|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > September 2005 > Conflicting advice from 2 LASIK doctors
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 |
Conflicting advice from 2 LASIK doctors
|
|
| Mike R. 2005-08-25, 10:57 pm |
| I've been to two LASIK doctors in the downtown Vancouver area and have
received treatment advice that conflicts with each other.
The first clinic, www.visionmed.ca, told me that I was not suitable for
PRK due to my right-eye astigmatism and recommended Wavefront LASIK.
The second clinic, and also the one endorsed by my optometrist,
www.seewell.ca, told me the opposite, recommending against LASIK, and
endorsing PRK (non-wavefront). When I informed the doctor about the
previous advice, he made a snide comment that they were recommending
the most expensive procedure. This is definitely correct, Wavefront
LASIK at visionmed runs around $3600 CDN, while seewell's PRK costs
about $2000. I mentioned my recreational interest in boxing and,
unsurprisingly, got a stronger endorsement for PRK.
My prescription is as follows:
Sphere/Cylinder/Axis
OD -2.75 -5.00 170
OS -6.00
Pupil size 7.5mm (seewell), 8mm (visionmed)
Corneal thickness 551 micron (seewell)
When I asked about PRK being unsuitable for high myopes, surprisingly,
the doctor at seewell said that they found that PRK with current
technology to be very effective at treating high myopia. Unfortunately
I did not think to ask up to what level of myopia he thought that PRK
was appropriate for. From what I've read, -6 appears to be in the
high-end of the acceptable range for PRK.
I plan on speaking with my optometrist about the advice that I have
received, perhaps getting more tests done at a third clinic. I am
confused as to why my astigmatism would make me NOT a candidate for
PRK, could Glenn or someone else shed some light on this? The reason
given was definitely astigmatism and not myopia.
| |
| serebel 2005-08-26, 8:57 am |
| Can't hurt to get more opinions. It's no surprise to get two disparate
opinions from those docs. Probably one is more comfortable doing PRK
and the other more toward lasik. Doesn't mean one or the other is
wrong. It's their opinion.
SErebel
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-08-26, 8:57 am |
| I don't know that I can shed any light on why one says this and the
other says that. Every surgeon has his/her own bias, as do I. I think
you should ask each doctor the precise rational for the proposed
treatment plan.
Let me suggest what I think you should investigate.
No matter which procedure, your right eye is not an "ideal" candidate.
Whenever the astigmatism is greater than the sphere (yours is nearly
twice the sphere), the probability of a good outcome is not great. It
would be reasonable to expect enhancement surgery to be required. It
is reasonable to expect distorted vision until that second enhancement
surgery.
I know many doctors would take me to task for making this kind of dire
prediction, saying they have had great success with this kind of
refractive error, but it has been my observation that patients with
large astigmatism and/or astigmatism greater than sphere seldom have
an easy time of it. You have both large astigmatism and astigmatism
larger than sphere.
Compounding your situation is that you have such large naturally
dilated pupils. Astigmatism is when the cornea is shaped like the back
of a spoon, with a "tip". The tip is at the outer edge of the cornea.
The larger the pupil size, the greater amount of light passing through
the tip will enter the eye and be "seen" as a blur or light ghost
image. Since the difficult part of your correction would be in this
tip, having large pupils means that any aberrations that are
introduced during surgery will most certainly be "seen" and are likely
to cause night vision problems.
If the doctor is using a modern flying spot laser, the probability of
corneal haze with PRK is small. If you take 500mg of vitamin C orally
twice a day for two weeks before surgery and at least three weeks
after surgery, the probability is diminished further. Unless there is
something else that is problematic, it would seem that PRK could be
performed. I personally have a bias toward the surface ablation
techniques of PRK, LASEK, and Epi-LASIK (especially in difficult
cases) because the outcomes tend to be slightly better than LASIK,
however the recovery is much slower with more discomfort, and that may
be an important factor.
I am not familiar with the approved parameters of Canadian excimer
lasers, but if you can have wavefront-guided ablation you would
probably be better off. Several studies have shown that
wavefront-guided ablations provide better outcomes overall.
All else being equal and if you can put up with the recovery
difficulties, the highest probability of a good outcome is with PRK
and wavefront-guided ablation, however your unique circumstances may
indicate a different treatment is better.
