Lasik Eyes Surgery - Who here believes something will displace or replace lasik in the near future? I do!

Author

Who here believes something will displace or replace lasik in the near future? I do!

Ace

2006-10-17, 9:34 pm

I for one do. I have mentioned it before and will mention it again.
Likley, a such technology will be based on orthoK or inherit key
technology points from orthoK. It will attempt to minimize the
inconvinences and shortcommings of orthoK and improve upon the benefits
of orthoK. There has been clinical trials of "corneal molding"
technology with results that last up to a month. Unfortunately some
bugs were found and its back to the drawing board but once the bugs are
resolved, itll be out for clinical trials again and if its a go, itll
be ready for prime time! Theres at least 3 different alternatives to
lasik in the "works", all of them safer than lasik in everyway.

If any of you can wait a few short years, by all means do so! Lasik
should have never been FDA approved or been available to the public
because of all the bugs, problems, flaws and damage to every eye. Its
thru greed that it got the "go ahead" Just like RK did and only once
lasik replaced RK has the truth came out that RK was bad news! People
are paying the price for it now with impaired vision, induced
astigmatism, unstable fluctuating prescription thruout the day and
hyperopic shift. Many RK patients are now in bifocals due to hyperopic
shift and they cant see clearly at any distance!

When the next best thing comes out, lasik will soon be swept under the
rug, its flaws made public and admitted by lasik surgeons(some of those
surgeons used to do RK, now they will tell you to stay away from RK!)
For now, those surgeons will promote lasik as its highly profitable for
them! In fact if you ask them if anything else is "comming" they will
play dumb and say "not that I heard of" or perhaps "not anytime soon"
Thats what they said when RK was the big thing and PRK was being
privately expermented back in the late 1980s to early 1990s. I know a
bunch of people who regretted getting RK and wish they had waited a few
years more. I know one who wanted RK in 1992 and his optometrists were
telling him to wait because better technology using lasers was soon due
for prime time. History will repeat itself with new technology to
dis/replace lasik.
In the meantime, stick with glasses or get orthoK and sit tight!

cg_aust

2006-10-17, 9:34 pm

The shortcomings & inconveniences of orthok are wildly exaggerated
anyway. You do not suddenly go blind at the end of the day, nor does it
take hours of work each morning and night, nor is it incredibly painful
while you try to sleep.

My experience of orthok so far has found it convenient, stable,
reliable comfortable and hassle free. I have no knowledge of, or axe to
grind with Lasik, but orthok is an alternative that should be
considered by those who are within the parameters of its viability.
(-2.5 or better, can tolerate contacts).

It's just a matter of considering all options, rather than one being
all bad, and the other all good. Pros and cons for all the different
alternatives in vision correction.

serebel

2006-10-17, 9:34 pm

Ragnar

2006-10-18, 2:31 am

At least 3 alternatives to lasik? You only mentioned one... corneal
molding. Corneal molding sounds like a great idea, but it has been
considered for several years with no good results yet. I'm sure there
are some problems with pickling the cornea with chemicals.

On 17 Oct 2006 18:11:36 -0700, "Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote:

>I for one do. I have mentioned it before and will mention it again.
>Likley, a such technology will be based on orthoK or inherit key
>technology points from orthoK. It will attempt to minimize the
>inconvinences and shortcommings of orthoK and improve upon the benefits
>of orthoK. There has been clinical trials of "corneal molding"
>technology with results that last up to a month. Unfortunately some
>bugs were found and its back to the drawing board but once the bugs are
>resolved, itll be out for clinical trials again and if its a go, itll
>be ready for prime time! Theres at least 3 different alternatives to
>lasik in the "works", all of them safer than lasik in everyway.
>
>
>If any of you can wait a few short years, by all means do so! Lasik
>should have never been FDA approved or been available to the public
>because of all the bugs, problems, flaws and damage to every eye. Its
>thru greed that it got the "go ahead" Just like RK did and only once
>lasik replaced RK has the truth came out that RK was bad news! People
>are paying the price for it now with impaired vision, induced
>astigmatism, unstable fluctuating prescription thruout the day and
>hyperopic shift. Many RK patients are now in bifocals due to hyperopic
>shift and they cant see clearly at any distance!
>
>
>When the next best thing comes out, lasik will soon be swept under the
>rug, its flaws made public and admitted by lasik surgeons(some of those
>surgeons used to do RK, now they will tell you to stay away from RK!)
>For now, those surgeons will promote lasik as its highly profitable for
>them! In fact if you ask them if anything else is "comming" they will
>play dumb and say "not that I heard of" or perhaps "not anytime soon"
>Thats what they said when RK was the big thing and PRK was being
>privately expermented back in the late 1980s to early 1990s. I know a
>bunch of people who regretted getting RK and wish they had waited a few
>years more. I know one who wanted RK in 1992 and his optometrists were
>telling him to wait because better technology using lasers was soon due
>for prime time. History will repeat itself with new technology to
>dis/replace lasik.
>In the meantime, stick with glasses or get orthoK and sit tight!

