where a surgeon really botched a
patients eyes in the first surgery.
The suction from a microkeratome can cause floaters in young people that are
distracting enough to be a persistent problem
FOR LIFE. I know a young military officer in his 20's whose floaters are so
bad he wakes up miserable every morning to a floater-speckled ceiling. A
young woman in my Ophthalmologist's office has terrible floaters after her
LASIK, and dry eyes as well. She can't take cold medicine without being
absolutely miserable with dry eyes. What will happen to HER as she ages? Her
boss put a button on her that read "Ask me about my LASIK surgery". Gee, I'm
glad I did and that I can share her experiences hopefully with a few people
who haven't had this destructive surgery and may be disuaded.
Competent refractive surgeon? Now there's an oxymoron. A competent surgeon
would refuse to perform this procedure. Many Opthalmologists are joining the
ranks of those who will not perform LASIK.
"Glenn - USAEyes.org" <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message
news:sboff19ed7dben7op46hdk66mmqma2k6d9@4ax.com...
> Based upon the majority physicians who discuss this matter and present
> papers at medical conventions, multiple studies throughout the world
> over decades, and the official FDA requirements, it is determined that
> a healthy cornea will remain stable if 250 microns of tissue remains
> untouched, however more is always better and some doctors use
> different requirements.
>
> The Mayo Clinic study that reports nerve loss after LASIK at 3 years
> also reports that subnasal nerves regenerate to their preoperative
> levels at 5 years postop. It seems this fact was convenient edited out
> of the previous post.
>
> Of course, nerve sensitivity (the real issue) usually returns within
> the normal six month healing period. Corneal nerve sensitivity is
> important because it contributes to good eye tear production.
>
> On the whole, all refractive surgery elevates higher order aberrations
> (HOA), however not always. Wavefront-guided laser ablations induce
> less HOA than conventional ablation. Sometimes the HOA are reduced and
> sometimes specific key HOA are lower after refractive surgery than
> before, however this is not terribly predictable.
>
> The intraocular pressure rise with the application of suction to
> attach the microkeratome used to create the LASIK flap does not damage
> a healthy retina. Any person with a history of retina problems should
> be evaluated by a retina specialist before having LASIK, IntraLASIK,
> or Epi-LASIK. If a concern exists, the surface ablation techniques PRK
> and its cousin LASEK may be more appropriate because they do not
> require a microkeratome.
>
> All of these issues, and more, are why it is so important for a
> patient to be evaluated by a competent refractive surgeon.
>
> 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 2005-08-12, 10:54 pm |
| For a blindie there Mark, you sure do read a lot, too bad comprehension
is a weak spot for you.
SErebel
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-08-13, 11:54 am |
| Already responded to your previous accusation in another thread, but
just so you don't need to look:
There is a five year study. In fact, if you would have bothered to do
a quick search on this very newsgroup the information is right there.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?B26C22B9B
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 2005-08-13, 11:54 am |
| It seems "Mark" will find an older study that he likes and ignores
subsequent information.
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.
| |
|
| Hey, Mark quoted the newest peer-reviewed study. MoreHagele hokum. Ho-hum.
"Glenn - USAEyes.org" <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message
news:fa8sf1h9dain2tjma0dekktdekecm2cbgi@4ax.com...
> It seems "Mark" will find an older study that he likes and ignores
> subsequent information.
>
> 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 |
| Nope, Mark quoted an older "convenient" study.
SErebel
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-08-14, 10:55 pm |
| >At 5 years postop, LASIK patients first present nerve density recovery
>at preoperative levels, however both PRK and LASIK patients have about
>20% lower density at five years postop, apparently attributed to norms
>of patients without surgery.
The statement was not artfully written. At 5 years postop, the tissue
that remains after refractive surgery has the same density of nerves
as existed in tissue before surgery, however with all refractive
surgery some corneal tissue (and with it nerve tissue) is removed.
This tissue does not regenerate. If it did, refractive surgery simply
would not work.
>Also, these are data presented at a meeting. The 5 year data was never
>published, and
>therefore not peer-reviewed.
If you want to ignore the information until it is in a peer reviewed
publication, you may. I find the study too important to ignore.
You will find that many peer-reviewed studies are about 1-3 years
behind actual clinical implementation. Fortunately, nearly all this
information is made available in a more timely manner through posters,
free papers, invited speakers, and trade publications.
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.
| |
| Linda 2005-08-14, 10:55 pm |
| Cathy, no one doubts that the eye has been altered. It is whether or
not these alterations are dangerous, etc that is in dispute. I have
gladly traded my severe myopia (not a normal condition of the eye) for
Lasik, which has changed my eyes in such a way that I can now see
unaided.
Linda
| |
| EyesRBAD 2005-08-16, 10:56 pm |
| If it's not peer reviewed it is just sort of 'hearsay'. Not accepted
science. Besides, the 5 year point
at the meeting reported 20% nerve loss. That's still significant, and a bad
thing.
"Glenn - USAEyes.org" <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message
news:suuvf153ce48fdjk1n7an39dabftsgjrpr@4ax.com...
>
> The statement was not artfully written. At 5 years postop, the tissue
> that remains after refractive surgery has the same density of nerves
> as existed in tissue before surgery, however with all refractive
> surgery some corneal tissue (and with it nerve tissue) is removed.
> This tissue does not regenerate. If it did, refractive surgery simply
> would not work.
>
>
> If you want to ignore the information until it is in a peer reviewed
> publication, you may. I find the study too important to ignore.
>
> You will find that many peer-reviewed studies are about 1-3 years
> behind actual clinical implementation. Fortunately, nearly all this
> information is made available in a more timely manner through posters,
> free papers, invited speakers, and trade publications.
>
> 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 2005-08-16, 10:56 pm |
| Yea, "hearsay" from the same group who did your cited study...the
study that was first presented as a poster, then a free paper, then
peer reviewed.
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 2005-08-16, 10:56 pm |
| Seems that EyesRBAD has yet to read the definition of pathology much
like the rest of the loon squad here.
Let's go over the 20% thing again, if 20% of corneal tissue is removed
of course 20% of nerve tissue goes along with it.
SErebel
|
| |
|
|