I'm sorry I cannot be more definitive.
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.
| |
|
| Mike R, You should abandon the idea of having refractive surgery
IMMEDIATELY.
You have HUGE pupils, and all forms of refractive surgery INDUCE distortions
in
your cornea called higher order aberrations. These visual distortions cannot
be corrected
with glasses. In patients with large pupils, their pupils open up so wide in
dim light that
they must look through a larger part of their cornea and see all those
aberrations.
People with tiny pupils look through a small dot in the center of their
cornea and may
not be affected by aberrations so much.
Your corneal thickness is NOT very thick, your prescription in your left eye
is high and
you have a HUGE amount of astigmatism in your right eye.
You are refractive surgery misery waiting to happen. I can speak from some
experinence
in this matter because my corneas were on the thin side, my prescription
high like yours
with astigmatism and my pupils large. My vision after refractive surgery is
my daily waking
nightmare. It is absolute trash.
NO glasses or contacts have restored me to decent vision. I forgot to
mention comfort. All
LASER corneal surgeries FRY corneal nerves. This corneal nerve loss leads to
dry eye which
can be permanent.
I know a young man in his early twenties who was perfectly normal and happy
till he had refractive
surgery. Now his eyes are so dry they won't open in the morning, and his
vision is horrendous.
Just getting by is a struggle for him. His eyes always hurt.
The cornea was made to be a certain thickness to support the eye. The cornea
does not regenerate.
All corneal refractive surgery weakens and damages the cornea. Don't do this
to your eyes!
Get some contact lenses and appreciate the fact that you can be corrected to
good clear vision and that
your corneas were not trashed by some greedy surgeon.
For your information there is a LASIK pimp on this site named Glenn Hagele
who makes his living off the
industry. Patients hate him for good reason. Don't be taking advice from
Glenn. He's not a medical
professional, he's just a salesman.
Then there are two idiots named Ragnar and SE rebel who call the unfortunate
people with bad LASIK
outcomes who come here for help 'malcontents'. Why don't you take your
questions to a bulletin
board called D'eyealogues. Do a google search and you'll find it.
Your astigmatism will make your treatment smaller and oval. This is a
disaster for your large pupils. You
will never see well out of the astigmatic eye again. Probably not out of
either eye, your pupils are so large.
High prescription, thin corneas, large pupils and astigmatism. The red flags
warning against corneal refractive
surgery. You have all of these. NEVER do it.
"Mike R." <mikeriegger@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1125028217.085401.88370@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I've been to two LASIK doctors in the downtown Vancouver area and have
> received treatment advice that conflicts with each other.
>
> The first clinic, www.visionmed.ca, told me that I was not suitable for
> PRK due to my right-eye astigmatism and recommended Wavefront LASIK.
>
> The second clinic, and also the one endorsed by my optometrist,
> www.seewell.ca, told me the opposite, recommending against LASIK, and
> endorsing PRK (non-wavefront). When I informed the doctor about the
> previous advice, he made a snide comment that they were recommending
> the most expensive procedure. This is definitely correct, Wavefront
> LASIK at visionmed runs around $3600 CDN, while seewell's PRK costs
> about $2000. I mentioned my recreational interest in boxing and,
> unsurprisingly, got a stronger endorsement for PRK.
>
> My prescription is as follows:
>
> Sphere/Cylinder/Axis
> OD -2.75 -5.00 170
> OS -6.00
>
> Pupil size 7.5mm (seewell), 8mm (visionmed)
> Corneal thickness 551 micron (seewell)
>
> When I asked about PRK being unsuitable for high myopes, surprisingly,
> the doctor at seewell said that they found that PRK with current
> technology to be very effective at treating high myopia. Unfortunately
> I did not think to ask up to what level of myopia he thought that PRK
> was appropriate for. From what I've read, -6 appears to be in the
> high-end of the acceptable range for PRK.
>
> I plan on speaking with my optometrist about the advice that I have
> received, perhaps getting more tests done at a third clinic. I am
> confused as to why my astigmatism would make me NOT a candidate for
> PRK, could Glenn or someone else shed some light on this? The reason
> given was definitely astigmatism and not myopia.
>
| |
| serebel 2005-08-26, 10:54 pm |
|
In other words, according to the hysterical lunatic Barb, if you have
RS your legs will fall off.
