|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > September 2005 > 13% of post-LASIK eyes have posterior vitreous detachment!
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 |
13% of post-LASIK eyes have posterior vitreous detachment!
|
|
| journal article 2005-09-24, 2:41 pm |
| And 25% of high myopes have posterior vitreous detachment after LASIK!
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...8256&query_hl=4
Ophthalmology. 2005 Apr;112(4):645-9.
Effect of microkeratome suction during LASIK on ocular structures.
Mirshahi A, Kohnen T.
Department of Ophthalmology, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-University, Frankfurt am
Main, Germany.
Excerpt:
Luna et al10 reported the development of PVD after LASIK with an incidence
of 2% in a group of 50 patients with low myopia (?1.25 to ?3.5 D) and 24% in
a group of 50 patients with high myopia (?6 to ?10 D). Considering the data
from the 100 eyes, this corresponds to 13%; thus, there is not a great deal
of difference between our results and the data in the literature. Luna et
al10 reported the development of PVD after LASIK with an incidence of 2% in
a group of! 50 patients with low myopia (?1.25 to ?3.5 D) and 24% in a group
of 50 patients with high myopia (?6 to ?10 D). Considering the data from the
100 eyes, this corresponds to 13%; thus, there is not a great deal of
difference between our results and the data in the literature.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-09-24, 2:41 pm |
| "journal article" is really Brent Hanson posting misleading or
inaccurate subject lines again.
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.
| |
|
| Nope. You're wrong as usual, Glenn. Not Hanson. By the way, that was the
finding - not an innacurate subject line. Across all eyes, 13% posterior
vitreous detachment after LASIK. Across high myopes 25% were found to have
posterior vitreous detachment. Oh, to be scrupulously correct, they did not
include corneas that were so screwed up after LASIK that they couldn't see
through them well enough to study them.
Refractive surgery: could anyone hate even their enemies enough to wish it
on them?
"Glenn - USAEyes.org" <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message
news:g861j1h85kjtofelqo6uo99m4crou6u1jr@4ax.com...
> "journal article" is really Brent Hanson posting misleading or
> inaccurate subject lines again.
>
> 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, 2:41 pm |
| This is not even possible as such a complication and rate of it would
have halted lasik years ago.
SErebel
|
| |
|
|