Ace

2006-10-18, 2:31 am

cg_aust wrote:
> The shortcomings & inconveniences of orthok are wildly exaggerated
> anyway. You do not suddenly go blind at the end of the day, nor does it
> take hours of work each morning and night, nor is it incredibly painful
> while you try to sleep.
>
> My experience of orthok so far has found it convenient, stable,
> reliable comfortable and hassle free. I have no knowledge of, or axe to
> grind with Lasik, but orthok is an alternative that should be
> considered by those who are within the parameters of its viability.
> (-2.5 or better, can tolerate contacts).
>
> It's just a matter of considering all options, rather than one being
> all bad, and the other all good. Pros and cons for all the different
> alternatives in vision correction.

Ragnar puts orthoK in a bad light but hes never tried orthoK, although
he wore RGP contacts till he couldnt tolerate them anymore then of
course got lasik and is now a procontent. Your orthoK experience is
encouraging in my quest to try it once I have the money. You should
know plenty about lasik from what youve read and from what me and
others have posted. The more you know about lasik, the worse lasik
looks! OrthoK is an alternative to glasses(no point in orthoK if you
tolerate daily wear contacts fine)
The options today are going uncorrected(and most low myopes in fact do.
My brother and most of my friends do), glasses, contacts, orthoK and
NVI(if it works to your satisfaction)
I will explore other options as they manifest in the near future.

Ace

2006-10-18, 2:31 am

Ragnar wrote:
> At least 3 alternatives to lasik? You only mentioned one... corneal
> molding. Corneal molding sounds like a great idea, but it has been
> considered for several years with no good results yet. I'm sure there
> are some problems with pickling the cornea with chemicals.

Theres corneal onlay lenses but it seems like that too has gone back to
the drawing board and frankly im not supprised. Theres Intacs but I
probably wouldnt risk even Intacs even though its a good bit safer than
lasik and reversable by removing the Intacs rings. Myopic CK is one of
the alternatives under reserch. Corneal epithelium thinning is another
option that ive mentioned before. Ive heard of an IOL that goes in your
cornea but not deep in your eye. Ive heard of ultra thin contact
lenses(many, many times thinner than todays contacts) that can correct
small amounts of myopia and they are so comfortable even a guy like me
wouldnt feel em! And then theres good old orthoK that keeps improving.
Im sure in the near future they can safely get results to last a week
easily making orthoK much less a hassle.

Tom Lucas

2006-10-18, 8:33 am

"Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1161153448.880665.211260@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ragnar wrote:
>
>
> Theres corneal onlay lenses but it seems like that too has gone back
> to
> the drawing board and frankly im not supprised. Theres Intacs but I
> probably wouldnt risk even Intacs even though its a good bit safer
> than
> lasik and reversable by removing the Intacs rings. Myopic CK is one of
> the alternatives under reserch. Corneal epithelium thinning is another
> option that ive mentioned before. Ive heard of an IOL that goes in
> your
> cornea but not deep in your eye. Ive heard of ultra thin contact
> lenses(many, many times thinner than todays contacts) that can correct
> small amounts of myopia and they are so comfortable even a guy like me
> wouldnt feel em! And then theres good old orthoK that keeps improving.
> Im sure in the near future they can safely get results to last a week
> easily making orthoK much less a hassle.

None of these things can hold a candle to PRK or Lasik - there are all
compromises and trade-offs to avoid the only complete solution. Taking
them one by one:

1) Corneal onlay lenses. Foreign body _sutured_ to your eye. Boy and you
thought Lasik was risky!
2) Intacs - Possible but still involves a foreign body and all the
associated infection risks. Won't correct over -3 myopics or anyone with
much astigmatism. I can't see how it is safer than Lasik, seeing as both
involve cutting open the cornea which is where the bulk of the risk
comes from.
3) CK - yikes! websites are very careful to use words like "radio waves"
but that actually means microwave radiation used to distort and reshape
the eye. The process is similar to Lasik/PRK I guess and so the risks
are similar but I fail to see why it should be chosen over those. The
procedure couldn't be done by hand by a surgeon either. Anyone who's had
an x-ray will testify to the nuclear bunker the radiologists hide in
when taking photos and that is for low doses - certainly not enough to
reshape an eye.
4) Epithelial thinning - I need an epithelium to protect my eye so I
don't want it thinned. Still very unpredicatable and is a very distant
goal. If you are going to mess with the epithelium then why not just
brush it aside for a minute, have a bit of PRK, and then put it back -
problem solved.
5) Shallow IOL - Foreign body in the eye. Still the risks associated
with cutting open an eye.
6) Ultra thin contacts - Still contacts though so completely irrelevant
in a discussion about avoiding glasses/contacts. An alternative to Lasik
in the same way that cancer is an alternative to chemotherapy.
7) OrthoK - discussed at length before. Many compromises and trade-offs
just to enjoy the benefits Lasik recipients take for granted. You say
it's getting better. How's that then? The physics of the eye is not
changing so where is left for OrthoK to go? It already fixes everything
it ever could.

At the end of the day you can have one of these solutions or you can
have PRK/Lasik - which is three months of moderate hassle and then
carefree for life. Ace, don't start harping on about a lifetime of
ruined eyes because for the majority of people at the three month point
(or six month for a few) then the Lasik is done and healed and they get
on with their lives forgetting they ever had it. Very few people are
still having problems at six months and almost none after a year.
Compare that to the people with glow-in-the dark heads after CK!