SErebel
| |
| Pauli Soininen 2005-08-27, 8:55 am |
| Correction to my post:
....don't want to compromise healthy vision *just* because of...
| |
|
| Glenn is not trying to 'sell' you refractive surgery because you're a
Canadian. No profit
incentive for Glenn.
"Glenn - USAEyes.org" <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message
news:i16tg19hflgpg5q036vcnrjcr5gn932i3a@4ax.com...
>I don't know that I can shed any light on why one says this and the
> other says that. Every surgeon has his/her own bias, as do I. I think
> you should ask each doctor the precise rational for the proposed
> treatment plan.
>
> Let me suggest what I think you should investigate.
>
> No matter which procedure, your right eye is not an "ideal" candidate.
> Whenever the astigmatism is greater than the sphere (yours is nearly
> twice the sphere), the probability of a good outcome is not great. It
> would be reasonable to expect enhancement surgery to be required. It
> is reasonable to expect distorted vision until that second enhancement
> surgery.
>
> I know many doctors would take me to task for making this kind of dire
> prediction, saying they have had great success with this kind of
> refractive error, but it has been my observation that patients with
> large astigmatism and/or astigmatism greater than sphere seldom have
> an easy time of it. You have both large astigmatism and astigmatism
> larger than sphere.
>
> Compounding your situation is that you have such large naturally
> dilated pupils. Astigmatism is when the cornea is shaped like the back
> of a spoon, with a "tip". The tip is at the outer edge of the cornea.
> The larger the pupil size, the greater amount of light passing through
> the tip will enter the eye and be "seen" as a blur or light ghost
> image. Since the difficult part of your correction would be in this
> tip, having large pupils means that any aberrations that are
> introduced during surgery will most certainly be "seen" and are likely
> to cause night vision problems.
>
> If the doctor is using a modern flying spot laser, the probability of
> corneal haze with PRK is small. If you take 500mg of vitamin C orally
> twice a day for two weeks before surgery and at least three weeks
> after surgery, the probability is diminished further. Unless there is
> something else that is problematic, it would seem that PRK could be
> performed. I personally have a bias toward the surface ablation
> techniques of PRK, LASEK, and Epi-LASIK (especially in difficult
> cases) because the outcomes tend to be slightly better than LASIK,
> however the recovery is much slower with more discomfort, and that may
> be an important factor.
>
> I am not familiar with the approved parameters of Canadian excimer
> lasers, but if you can have wavefront-guided ablation you would
> probably be better off. Several studies have shown that
> wavefront-guided ablations provide better outcomes overall.
>
> All else being equal and if you can put up with the recovery
> difficulties, the highest probability of a good outcome is with PRK
> and wavefront-guided ablation, however your unique circumstances may
> indicate a different treatment is better.
>
> I'm sorry I cannot be more definitive.
>
> 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.
| |
|
| Paul, which of her comments were hysterical? Please be specific.
"Pauli Soininen" <no@spam.com> wrote in message
news:3KVPe.80$Ah5.36@read3.inet.fi...
> Well. Instead of hystierical comments to either side, it would be much
> more interesting to see statistics of results on similar kind of starting
> point. The problem with hysterical comments is that there will always be
> someone to call it "hysterical", and after that, the patient may have to
> ignore both of the comments (and that's not very good).
>
> I think, if someone actually had made the proper statistics, it would turn
> out that the odds for getting a discomfortably distorted vision after
> these starting values is quite high. Maybe somewhere around 50-80% (when
> discomfortably distorted vision means clearly degraded room illumination
> vision and distracting starburst/halos around lamps at night)?
>
> If I would be Mike, I would measure my exact scotopic pupil myself (since
> seewell/visionmed don't seem to know what they're doing) and after that
> consider LASEK, but if it turns out that you don't want to compromise
> healthy vision because of the benefit for boxing, then forget about it and
> check what's available after 5 years.
>
| |
| Pauli Soininen 2005-08-27, 11:53 am |
| > Paul, which of her comments were hysterical? Please be specific.
I'm trying to avoid any participation to the useless the flame wars (which
is only wasting everybody's time). But, actually I didn't mean that Barb's
post was hysterical.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-09-24, 2:38 pm |
| The information is the same for anyone reading it, no matter where
that person may be located.
