|
|
| Ed_Zep 2006-10-12, 4:29 pm |
| I'm coming up to the 2nd anniversary of my operation and I'm really
pleased I had it done (except the price is so much lower now).
My question is what is the accepted view on long-term improvement. I'm
sure my vision has improved in the last year (although by just the
tiniest amount).
Ed.
| |
| Ragnar 2006-10-12, 4:29 pm |
| Your refractive error is now stable.. however. your vision may get
worse over time due to the loss of accomodation of viewing objects at
varying distances (presbyopia) and clouding of the natural lens
(cataracts).
Accomodation is like auto-focus. It is best at about age 20 and
decreases as yo age. Standard IOLs offer no accomodation, so they
should be avoided until you lose your accomodation anyway.
On 12 Oct 2006 12:21:55 -0700, "Ed_Zep" <ed_zep@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>I'm coming up to the 2nd anniversary of my operation and I'm really
>pleased I had it done (except the price is so much lower now).
>
>My question is what is the accepted view on long-term improvement. I'm
>sure my vision has improved in the last year (although by just the
>tiniest amount).
>
>Ed.
| |
| Sheila G. 2006-10-13, 2:29 am |
| Hey Ed,
My hubby is going on his 1 year anniversary. He considers the whole
thing a gift, it's still so incredible to him. He wore glasses 24/7-It
wasn't cheap and we live in in area that does NOT advertise Lasik. In
fact, our surgery center doesn't even own the Lasik machine. Only does
it on certain days of the month the machine is here.
I think from the beginning it is very good or bad-sounds like it is
only getting better for you! Thanks for sharing....
> I'm coming up to the 2nd anniversary of my operation and I'm really
> pleased I had it done (except the price is so much lower now).
>
> My question is what is the accepted view on long-term improvement. I'm
> sure my vision has improved in the last year (although by just the
> tiniest amount).
>
> Ed.
| |
|
| I am coming up on 10 years...
I think I stabilized around 1 year... been good since.
"Ed_Zep" <ed_zep@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1160680915.660981.8120@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I'm coming up to the 2nd anniversary of my operation and I'm really
> pleased I had it done (except the price is so much lower now).
>
> My question is what is the accepted view on long-term improvement. I'm
> sure my vision has improved in the last year (although by just the
> tiniest amount).
>
> Ed.
>
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2006-10-13, 2:29 am |
| The probability of improvement really depends upon what is inferior.
If the vision quality is good but you have residual or induced
refractive error that can be fully corrected with glasses, then at one
year it is not terribly likely you are going to experience much
change. If there are other issues such as dry eye or presbyopia, then
that is a whole different situation.
What symptom makes your current vision seem less than spectacular?
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
USAEyes.org
Patient Advocacy Surgeon Certification
"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.
Copyright 2006
All Rights Reserved
| |
| Ed_Zep 2006-10-13, 8:26 am |
|
Glenn - USAEyes.org wrote:
> The probability of improvement really depends upon what is inferior.
> If the vision quality is good but you have residual or induced
> refractive error that can be fully corrected with glasses, then at one
> year it is not terribly likely you are going to experience much
> change. If there are other issues such as dry eye or presbyopia, then
> that is a whole different situation.
>
> What symptom makes your current vision seem less than spectacular?
Yes it's a little dryness in the left eye. The vision in that eye can
be blurred.
When I wake up the vision in both eyes is pretty much the same.
I think that's what I'm really on about.
Thanks, Ed.
| |
| Ed_Zep 2006-10-13, 8:26 am |
|
Sheila G. wrote:
> Hey Ed,
>
> My hubby is going on his 1 year anniversary. He considers the whole
> thing a gift, it's still so incredible to him. He wore glasses 24/7-It
> wasn't cheap and we live in in area that does NOT advertise Lasik. In
> fact, our surgery center doesn't even own the Lasik machine. Only does
> it on certain days of the month the machine is here.
>
> I think from the beginning it is very good or bad-sounds like it is
> only getting better for you! Thanks for sharing....
>
Thanks Sheila. I think it's some residual dryness that's cleared up a
bit.
I'm glad your husband had such good vision. When I think about it, what
an incredible procedure it is (providing one has a pleasing result).
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2006-10-13, 4:27 pm |
| The probability that Lasik induced dry eye will improve after one year
is relatively good. Corneal nerve sensitivity commonly returns within
the normal six month healing period, however corneal density takes
three to five years to return to preoperative levels. You may be one
of the unfortunate few who requires additional healing.
It is possible that the level of Lasik induced dry eye you currently
experience is permanent and it is possible that the dry eye you
experience is natural and would have occurred with or without Lasik.