Bassslapper

2006-10-18, 4:34 pm

cg_aust wrote:
> The shortcomings & inconveniences of orthok are wildly exaggerated
> anyway. You do not suddenly go blind at the end of the day, nor does it
> take hours of work each morning and night, nor is it incredibly painful
> while you try to sleep.
>
> My experience of orthok so far has found it convenient, stable,
> reliable comfortable and hassle free. I have no knowledge of, or axe to
> grind with Lasik, but orthok is an alternative that should be
> considered by those who are within the parameters of its viability.
> (-2.5 or better, can tolerate contacts).
>
> It's just a matter of considering all options, rather than one being
> all bad, and the other all good. Pros and cons for all the different
> alternatives in vision correction.

Based on your post, I think it is safe to say my Ortho-K experience was
not as good as yours. For the most part they corrected my vision but I
was experiencing starbursts and halos at night, an effect of my pupils
dilating beyond the zone of the corneal remodeling. My vision also
began to blur after around 8 hours.

It was annoying having to place and remove them, the worst being when I
woulkd get home late at night after a band gig in a smoky bar. The eyes
are already dry and when you are that tired the last thing I wanted to
do was deal with Ortho-K lenses. I had no difficulty sleeping withthe
lenses in. Placement was not too bad but I found it was easier to
remove them if I waited about 10 minutes after I got up to allow my
eyes to moisten back up.

Having had Lasik I would have to say that it is much better then
Ortho-K. This is based on a population survey sample of one (me) and is
in no way meant to favor one procedure over the other when it comes to
other people and their unique presentations.

Bassslapper

2006-10-18, 4:34 pm

To answer Ace's question, the natural evolution of technology coupled
with the ever increasing advancements in knowledge almost certainly
guarantee there will be new vision correcting procedures and
technologies as well as improvements on the current available methods.
It is a given. Of course, you try and pose a self-answering question to
allow yourself to segue into your latest anti-Lasik platform. Nice try

cg_aust

2006-10-18, 4:34 pm

I'd have to agree with you Basslapper regarding late night / orthok
hassles. I'm at an age where a late night is 9.30pm, and a night out
unheard of - ie 40 y.o., married with 2 kids under 3 y.o.

Smoky nightclubs, coming home worse for wear after beers and dealing
with orthok wouldn't be great. In fact if I was at an age of doing that
stuff, I'd probably go for laser too.

Orthok is suited to a stable, regular, (boring !) routine, where you're
also older and staring down the barrel of reading glasses in a few
short years. Orthok at least gives an option of adjusting for age
related long sightedness, to see if I can avoid readers.

Thank you for your thoughts, it's good to have a dialogue without abuse
and name calling.

Bassslapper

2006-10-18, 9:33 pm

cg_aust wrote:
> I'd have to agree with you Basslapper regarding late night / orthok
> hassles. I'm at an age where a late night is 9.30pm, and a night out
> unheard of - ie 40 y.o., married with 2 kids under 3 y.o.
>
> Smoky nightclubs, coming home worse for wear after beers and dealing
> with orthok wouldn't be great. In fact if I was at an age of doing that
> stuff, I'd probably go for laser too.
>
> Orthok is suited to a stable, regular, (boring !) routine, where you're
> also older and staring down the barrel of reading glasses in a few
> short years. Orthok at least gives an option of adjusting for age
> related long sightedness, to see if I can avoid readers.
>
> Thank you for your thoughts, it's good to have a dialogue without abuse
> and name calling.

I am a married 38 year old with a 21 month old so I a can relate to
9:30 being late

Your thoughts regarding ortho-K vs. Lasik are good. I agree with you
that Ortho-K is facilitated by a routine, however mundane it may be. If
your lifestyle is more variant, then Ortho-K becomes more of a
challenge. To me, the trade off of not having to deal with any form of
correction, even if it is temporary for a few years, are worth it.

It was not so much my age or lifestyle so much as convenience and an
inherent detest for being visually crippled and relying on some
artificial device to help me see. It did not matter if it was Ortho-K,
soft contacts, or glasses. I am the happiest now that I have ever been
and not needing any form of correction for my vision is exhilerating.
As hesitant as I was prior to Lasik, I must say I am profoundly glad I
did it.

cg_aust

2006-10-18, 9:33 pm

Bassslapper - I'd better stop spending so much time on this site -
you're starting to sway me towards laser / lasik, regardless of the
reading glasses issue ! Sounds like an excellent experience you've had
with laser, and you're orthok "adventure" gives you a lot of good all
round perspective on the whole thing.

I have to admit I haven't ruled out laser, and if orthok "wears thin",
I'm almost certain I'll get it. Sounds like you hate (distance) glasses
as much as I do, so understand totally where you're coming from.

Alright, I could get laser mono vision, not sure about that, but
reading glasses aren't the end of the world anyway. Enjoying the
discussion with you and others.

Ragnar

2006-10-18, 9:33 pm

I certainly asked about orthok. At about -8.0, there is no way orthok
was an option. at -4.75, orthok is not an option for you either. Even
the people for whom it is an option must follow the regimen of wearing
the lenses at the right time and for enough time for it to be
effective. Very VERY few people try orthok for more than a year.
Basically, it is just too much maintenance to be bothered with for
most people. .

