|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > September 2005 > ASCRS Surgeon survey respondents reported an overall post-LASIK ectasia rate of 9%
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 |
ASCRS Surgeon survey respondents reported an overall post-LASIK ectasia rate of 9%
|
|
|
| OSN Supersite: LASIK volumes grow 26% from 2003 to 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LASIK volume up more than 25%, ASCRS survey finds
--------------------------------------
WASHINGTON - The volume of LASIK procedures grew 26% from 2003 to 2004,
according to an annual survey of practice preferences presented here at the
American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery meeting.
Other notable findings of the survey of U.S. members of ASCRS included an
overwhelming preference for acrylic IOLs, a unanimous interest in
accommodating IOLs and a near-doubling of the use of clear corneal incisions
from 5 years ago.
David V. Leaming, MD, sent his annual survey on general ophthalmic trends to
6,296 physicians; 773 returned the questionnaire. He reported the results of
the survey here in a presentation and a poster.
According to Dr. Leaming, in 2004, 62% of survey respondents used topical
plus intracameral anesthesia in cataract surgery.
Over a 5-year period, from 1999 to 2004, the use of clear corneal incisions
almost doubled, from 40% to 72%, according to survey responses. Surgeons
said they prefer a metal blade to a diamond blade by a two-to-one ratio, Dr.
Leaming reported.
As in recent years, acrylic IOLs remained the preferred IOL material among
respondents, followed by silicone, PMMA and hydrogel. More than half the
respondents - 57% - said they prefer a single-piece foldable IOL
For use with ultrasmall-incision cataract surgery in the future, 38% of
respondents said an acrylic lens is the most promising IOL, and 29% of
respondents said an injectable lens material holds the most promise.
In a change from last year, 61% of respondents said they prefer implanting a
clear IOL rather than a blue-light-filtering IOL. In 2003 47% reported
preferring clear lenses.
The survey also addressed refractive surgery topics. As noted above,
respondents reported an increase in LASIK volume by 26% in the year since
the 2003 survey.
Seventy-five percent of respondents said 250 µm is the threshold for the
residual stromal bed below which they would not perform LASIK.
Asked about what refractive procedures they were interested in adopting, 84%
of respondents said they were not interested in scleral expansion, 49% were
not interested in conductive keratoplasty, 54% were not interested in LASEK
and 50% were interested in phakic IOL implantation.
Respondents said they charge an average $500 additional to perform
customized LASIK over their fee for conventional LASIK.
Dr. Leaming noted that in 2003 respondents said only 9% of patients were
offered wavefront LASIK. In 2004, every patient was offered the option of
wavefront, he said.
The survey respondents reported an overall post-LASIK ectasia rate of 9%.
Regarding glaucoma, the survey posed a series of scenarios and asked what
drug the respondents would prescribe. For first-line therapy in a
45-year-old patient, 60% said they would prescribe prostaglandins if the
patient was blue-eyed with no cardiopulmonary complications, and 77% would
prescribe prostaglandins if the patient had brown eyes and no
cardiopulmonary complications. For a blue-eyed patient with a history of
cardiopulmonary complications 83% would prescribe prostaglandins, and for a
brown-eyed patient, 94%.
Regarding medical liability, 17% of respondents said they pay a malpractice
insurance premium of $10,000 per year; 14% each said they pay $7,500,
$12,500 or $15,000.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-09-24, 2:38 pm |
| You anti-LASIK zealots are literally unbelievable. You bring up this
bovine fertilizer, a response is given that explains it completely,
and then you post the bovine fertilize again as if it is somehow going
to change since the last time it was posted.
In April I posted the following. The original post is at
http://groups.google.com/group/alt....3fae91a9a8009be
I contacted Dr. Leaming who provided this response:
~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Mr. Hagele,
There was no question on the 2004 Survey of US ASCRS members where the
post LASIK ectasia rate could be derived. The only question dealing
with ectasia was "How many cases of post LASIK ectasia have occurred
to date (not just last year) where you were the primary surgeon?"
This has nothing to do with rate but with what percent of surgeon have
even seen a case in the years they have been doing refractive surgery.
There was a typo in the answer section of the question in that there
was no "zero" choice. For the most part the data was not even posted
because of that typo.
An estimate of the percent of ASCRS members who have seen ectasia 9%
over the last 8-9 years LASIK has been around was derived but it is
pretty meaningless since we don't know what the time frame was (1-8)
years and we don't know how many skipped the question because there
was no Zero choice in the responses.
The 9% of members who have seen ectasia must have been misinterpreted
from the poster display as a post LASIK ectasia rate which it is not.
In retrospect nothing should have been said about the question since
the answer choices were flawed.
I hope this clears up the miscommunication. I have sent a copy of
this to David Karcher at ASCRS.
Sincerely,
David Leaming MD
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The rate of ectasia after refractive surgery is between 1 in 10,000
and 1 in 20,000 depending upon which report.
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 |
| But it is a number greater than 0%.
It is extremely relevant. What is that number, Glenn? Do you know?
| |
| ycdbsoya 2005-09-24, 2:38 pm |
| Show the report or URL of the 1:10K to 1:20K rate.
It is higher than that. More spin, aye Glenn?
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-09-24, 2:38 pm |
| Feel free to contact the doctors personally:
Richard Lindstrom, MD, Minneapolis
Dan Durrie, MD, Kansas City
Margaruite McDonald, MD, New Orleans (if it is not under water)
George Waring, MD, Atlanta
William Trattler, MD, Miami
They have each reported current ectasia rates between 1 in 10,000 and
1 in 20,000.
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 |
| Yes, the possibility of ectasia does exist. It is the rate of
probability that is the variable.
LASIK has risk. That is an undeniable fact. So does walking across the
street. What is more important than the possibility is the
probability. If someone had a 1 in 10,000 chance of NOT having a
complication, that would indicate a much different decision than a
probability of 1 in 10,000 of having a complication.
Anyone who is not willing to accept any risk whatsoever should not
have refractive surgery of any kind.
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 2005-09-24, 2:38 pm |
| The hysterical lying loons are at it again. Ectasia rates at 9% is
totally false. Yet, they keep on stating this same old garbage over
and over again.
SErebel
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-09-24, 2:39 pm |
| I can understand alarm when a publication prints a 9% ectasia rate,
but if the anti-LASIK zealots would wait just a few seconds to jump on
anything that even vaguely resembled making LASIK look bad and use a
little common sense, what is an obvious misstatement would be very
clear.
All complications combined are less than 9%. Ectasia is a condition
that will present as progressive myopia (nearsighted, shortsighted)
vision and an unstable cornea. Nearly one out of ten LASIK patients
with progressive myopia and unstable corneas would mean about half a
million patients. As I said, just a little common sense applied to the
situation would make it clear that this was a misstatement.
What is really troubling to me is that these anti-LASIK zealots know
the truth, but regurgitate the inaccuracy anyway.
The truth was posted in this newsgroup months ago. It is available
with a quick search. A retraction/clarification was published in the
original magazine. ASCRS made a statement of clarification. The doctor
who coordinates the survey responded to me with an explanation that I
published her.
This is yet another example of the zealots lying and misrepresenting
any way they can in an attempt to frighten unsuspecting people away
from refractive surgery. The real pity is that if/when they ever do
say something important, nobody is going to believe them. Nor should
anybody believe them.
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.
|
| |
|
|