We have a detailed article regarding Lasik Dry Eye that includes links
to a list of methods to treat the problem at
http://www.usaeyes.org/lasik/faq/lasik-dry-eyes.htm
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
USAEyes.org
Patient Advocacy Surgeon Certification
"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.
Copyright 2006
All Rights Reserved
| |
| Ed_Zep 2006-10-13, 4:27 pm |
|
Glenn - USAEyes.org wrote:
> The probability that Lasik induced dry eye will improve after one year
> is relatively good. Corneal nerve sensitivity commonly returns within
> the normal six month healing period, however corneal density takes
> three to five years to return to preoperative levels. You may be one
> of the unfortunate few who requires additional healing.
>
> It is possible that the level of Lasik induced dry eye you currently
> experience is permanent and it is possible that the dry eye you
> experience is natural and would have occurred with or without Lasik.
>
> We have a detailed article regarding Lasik Dry Eye that includes links
> to a list of methods to treat the problem at
> http://www.usaeyes.org/lasik/faq/lasik-dry-eyes.htm
>
Many thanks Glenn.
Ed.
| |
|
|
Ed_Zep wrote:
> Glenn - USAEyes.org wrote:
>
> Many thanks Glenn.
>
> Ed.
To clarify, lasik is responsable for dry eyes. Even Glenn, a prolasik
person points this out. Dry eyes is often permanent but its possible
some improvement may be forthcomming.
The nerves dont regenerate 100%
| |
| southeasteyecare@hotmail.com 2006-10-14, 4:28 pm |
|
The Mayo Clinic studies measuring corneal nerve densities after corneal
refractive surgery used FLAWED methods to compare
normal and post-refractive surgery corneal nerve density.
When they scanned a confocal image representing a corneal area, they
did not count images that had no nerve.
Imagine comparing two fish ponds, one densely populated and one
sparsely populated with fish... and throwing away any samples collected
that didn't contain a fish. This would falsely elevate the estimate of
the density in the sparse pond. Obviously!
The Mayo Clinic study made this same analysis error (sections with no
nerves should have been considered as zero) and
still they managed to produce data indicating massive, alarming corneal
nerve density loss post-LASIK.
Until such a corneal nerve loss study is performed properly, no one can
substantiate a claim that corneal nerve density ever returns to normal.
I shudder to think what the 'real' numbers are!
| |
| Ragnar 2006-10-14, 4:28 pm |
| LASIK is NOT responsible for dry eyes. All people's eyes tend to get
dryer as they age. Glenn pointed out that even after 1 year, the
dryness issue will still improve. After 2 or 3 years, the nerves are
back to their pre-operative levels, and there is absolutely nothing to
do with lasik that still exists to result in any dryness.
On 13 Oct 2006 19:12:25 -0700, "Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Ed_Zep wrote:
>
>
>To clarify, lasik is responsable for dry eyes. Even Glenn, a prolasik
>person points this out. Dry eyes is often permanent but its possible
>some improvement may be forthcomming.
>The nerves dont regenerate 100%
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2006-10-14, 4:28 pm |
| I believe that it is reasonable for individuals considering
refractive surgery to place value in a peer reviewed study from the
prestigious Mayo Clinic.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
USAEyes.org
Patient Advocacy Surgeon Certification
"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.
Copyright 2006
All Rights Reserved
| |
|
| where is the link that shows this flawed methodology?
<southeasteyecare@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1160841481.680269.324880@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> The Mayo Clinic studies measuring corneal nerve densities after corneal
> refractive surgery used FLAWED methods to compare
> normal and post-refractive surgery corneal nerve density.
>
> When they scanned a confocal image representing a corneal area, they
> did not count images that had no nerve.
>
> Imagine comparing two fish ponds, one densely populated and one
> sparsely populated with fish... and throwing away any samples collected
> that didn't contain a fish. This would falsely elevate the estimate of
> the density in the sparse pond. Obviously!
>
> The Mayo Clinic study made this same analysis error (sections with no
> nerves should have been considered as zero) and
> still they managed to produce data indicating massive, alarming corneal
> nerve density loss post-LASIK.
>
> Until such a corneal nerve loss study is performed properly, no one can
> substantiate a claim that corneal nerve density ever returns to normal.
>
> I shudder to think what the 'real' numbers are!
>
| |
| Ragnar 2006-10-14, 4:28 pm |
| I guess the Mayo Clinin needs you to tell them how to do things.
They really need someone who was fired from Duke working for them.
On 14 Oct 2006 08:58:01 -0700, southeasteyecare@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>The Mayo Clinic studies measuring corneal nerve densities after corneal
>refractive surgery used FLAWED methods to compare
>normal and post-refractive surgery corneal nerve density.