On 17 Oct 2006 23:30:19 -0700, "Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote:

>cg_aust wrote:
>
>
>Ragnar puts orthoK in a bad light but hes never tried orthoK, although
>he wore RGP contacts till he couldnt tolerate them anymore then of
>course got lasik and is now a procontent. Your orthoK experience is
>encouraging in my quest to try it once I have the money. You should
>know plenty about lasik from what youve read and from what me and
>others have posted. The more you know about lasik, the worse lasik
>looks! OrthoK is an alternative to glasses(no point in orthoK if you
>tolerate daily wear contacts fine)
>The options today are going uncorrected(and most low myopes in fact do.
>My brother and most of my friends do), glasses, contacts, orthoK and
>NVI(if it works to your satisfaction)
>I will explore other options as they manifest in the near future.

Ragnar

2006-10-18, 9:33 pm

You are almost right about something for a change. I assume you mean
inlay lenses and not onlay. There are many ideas that come and go
and almost none of them ever go anywhere. LASIK is the best option at
the moment and has been the best option for roughly 7 years. There is
nothing new on the horizon that shows any promise of replacing it.

On 17 Oct 2006 23:37:28 -0700, "Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>Ragnar wrote:
>
>
>Theres corneal onlay lenses but it seems like that too has gone back to
>the drawing board and frankly im not supprised. Theres Intacs but I
>probably wouldnt risk even Intacs even though its a good bit safer than
>lasik and reversable by removing the Intacs rings. Myopic CK is one of
>the alternatives under reserch. Corneal epithelium thinning is another
>option that ive mentioned before. Ive heard of an IOL that goes in your
>cornea but not deep in your eye. Ive heard of ultra thin contact
>lenses(many, many times thinner than todays contacts) that can correct
>small amounts of myopia and they are so comfortable even a guy like me
>wouldnt feel em! And then theres good old orthoK that keeps improving.
>Im sure in the near future they can safely get results to last a week
>easily making orthoK much less a hassle.

Ragnar

2006-10-18, 9:33 pm

On 18 Oct 2006 10:18:27 -0700, "Bassslapper" <dr_george@prodigy.net>
wrote:

>To answer Ace's question, the natural evolution of technology coupled
>with the ever increasing advancements in knowledge almost certainly
>guarantee there will be new vision correcting procedures and
>technologies as well as improvements on the current available methods.
>It is a given. Of course, you try and pose a self-answering question to
>allow yourself to segue into your latest anti-Lasik platform. Nice try
>

Well... technology tends to go in spurts that are triggered by crucial
advancements. Electricity, light bulb, television, transistors,
lasers, computer chips, nuclear power, jet engines, etc.
Frankly, in the past 6 years, there hasn't been hardly any advances
in technology at all.

Technology really seemed to be stimulated by WW2 to begin with.. and
ended with the end of the cold war. Space program was nothing more
than a front to develop ICBMs to deliver nukes.. which is ironic
because the space program was begun by the captured German scientists
responsible for the V1 and V2 rockets to terrorize England.

Ace

2006-10-19, 2:30 am

Tom Lucas:

> 1) Corneal onlay lenses. Foreign body _sutured_ to your eye. Boy and you
> thought Lasik was risky!

Its basically like wearing contacts up to 10 years. It looked good on
paper but probably was too risky in practice. At least its reversable!

> 2) Intacs - Possible but still involves a foreign body and all the
> associated infection risks. Won't correct over -3 myopics or anyone with
> much astigmatism. I can't see how it is safer than Lasik, seeing as both
> involve cutting open the cornea which is where the bulk of the risk
> comes from.

Probably not something id risk even though its considerabily safer than
lasik with the option of reversability. Lasik removes cornea, intacs
dont. Intacs is not used much to this day, probably because lasik is
faster and more profitable.

> 3) CK - yikes! websites are very careful to use words like "radio waves"
> but that actually means microwave radiation used to distort and reshape
> the eye. The process is similar to Lasik/PRK I guess and so the risks
> are similar but I fail to see why it should be chosen over those. The
> procedure couldn't be done by hand by a surgeon either. Anyone who's had
> an x-ray will testify to the nuclear bunker the radiologists hide in
> when taking photos and that is for low doses - certainly not enough to
> reshape an eye.

CK is like PRK but less risky and no cornea is removed. Problems can
still occur like they do with PRK. If someone is gonna take a risk, CK
is the lesser of the two evils.

> 4) Epithelial thinning - I need an epithelium to protect my eye so I
> don't want it thinned. Still very unpredicatable and is a very distant
> goal. If you are going to mess with the epithelium then why not just
> brush it aside for a minute, have a bit of PRK, and then put it back -
> problem solved.

Because you need every bit of cornea. OrthoK thins the epithelium by up
to 50%
with far less problems than actually removing/thinning the entire
cornea! Id rather mess with my epithelium, a regeneratable part than
the cornea itself which never regenerates! This means any orthoK or
surgury that manipulates the epithelium is reversable "just in case"
this gives a nice safety profile and peace of mind knowing it can be
"undone"

> 5) Shallow IOL - Foreign body in the eye. Still the risks associated
> with cutting open an eye.

Theres supposed to be an IOL that can be placed in the cornea much like
intacs can be. Similar risks to intacs and less risks than prk/lasik.