Since I am not paid based upon a patient having surgery, or a referral
to a surgeon, or any other quid pro quo system, it makes absolutely no
difference to me if this patient does or does not have surgery
anywhere, except that it appears that there may be a much higher than
normal potential for a poor outcome and in my opinion this patient
needs to do much more research and consider seriously if the potential
risk is worth the potential benefit.
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 2005-09-24, 2:38 pm |
| The problem faced by all patients which have unusual prescriptions is
that there seldom is available statistical data that directly relates.
At best, general data and in my opinion that indicates a higher
probability of a problem outcome.
So this patient is going to need to rely on the opinion of experts.
Both doctors seem to be of the opinion that this prescription can be
corrected - although they recommend different ways of correcting it.
My opinion is that neither method is ideal for correction of this
particular refractive error and your opinion is that 50-80 percent may
have problems.
There is really no way to know for sure whose opinion is correct, but
one thing for certain is that this patient is not "ideal" and
additional consideration and research is warranted.
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.
| |
| Pauli Soininen 2005-09-24, 2:38 pm |
| > There is really no way to know for sure whose opinion is correct
That's true. But in my opinion, the industry and the community should try to
gather the detailed statistics. Not just "3% will have unresolved
complications". That doesn't tell very much. At least I'm personally not
satisfied with the level of information that gives. If looked in more depth,
it would turn out that probably 3% is the percentage for totally flawless
outcomes rather than unresolved complications. (Note that I'm not
questioning or attacking anything, I just would like those who are
considering surgery to understand the real odds more easily.)
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-09-24, 2:38 pm |
| I'll be the first to say that our evaluation of refractive surgery
outcomes is not very detailed, but that is by choice. We felt that
what the public needed was a comprehensive number and evaluation that
would give them a general idea of what can be reasonably expected.
This is based on many studies, the outcomes of surgeons we have
certified, and the collective opinion and knowledge of our Quality
Standards Advisory Committee.
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.
| |
| Pauli Soininen 2005-09-24, 2:38 pm |
| > We felt that what the public needed was a comprehensive
> number and evaluation that would give them a general idea
> of what can be reasonably expected.
I just want to say that I didn't mean to point what I said at your
organization but rather to the thing as a whole. But there's something
slightly wrong about the general idea thing - before surgery I also thought
that the general idea can be counted on, but now I realize that certain
properties totally change the outcome probabilities, and not just
theoretically.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-09-24, 2:38 pm |
| They are both wrong. The first clinic is way off the mark.
What you should have done is standard (non wavefront) LASIK done.
Without even reading his post, I know someone is going to say PRK is
better. He is wrong. PRK is fine, however LASIK is better for you.
On 25 Aug 2005 20:50:17 -0700, "Mike R." <mikeriegger@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>I've been to two LASIK doctors in the downtown Vancouver area and have
>received treatment advice that conflicts with each other.
>
>The first clinic, www.visionmed.ca, told me that I was not suitable for
>PRK due to my right-eye astigmatism and recommended Wavefront LASIK.
>
>The second clinic, and also the one endorsed by my optometrist,
>www.seewell.ca, told me the opposite, recommending against LASIK, and
>endorsing PRK (non-wavefront). When I informed the doctor about the
>previous advice, he made a snide comment that they were recommending
>the most expensive procedure. This is definitely correct, Wavefront
>LASIK at visionmed runs around $3600 CDN, while seewell's PRK costs
>about $2000. I mentioned my recreational interest in boxing and,
>unsurprisingly, got a stronger endorsement for PRK.
>
>My prescription is as follows:
>
>Sphere/Cylinder/Axis
>OD -2.75 -5.00 170
>OS -6.00
>
>Pupil size 7.5mm (seewell), 8mm (visionmed)
>Corneal thickness 551 micron (seewell)
>
>When I asked about PRK being unsuitable for high myopes, surprisingly,
>the doctor at seewell said that they found that PRK with current
>technology to be very effective at treating high myopia. Unfortunately
>I did not think to ask up to what level of myopia he thought that PRK
>was appropriate for. From what I've read, -6 appears to be in the
>high-end of the acceptable range for PRK.
