| LASIKtruth website contents 2005-09-24, 2:38 pm |
| Pathology as a science is the study of diseased tissue and disease
processes. As a noun, as it is used
in the study below from Emory university which found that all LASIK eyes had
permanent pathology
(disease) this use of the word and definition are correct.
If you understood these findings you'd be worried about your own eyes.
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.
"RT" <RTMD24@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:RTMD24-7C5702.18501328082005@newsclstr01.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <1125255040.339538648f57fb9e99d996909eceaa47@teranews>,
> "Henry" <Henry@nospamYahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Please if you are going to post definitions as if you know what you are
> talking about, PLEASE make sure you use the word properly. It is
> absolutely false to write a sentence like "All LASIK corneas have
> permanent pathology" don't be too embarrassed, it is a common mistake.
>
> Pathology in medicine doesn't mean disease--it means the study of the
> manifestation of "stuff" that deviates from its normal and original
> state (sometimes caused by disease and other morbid causes but not
> always--think scar tissue)--usually through the study of microscopic
> samples of tissues.
>
> by your logic the scar on my knee is diseased tissue.
>
> The word "pathology" CANNOT be substituted with the word "disease." It
> just doesn't make sense grammatically and for people who understand the
> meaning of the word it is completely non-sensical to write a sentence
> like you did above.
>
> Anyway, the study you cite talks about "pathological changes" to the
> eye--ie. changes from the normal state of the eye. Of course the eye has
> changed--Doh! The study doesn't even mention "pathology" as a branch of
> science or in relation to LASIK.
>
> Actually the study concludes that there is no evidence these pathologic
> changes have any effect on visual acuity whatsoever.
>
> and it doesn't prove it in ALL LASIKed eyes--only in 48 eyes of 25 dead
> people who left no treatise on how well they saw or not.
>
> Maybe you'll read this post and finally understand that you just really
> don't understand what this study is concluding Henry, Barb, Tabby etc.
>
> --
> ~RT
>
|