> 6) Ultra thin contacts - Still contacts though so completely irrelevant
> in a discussion about avoiding glasses/contacts. An alternative to Lasik
> in the same way that cancer is an alternative to chemotherapy.

Much better to get more comfortable contacts than get lasik, will save
alot of contact wearers from getting lasik when they can get more
comfortable contacts.

> 7) OrthoK - discussed at length before. Many compromises and trade-offs
> just to enjoy the benefits Lasik recipients take for granted. You say
> it's getting better. How's that then? The physics of the eye is not
> changing so where is left for OrthoK to go? It already fixes everything
> it ever could.

OrthoK also enjoys almost none of the risks and damage lasik recipients
suffer.
Id rather take a slight compromise anyday and the compromises are being
addressed as I type this. Long lasting orthoK is back to the drawing
board and will be a reality. I still dont understand why take the risks
with lasik when orthoK will get to the point you only have to deal with
it a few minutes once a week? Put it this way, its as much trouble as
brushing your teeth once a week in exchange you risk far, far less than
lasik. Its like someone offering you $1000 or giving you the option to
gamble it for double or nothing! of course ill take the $1000 and call
it a day! I wont "gamble" with lasik, ill take orthoK and call it a
day.
You wouldnt understand because your lasik went well but I sympathasize
with anyone I know with a less than perfect lasik result and have to
live with impaired vision, permanent dry eyes and other inconvinences
far worse than orthoK.

> At the end of the day you can have one of these solutions or you can
> have PRK/Lasik - which is three months of moderate hassle and then
> carefree for life. Ace, don't start harping on about a lifetime of
> ruined eyes because for the majority of people at the three month point
> (or six month for a few) then the Lasik is done and healed and they get
> on with their lives forgetting they ever had it. Very few people are
> still having problems at six months and almost none after a year.
> Compare that to the people with glow-in-the dark heads after CK!

Carefree for life? Sorry but thats totally false. No one knows for sure
what kind of long term "supprises" will crop up decades after lasik.
Some things are known however. Cateract surgury will be 10x more
complicated, you may get the wrong power IOLs. Glaucoma measurements
will not be as accurate because of the physical and biomechanical
changes in the cornea. You could regress and be myopic again and either
get more lasik or go back to glasses. You could develop dry eyes,
painful eyes or even ectasia among many other problems many years after
lasik. You can learn alot more from the "flap" about the risks, dangers
and damages of lasik. I for one am glad your lasik went well and I hope
it countinues to hold up.

Ace

2006-10-19, 2:30 am

Ragnar wrote:
> I certainly asked about orthok. At about -8.0, there is no way orthok
> was an option. at -4.75, orthok is not an option for you either. Even
> the people for whom it is an option must follow the regimen of wearing
> the lenses at the right time and for enough time for it to be
> effective. Very VERY few people try orthok for more than a year.
> Basically, it is just too much maintenance to be bothered with for
> most people. .

You couldnt tolerate RGP contacts, your eyes would physically "reject"
orthoK as well.
I will be sure to tell my optometrist about not finding soft contacts
comfortable. Your case is different. My eyes will probably "reject"
orthoK but by then some new technology will safely correct my myopia.
How many times must I tell you I dont care for a full correction? I
dont have to explain my reasons again for this! Its not an issue at
all! The only concern is if orthoK will be comfortable enough to sleep
thru the night. If yes then orthoK is a huge success!

Tom Lucas

2006-10-19, 8:28 am

"Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1161234649.922346.242770@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Tom Lucas:
>
>
> Probably not something id risk even though its considerabily safer
> than
> lasik with the option of reversability. Lasik removes cornea, intacs
> dont. Intacs is not used much to this day, probably because lasik is
> faster and more profitable.

No, it's because Lasik is better. The removal of cornea is not the major
risk in Lasik - it is more about infections or poor ablation profiles.
Sure ecstasia is cornea removal related but it is one of the much rarer
risks.

>
> CK is like PRK but less risky and no cornea is removed. Problems can
> still occur like they do with PRK. If someone is gonna take a risk, CK
> is the lesser of the two evils.

Why? That is totally unqualified. You just couldn't leave it that they
have comparable risk - you had to attack lasers out of habit. This does
affect your credibility.

>
> Because you need every bit of cornea. OrthoK thins the epithelium by
> up
> to 50%
> with far less problems than actually removing/thinning the entire
> cornea! Id rather mess with my epithelium, a regeneratable part than
> the cornea itself which never regenerates! This means any orthoK or
> surgury that manipulates the epithelium is reversable "just in case"
> this gives a nice safety profile and peace of mind knowing it can be
> "undone"

OrthoK squashes the epithelium but it is still there. Your pipe dream of
thinned epithelium is different and reduces the security of the eye.

>
> Theres supposed to be an IOL that can be placed in the cornea much
> like
> intacs can be. Similar risks to intacs and less risks than prk/lasik.

It is still a foreign body. It is always preferable to use the parts of
the body already there than introduce new parts with associated risks of
infection and rejection. How can it have a lower risk than PRK - it is
far more invasive and involves cutting open the eye rather than etching
a bit off the front?

>
> Much better to get more comfortable contacts than get lasik, will save
> alot of contact wearers from getting lasik when they can get more
> comfortable contacts.