>
>I plan on speaking with my optometrist about the advice that I have
>received, perhaps getting more tests done at a third clinic. I am
>confused as to why my astigmatism would make me NOT a candidate for
>PRK, could Glenn or someone else shed some light on this? The reason
>given was definitely astigmatism and not myopia.
| |
| Pauli Soininen 2005-09-24, 2:38 pm |
| > They are both wrong. The first clinic is way off the mark.
> What you should have done is standard (non wavefront) LASIK done.
>
> Without even reading his post, I know someone is going to say PRK is
> better. He is wrong. PRK is fine, however LASIK is better for you.
What on earth are you saying? Didn't read the post and still you know
better? Why do you say LASIK is better?
| |
| Richard 2005-09-24, 2:38 pm |
| "Barb" <Barb@AOL_nospam.com> wrote in
news:1125099629.c74f48303ff399feea68306839a16321@teranews:
>
> "Mike R." <mikeriegger@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:1125028217.085401.88370@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Mike R, You should abandon the idea of having refractive surgery
> IMMEDIATELY.
> You have HUGE pupils, and all forms of refractive surgery INDUCE
> distortions in
> your cornea called higher order aberrations. These visual distortions
> cannot be corrected
> with glasses. In patients with large pupils, their pupils open up so
> wide in dim light that
> they must look through a larger part of their cornea and see all those
> aberrations.
>
> People with tiny pupils look through a small dot in the center of
> their cornea and may
> not be affected by aberrations so much.
>
> Your corneal thickness is NOT very thick, your prescription in your
> left eye is high and
> you have a HUGE amount of astigmatism in your right eye.
All hysteria aside here...
Your pupils are relatively large, and your astigmatism is pronounced.
Both of these are not good starting points. In addition, your corneas
are not very thick, and if you go with LASIK, there is a decent chance
that you would not be able to have a LASIK enhancement, should one be
required.
All that being said:
I have 8mm pupils, my corneas were of a similar thickness, I was wearing
-6.5 contact lenses, but only had a small astigmatism in one eye. I had
LASIK surgery performed, suffer no ill effects from it, however, I do
still require corrective lenses, albeit a much lower prescription. My
left eye has a larger astigmatism than prior to the surgery, but, it is
not irregular, and easily correctable. I can wear contact lenses which
will correct me to 20/20 left eye, 20/15 right eye, or eyeglasses that
correct me to 20/15 in both eyes. My corneas are thin enough that the
surgeon is not certain a LASIK enhancement can be performed, and he would
have to lift the flaps to determine the remaining thickness under the
flap. I have declined to go ahead with this, it does not seem worth the
risk, however I am considering PRK as an alternative.
I can't say that I am thrilled with my results, however, I am better off
post surgery than pre surgery. I can function around the house, and in
the backyard with no corrective lenses at all. I can read a book that is
more than 2 inches from my face without corrective lenses. I cannot
legally drive without corrective lenses. If I had it to do over again, I
would have gone with PRK personally.
>
> You are refractive surgery misery waiting to happen. I can speak from
> some experinence
> in this matter because my corneas were on the thin side, my
> prescription high like yours
> with astigmatism and my pupils large. My vision after refractive
> surgery is my daily waking
> nightmare. It is absolute trash.
>
> NO glasses or contacts have restored me to decent vision. I forgot to
> mention comfort. All
> LASER corneal surgeries FRY corneal nerves. This corneal nerve loss
> leads to dry eye which
> can be permanent.
Laser surgery does not fry corneal nerves. Creating the flap severs some
of the nerves, not all. For some people, this can become a problem with
dry eyes, for most, it is not, other than temporarilly.
>
> I know a young man in his early twenties who was perfectly normal and
> happy till he had refractive
> surgery. Now his eyes are so dry they won't open in the morning, and
> his vision is horrendous.
> Just getting by is a struggle for him. His eyes always hurt.
>
> The cornea was made to be a certain thickness to support the eye. The
> cornea does not regenerate.
> All corneal refractive surgery weakens and damages the cornea. Don't
> do this to your eyes!
>
> Get some contact lenses and appreciate the fact that you can be
> corrected to good clear vision and that
> your corneas were not trashed by some greedy surgeon.
>
> For your information there is a LASIK pimp on this site named Glenn
> Hagele who makes his living off the
> industry. Patients hate him for good reason. Don't be taking advice
> from Glenn. He's not a medical
> professional, he's just a salesman.