>
>When they scanned a confocal image representing a corneal area, they
>did not count images that had no nerve.
>
>Imagine comparing two fish ponds, one densely populated and one
>sparsely populated with fish... and throwing away any samples collected
>that didn't contain a fish. This would falsely elevate the estimate of
>the density in the sparse pond. Obviously!
>
>The Mayo Clinic study made this same analysis error (sections with no
>nerves should have been considered as zero) and
>still they managed to produce data indicating massive, alarming corneal
>nerve density loss post-LASIK.
>
>Until such a corneal nerve loss study is performed properly, no one can
>substantiate a claim that corneal nerve density ever returns to normal.
>
>I shudder to think what the 'real' numbers are!
| |
|
|
Ragnar wrote:
> LASIK is NOT responsible for dry eyes. All people's eyes tend to get
> dryer as they age. Glenn pointed out that even after 1 year, the
> dryness issue will still improve. After 2 or 3 years, the nerves are
> back to their pre-operative levels, and there is absolutely nothing to
> do with lasik that still exists to result in any dryness.
I think ill believe this lady I met in person several weeks ago who
still has dry eyes 3 years post lasik. She never had that problem
before lasik till she got it at age 27 and now at age 30 she still uses
eyedrops a few times a day. Serves as a chilling warning.
| |
| serebel 2006-10-14, 9:34 pm |
|
Ace wrote:
>
>
> To clarify, lasik is responsable for dry eyes. Even Glenn, a prolasik
> person points this out. Dry eyes is often permanent but its possible
> some improvement may be forthcomming.
> The nerves dont regenerate 100%
The world needs a retard to clarify things. If only he could write
in English.
| |
| Ragnar 2006-10-15, 2:29 am |
| You met a lady? I find that hard to believe.
On 14 Oct 2006 18:06:28 -0700, "Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Ragnar wrote:
>
>
>I think ill believe this lady I met in person several weeks ago who
>still has dry eyes 3 years post lasik. She never had that problem
>before lasik till she got it at age 27 and now at age 30 she still uses
>eyedrops a few times a day. Serves as a chilling warning.
| |
| serebel 2006-10-15, 9:33 pm |
|
Ragnar wrote:
> You met a lady? I find that hard to believe.
>
>
Video feed to mommie's basement.
| |
|
| southeasteyecare@hotmail.com banged the rocks together and they said :
>
> The Mayo Clinic studies measuring corneal nerve densities after
> corneal refractive surgery used FLAWED methods to compare
> normal and post-refractive surgery corneal nerve density.
>
> When they scanned a confocal image representing a corneal area, they
> did not count images that had no nerve.
>
> Imagine comparing two fish ponds, one densely populated and one
> sparsely populated with fish... and throwing away any samples
> collected that didn't contain a fish. This would falsely elevate the
> estimate of the density in the sparse pond. Obviously!
What are you on about?
Ponds the same size.
Count the fish.
One has more than the other.
End of story.
You can do whatever you like with the fish-less water, *IT MAKES NO
DIFFERENCE BECAUSE THERE'S NO BLOODY FISH THERE*!
Even a 5 year old can figure that one out.
Were you born this stupid or did you have to take a degree to achieve
it?
I'll tell you what, I'll illustrate it. You come round here and I'll
chop one of your ears off.
Then we'll get someone to count my ears, and count your ears, including
the space where your other ear used to be.
And then we'll get them to count your ears again *ignoring* the space
the other one used to be.
What do you think the results will be?
--
frag
<stuff goes here>
| |
|
| Ace banged the rocks together and they said :
>
> Ragnar wrote:
>
>
> I think ill believe this lady I met in person several weeks ago who
> still has dry eyes 3 years post lasik. She never had that problem
> before lasik till she got it at age 27 and now at age 30 she still
> uses eyedrops a few times a day. Serves as a chilling warning.
Dry eyes make me laugh. [1]
Someone wears glasses for years. Oddly enough those glasses shield
their eyes from the wind and the rain. [2]
Then they have lasik/PRK/whatever and can get rid of the glasses.
Unsuprisingly their eyes are now subjected to the wind/rain/smoke/crud.
And dry out, maybe a little, maybe a lot.
Until the body gets used to having to supply more tears.
Stuffing eye drops in there for years is not going to solve the
problem, as the body will think all is OK and it doesn't need to step
up tear fluid production.
IMHO of course.
[1] Yes I realise that there are people out there who do unfortunately
have a real problem with them, and they have my sympathy, but this
problem, like all in here, is blown out of all proportion.
[2] Contact lenses - depending on the type of them, will have the same
effect, but obviously to a reduced level.
--
frag
<stuff goes here>
|
|
|
|