But it is not an alternative. People won't be considering the methods
listed here unless they are not happy with their contacts therefore
different contacts is not going to appeal much.

>
> OrthoK also enjoys almost none of the risks and damage lasik
> recipients
> suffer.
> Id rather take a slight compromise anyday and the compromises are
> being
> addressed as I type this. Long lasting orthoK is back to the drawing
> board and will be a reality. I still dont understand why take the
> risks
> with lasik when orthoK will get to the point you only have to deal
> with
> it a few minutes once a week? Put it this way, its as much trouble as
> brushing your teeth once a week in exchange you risk far, far less
> than
> lasik. Its like someone offering you $1000 or giving you the option to
> gamble it for double or nothing! of course ill take the $1000 and call
> it a day! I wont "gamble" with lasik, ill take orthoK and call it a
> day.

What utter bilge. I've had to have a shower to wash this off me. OrthoK
is not a once a weekly minor inconvenience - there are several people on
this forum who have explained this to you at length.

Also, Lasik is not "double or nothing". For goodness sake, Ace, get a
grip. If you want to be taken seriously in this debate you really need
to ground your feet.

> You wouldnt understand because your lasik went well but I sympathasize
> with anyone I know with a less than perfect lasik result and have to
> live with impaired vision, permanent dry eyes and other inconvinences
> far worse than orthoK.

How dare you suggest I am unable to understand. My Lasik did not go well
and I have had a rougher ride than many who have had the surgery. It is
still better than glasses.

>
>
> Carefree for life? Sorry but thats totally false. No one knows for
> sure
> what kind of long term "supprises" will crop up decades after lasik.

So how is that "totally" false? You just said that no one knows the long
term picture so you are in the dark as much as they are. You are basing
your opinion on RK which is a completely different procedure and even
now there are a great many people still delighted with their RK result -
only a few have had problems.

> Some things are known however. Cateract surgury will be 10x more
> complicated, you may get the wrong power IOLs.

You don't always need IOLs for cateracts. Certainly in the UK it is rare
for IOLs to be used and it is preferred to suck out the hazy tissue. Why
should it be more complicated anyway? An ablated cornea is no different
to an untouched one where this sort of surgery is concerned.

> Glaucoma measurements
> will not be as accurate because of the physical and biomechanical
> changes in the cornea.

So you tell the man and the machine automatically readjusts. Lasik is
highly predictable and the changes are much the same for everyone.
Glaucoma measuring is not that accurate - it relies on a puff of air and
a million other variables.

> You can learn alot more from the "flap" about the risks, dangers
> and damages of lasik. I for one am glad your lasik went well and I
> hope
> it countinues to hold up.

There is nothing for me on the flap. All it will do is bring out stress
related problems from the frustration that it brings.

Ragnar

2006-10-19, 4:27 pm

You don't pay attention much. I wore rigid contacts for about 15
years.
Like most people.. over time, you LOSE tolerance of contact lenses.
The tolerance of contacts decreases over time, not increases. You
couldn't even tolerate soft lenses for more than 2 days!

On 18 Oct 2006 22:15:59 -0700, "Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>Ragnar wrote:
>
>
>You couldnt tolerate RGP contacts, your eyes would physically "reject"
>orthoK as well.
>I will be sure to tell my optometrist about not finding soft contacts
>comfortable. Your case is different. My eyes will probably "reject"
>orthoK but by then some new technology will safely correct my myopia.
>How many times must I tell you I dont care for a full correction? I
>dont have to explain my reasons again for this! Its not an issue at
>all! The only concern is if orthoK will be comfortable enough to sleep
>thru the night. If yes then orthoK is a huge success!

Bassslapper

2006-10-19, 4:28 pm

Each person and case is different. If you decide to check out Lasik,
make sure to get several opinions and referals from trusted sources
(family and friends). Learn all you can about your specific issues,
expectations, and potential complications inherent with your unique
visual presentation.

I hate distance glasses more then the Arab nations hate Israel. After
Lasik, one set of glasses was smashed under foot and the other was
pulverized with a sledge hammer. I giggled like a giddy kid on Xmas
when I threw out all my contact lense solutions and cases. I cannot
describe the exhalted feeling of liberation but it was profound and
surreal. Trying to fathom having clear vision after 23 years of
corrective eyeware was almost overwhelming. It has been 4 months and I
still catch myself marveling at being able to see without correction.

Appropriately screened people such as yourself can benefit from
Ortho-K. Symptomatically I benefited form it but found the cost, care,
and handling to be too much of a burden after a period of time.

I guess the bottome line becomes what each person's desires and
expectations are. I wanted total freedom from all forms of corrective
eyeware and have achieved it. Ace sounds like he is happy with reduced
prescription glasses and the potential for Ortho-K. You sound like
Ortho-K is satisfactory for you and it got you out of glasses. All of
us are different in our needs and wants and no one here is right or
wrong in their different choices for daling with their visual maladies.

cg_aust wrote:
> Bassslapper - I'd better stop spending so much time on this site -
> you're starting to sway me towards laser / lasik, regardless of the
> reading glasses issue ! Sounds like an excellent experience you've had
> with laser, and you're orthok "adventure" gives you a lot of good all
> round perspective on the whole thing.
>
> I have to admit I haven't ruled out laser, and if orthok "wears thin",
> I'm almost certain I'll get it. Sounds like you hate (distance) glasses
> as much as I do, so understand totally where you're coming from.
>
> Alright, I could get laser mono vision, not sure about that, but
> reading glasses aren't the end of the world anyway. Enjoying the
> discussion with you and others.

cg_aust

2006-10-19, 4:28 pm

Well said.