>
> Then there are two idiots named Ragnar and SE rebel who call the
> unfortunate people with bad LASIK
> outcomes who come here for help 'malcontents'. Why don't you take your
> questions to a bulletin
> board called D'eyealogues. Do a google search and you'll find it.
>
> Your astigmatism will make your treatment smaller and oval. This is a
> disaster for your large pupils. You
> will never see well out of the astigmatic eye again. Probably not out
> of either eye, your pupils are so large.
>
> High prescription, thin corneas, large pupils and astigmatism. The red
> flags warning against corneal refractive
> surgery. You have all of these. NEVER do it.
>
--
Richard
| |
| Richard 2005-09-24, 2:38 pm |
| X-Trace: individual.net BcC6GY1JEhdQ0B+c2o4sKAXVqyqLcn0i3Jer75F8/+U6clCDu9
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.lasik-eyes:46518
Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in
news:v291h1dpmcssgmh1htgula59bpupfl7rhi@4ax.com:
> The problem faced by all patients which have unusual prescriptions is
> that there seldom is available statistical data that directly relates.
> At best, general data and in my opinion that indicates a higher
> probability of a problem outcome.
>
> So this patient is going to need to rely on the opinion of experts.
> Both doctors seem to be of the opinion that this prescription can be
> corrected - although they recommend different ways of correcting it.
> My opinion is that neither method is ideal for correction of this
> particular refractive error and your opinion is that 50-80 percent may
> have problems.
>
> There is really no way to know for sure whose opinion is correct, but
> one thing for certain is that this patient is not "ideal" and
> additional consideration and research is warranted.
But, Glenn, you are supposed to be an industry whore who is telling
everyone that they should get the surgery, and that anyone who says
otherwise is a loon. :b
--
Richard
| |
| Richard 2005-09-24, 2:38 pm |
| "Pauli Soininen" <no@spam.com> wrote in
news:hqyQe.30$ac3.15@read3.inet.fi:
>
> I just want to say that I didn't mean to point what I said at your
> organization but rather to the thing as a whole. But there's something
> slightly wrong about the general idea thing - before surgery I also
> thought that the general idea can be counted on, but now I realize
> that certain properties totally change the outcome probabilities, and
> not just theoretically.
>
There is something wrong with the generalization, if you use it to decide
strictly whether or not to have surgery. If, on the other hand, you use
it as a way to choose a surgeon who has such outcomes, then, in order for
that surgeon to maintain that rate of good outcomes, he would likely have
to be turning away bad candidates. This is why each and every potential
patient has to be evaluated on their specific conditions prior to the
surgery. If the person is a bad fit for corrective surgery, then the
surgeon should tell them so. The general statistics are just a
reasonable way to choose a surgeon, or surgeons, to evaluate your
specific situation regarding the reasonableness of having the surgery to
begin with.
--
Richard
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-09-24, 2:38 pm |
| You are exactly on target, Richard. Our information provides the
national norms by which we evaluate refractive surgeons for
certification. A patient who seeks a surgeon whose outcomes are less
than the norm may not be well served.
Whether or not to have surgery is a very, very individual decision.
The unique circumstances of the patient must be evaluated by competent
eye professional(s) before any reasonably informed decision can be
made. This is where our 50 Tough Questions For Your Doctor available
at our website and our certified surgeons can be helpful.
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 2005-09-24, 2:38 pm |
| The fact that I have never publicly or privately told anyone that they
should have refractive surgery (but have suggested to many that they
should not) just seems to be ignored by this handful of anti-LASIK
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.
| |
| ycdbsoya 2005-09-24, 2:38 pm |
| Even a whore gets a sore tookey from time to time. Glenn's been doing a
lot of whoring lately...give him a break!
| |
| ycdbsoya 2005-09-24, 2:38 pm |
| Richard is one of Glenn's alter egos, or a shill to a shill. Check the
language and sentence structure similarities and you'll see.
This is the same charge he levels at the "LASIK loonies." (Note: these
people are no longer human)
"You are exactly on target, Richard." Dead giveaway. Yeah, right.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-09-24, 2:38 pm |
| Frank,
If you are suggesting that I am Richard, I am not. If Richard uses a
similar sentence structure as me, then that just indicates is
brilliance. 8^)
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 2005-09-24, 2:38 pm |
| How is it that you feel obliged to call providing relevant
substantiated facts "whoring"?