Just Jack

2006-10-19, 4:28 pm

> I hate distance glasses more then the Arab nations hate Israel. After
> Lasik, one set of glasses was smashed under foot and the other was
> pulverized with a sledge hammer. I giggled like a giddy kid on Xmas
> when I threw out all my contact lense solutions and cases. I cannot
> describe the exhalted feeling of liberation but it was profound and
> surreal.

I know exactly the feeling you are referring to. It's awesome being
lens-free.

A friend of mine threw his in the Chicago River.

I myself donated my no longer needed glasses to the local Lions
organization. They collect old, broken and otherwise no longer need
spectacles and funnel them to mentally and physically challenged people who
cannot afford to buy them on their own.

Ragnar

2006-10-19, 9:36 pm

On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 20:44:13 GMT, "Just Jack"
<twobeersforme@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>I know exactly the feeling you are referring to. It's awesome being
>lens-free.
>
>A friend of mine threw his in the Chicago River.
>
>I myself donated my no longer needed glasses to the local Lions
>organization. They collect old, broken and otherwise no longer need
>spectacles and funnel them to mentally and physically challenged people who
>cannot afford to buy them on their own.
>

They might send a pair to Ace as well.

Actually... I just thought of something. I don't recall ever seeing
video of children (or adults) in poor countries wearing glasses. I
guess glasses are not suitable for people who live with nature n grass
huts and shacks. Maybe someone needs to send along some cases of
kimwipes to keep the dust off the lenses.

Bassslapper

2006-10-19, 9:36 pm

> Actually... I just thought of something. I don't recall ever seeing
> video of children (or adults) in poor countries wearing glasses. I
> guess glasses are not suitable for people who live with nature n grass
> huts and shacks. Maybe someone needs to send along some cases of
> kimwipes to keep the dust off the lenses.

The reason most poor countries don't have the incidence of myopia that
developed nations have is becasue the latter as a society tend to do
much more close work (reading, computers, TV) then the former.
Excessive close work is the environmental stimulus that activates the
genetic predisposition to the stressed eyeball to elongate along it's
axial plane to re-establish the relaxed point. The sacrifice is
distance vision. Most myopes would not have developed myopia or at
least not as severely if the stimulus triggering it was not there.

serebel

2006-10-19, 9:36 pm

Just Jack wrote:
>
> I know exactly the feeling you are referring to. It's awesome being
> lens-free.

It's still awesome to me.

>
> A friend of mine threw his in the Chicago River.

So did a friend of mine and she lives in san Diego!!!!!

>
> I myself donated my no longer needed glasses to the local Lions
> organization. They collect old, broken and otherwise no longer need
> spectacles and funnel them to mentally and physically challenged people who
> cannot afford to buy them on their own.

So that's where the retard got his glasses.

Ace

2006-10-19, 9:36 pm

Tom Lucas said:

> No, it's because Lasik is better. The removal of cornea is not the major
> risk in Lasik - it is more about infections or poor ablation profiles.
> Sure ecstasia is cornea removal related but it is one of the much rarer
> risks.

You got the poor ablation profile part right. This is impossible to
fix. Enhancements generally can only fix what glasses can and if your
already plano with a damaged cornea, youll just end up farsighted if
more cornea is removed. Even if this partially remedies the problem,
youll just be back in plus glasses. I know one guy who was plano but
the lasik ablation profile was poor. The surgeon gave him the choice of
enhancement and go back to plus glasses and hope with glasses the
vision is better or leave well enough alone. He left things alone as he
certainly didnt want to go back to glasses as lasik would be in vain.

> Why? That is totally unqualified. You just couldn't leave it that they
> have comparable risk - you had to attack lasers out of habit. This does
> affect your credibility.

http://www.drfitterman.com/files/co...ratoplasty.html

> OrthoK squashes the epithelium but it is still there. Your pipe dream of
> thinned epithelium is different and reduces the security of the eye.

Actually, orthoK causes a migration of epithelial cells away from the
center making the center thinner and flatter and the peripherals
steeper. The amount of change is generally 10-20 microns. Lasik removes
much more than that plus the flap only contributes 3% to the corneal
strength.

> It is still a foreign body. It is always preferable to use the parts of
> the body already there than introduce new parts with associated risks of
> infection and rejection. How can it have a lower risk than PRK - it is
> far more invasive and involves cutting open the eye rather than etching
> a bit off the front?

Personally id much rather use orthoK anyway so its a moot point.

> But it is not an alternative. People won't be considering the methods
> listed here unless they are not happy with their contacts therefore
> different contacts is not going to appeal much.

Ill give those a try, they beat glasses anyday. Only reason I dont wear
todays contact lens technology is due to significent discomfort. OrthoK
is supposed to bypass that.

> What utter bilge. I've had to have a shower to wash this off me. OrthoK
> is not a once a weekly minor inconvenience - there are several people on
> this forum who have explained this to you at length.

I was talking about tomorrow's orthoK technology. Todays orthoK lasts
about 2 days, whats not to say they can figure it out so itll last a
week or two?

> Also, Lasik is not "double or nothing". For goodness sake, Ace, get a
> grip. If you want to be taken seriously in this debate you really need
> to ground your feet.

Perhaps that was a bad analogy but I was trying to get my point on
"risk"

> How dare you suggest I am unable to understand. My Lasik did not go well
> and I have had a rougher ride than many who have had the surgery. It is
> still better than glasses.

With due respect, I would not consider your initial results a
complication. A thin cheap pair of glasses corrected that and your
enhancement fixed it for good. Real complications are problems glasses
cant fix.

> So how is that "totally" false? You just said that no one knows the long
> term picture so you are in the dark as much as they are. You are basing
> your opinion on RK which is a completely different procedure and even
> now there are a great many people still delighted with their RK result -
> only a few have had problems.

No one knows doesnt mean they have some idea or clues to the
possibility. I suggest you please back it up. More than a few RK people
had problems. Proof:

http://www.nei.nih.gov/news/pressre...ressrelease.asp

http://www.nei.nih.gov/neitrials/vi...yWeb.aspx?id=28

Between 6 months and 10 years, the refractive error of 43 percent of
eyes changed in the hyperopic direction by 1.00 D or more.

Tom, this means bifocals at an earlier age and once all accomodation is
lost due to old age, youll see blurry at all distances and probably
cant see a thing from up close. Lasik is still fairly new so in due
time we will have a better understanding of long term problems.

> You don't always need IOLs for cateracts. Certainly in the UK it is rare
> for IOLs to be used and it is preferred to suck out the hazy tissue. Why
> should it be more complicated anyway? An ablated cornea is no different
> to an untouched one where this sort of surgery is concerned.

I have never heard of cateract surgury being performed without the
removal of the crystaline lens. This is the only known cure that is
known in the medical world.

> So you tell the man and the machine automatically readjusts. Lasik is
> highly predictable and the changes are much the same for everyone.
> Glaucoma measuring is not that accurate - it relies on a puff of air and
> a million other variables.

My glaucoma test used a probe touching my cornea. Lasik alters the
cornea and hence the results become more variable.

Ace

2006-10-19, 9:36 pm

Ragnar wrote:
> You don't pay attention much. I wore rigid contacts for about 15
> years.
> Like most people.. over time, you LOSE tolerance of contact lenses.
> The tolerance of contacts decreases over time, not increases. You
> couldn't even tolerate soft lenses for more than 2 days!

I would just have gone back to glasses. This applies for me when/if I
have problems or loss of tolerance to orthoK, ill go back to glasses
unless theres a safe alternative(not laser!)

Bassslapper wrote:

> The reason most poor countries don't have the incidence of myopia that
> developed nations have is becasue the latter as a society tend to do
> much more close work (reading, computers, TV) then the former.
> Excessive close work is the environmental stimulus that activates the
> genetic predisposition to the stressed eyeball to elongate along it's
> axial plane to re-establish the relaxed point. The sacrifice is
> distance vision. Most myopes would not have developed myopia or at
> least not as severely if the stimulus triggering it was not there.

Totally agree. Otis deserves more credit than he gets.

serebel

2006-10-20, 2:29 am

Ace wrote:
>
>
> Totally agree. Otis deserves more credit than he gets.

Figures, retard's of a feather....................................

Ragnar

2006-10-20, 2:30 am

Glasses were not effective due to my severe astigmatism.
Glasses are not very effective for astigmatism. Rigid lenses and
lasik are.

BTW.. some useful information for the people reading this who are not
idiots like Ace is.. Hyperopic Lasik (H-LASIK) does not correct
astigmatism.

On 19 Oct 2006 19:35:11 -0700, "Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>Ragnar wrote:
>
>
>
>I would just have gone back to glasses. This applies for me when/if I
>have problems or loss of tolerance to orthoK, ill go back to glasses
>unless theres a safe alternative(not laser!)
>
>
>
>Bassslapper wrote:
>
>
>
>Totally agree. Otis deserves more credit than he gets.

Ace

2006-10-20, 2:30 am

Ragnar wrote:
> Glasses were not effective due to my severe astigmatism.
> Glasses are not very effective for astigmatism. Rigid lenses and
> lasik are.
>
> BTW.. some useful information for the people reading this who are not
> idiots like Ace is.. Hyperopic Lasik (H-LASIK) does not correct
> astigmatism.

How well did you correct with glasses? If it was at least 20/30 that is
normal and good.

Tom Lucas

2006-10-20, 8:27 am

"Just Jack" <twobeersforme@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:xsRZg.14347$GR.5902@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>
> I know exactly the feeling you are referring to. It's awesome being
> lens-free.
>
> A friend of mine threw his in the Chicago River.
>
> I myself donated my no longer needed glasses to the local Lions
> organization. They collect old, broken and otherwise no longer need
> spectacles and funnel them to mentally and physically challenged
> people who
> cannot afford to buy them on their own.

I gave mine to a similar group in the UK. Considering how much I paid
for them then I wanted to be sure they went to someone who could
appreciate them rather than just smash. It's great catharsis, I'm sure,
smashing them but if I have a chance to help someone out then I try to
take it.