How is it "whoring" when in this very thread I provide important
information and serious concern about proceeding with refractive
surgery when the patient already has multiple doctors who have stated
a willingness to proceed?
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.
| |
| Richard 2005-09-24, 2:38 pm |
| "ycdbsoya" <the_boydstons@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1125333545.070147.69690@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Richard is one of Glenn's alter egos, or a shill to a shill. Check the
> language and sentence structure similarities and you'll see.
>
> This is the same charge he levels at the "LASIK loonies." (Note: these
> people are no longer human)
>
> "You are exactly on target, Richard." Dead giveaway. Yeah, right.
>
Lol, wasn't that long ago I was accused of being an alter ego of Sandy...
--
Richard
| |
| Richard 2005-09-24, 2:38 pm |
| "ycdbsoya" <the_boydstons@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1125333545.070147.69690@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Richard is one of Glenn's alter egos, or a shill to a shill. Check the
> language and sentence structure similarities and you'll see.
>
> This is the same charge he levels at the "LASIK loonies." (Note: these
> people are no longer human)
>
> "You are exactly on target, Richard." Dead giveaway. Yeah, right.
>
I am not Glenn. I happen to be a person who had LASIK surgery with less
than stellar results and yet does not feel that Glenn and the laser surgery
industry is out to get me. I hang out here, and post once in a while to
keep up on the state of the industry so I can get a feel for what might be
a good fit for me to finish the correction of my vision.
I have killfiled various zealots on both sides of this issue here as they
have nothing relevent to contribute as far as I am concerned. Glenn does
not fall in that category. You had not reached that threshhold yet either.
--
Richard
| |
| Ragnar 2005-09-24, 2:38 pm |
| Pupils are a bit large, but not too large to not have LASIK done, his
Rx is not that bad, and his corneal thickness is perfectly normal at
551 microns.
This is a LASIK candidate.
On 29 Aug 2005 14:07:00 GMT, Richard <RichardRapier@netscape.net>
wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>"Barb" <Barb@AOL_nospam.com> wrote in
>news:1125099629.c74f48303ff399feea68306839a16321@teranews:
>
>
>
>All hysteria aside here...
>
>Your pupils are relatively large, and your astigmatism is pronounced.
>Both of these are not good starting points. In addition, your corneas
>are not very thick, and if you go with LASIK, there is a decent chance
>that you would not be able to have a LASIK enhancement, should one be
>required.
>
>All that being said:
>
>I have 8mm pupils, my corneas were of a similar thickness, I was wearing
>-6.5 contact lenses, but only had a small astigmatism in one eye. I had
>LASIK surgery performed, suffer no ill effects from it, however, I do
>still require corrective lenses, albeit a much lower prescription. My
>left eye has a larger astigmatism than prior to the surgery, but, it is
>not irregular, and easily correctable. I can wear contact lenses which
>will correct me to 20/20 left eye, 20/15 right eye, or eyeglasses that
>correct me to 20/15 in both eyes. My corneas are thin enough that the
>surgeon is not certain a LASIK enhancement can be performed, and he would
>have to lift the flaps to determine the remaining thickness under the
>flap. I have declined to go ahead with this, it does not seem worth the
>risk, however I am considering PRK as an alternative.
>
>I can't say that I am thrilled with my results, however, I am better off
>post surgery than pre surgery. I can function around the house, and in
>the backyard with no corrective lenses at all. I can read a book that is
>more than 2 inches from my face without corrective lenses. I cannot
>legally drive without corrective lenses. If I had it to do over again, I
>would have gone with PRK personally.
>
>
>Laser surgery does not fry corneal nerves. Creating the flap severs some
>of the nerves, not all. For some people, this can become a problem with
>dry eyes, for most, it is not, other than temporarilly.
>
| |
| Ragnar 2005-09-24, 2:38 pm |
| Richard is not Glenn
On 29 Aug 2005 09:39:05 -0700, "ycdbsoya" <the_boydstons@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>Richard is one of Glenn's alter egos, or a shill to a shill. Check the
>language and sentence structure similarities and you'll see.
>
>This is the same charge he levels at the "LASIK loonies." (Note: these
>people are no longer human)
>
>"You are exactly on target, Richard." Dead giveaway. Yeah, right.
|
| |
|
|