|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > March 2006 > TLC patient web sites
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 |
TLC patient web sites
|
|
|
|
|
| Hi Brent, thanks for the links. I've read those sites before. I feel
sad for the people described in those stories, as they are obviously
distraught, but frankly I think their anger is misplaced. Anecdotal
evidence is no match for proper studies; these people are lashing out.
But I do appreciate the information.
| |
| Brent Hanson - LASIKFRAUD.com 2006-03-22, 4:23 pm |
| "but frankly I think their anger is misplaced. Anecdotal evidence is no
match for proper studies"
I find that to be a remarkable statement, clearly it wasn't the Easter
Bunny who damaged our vision and then ignored our requests for
assistance. I don't think you'll find that TLC has performed a proper
study on the number of patients that they kick out after damaging their
vision.
I am reminded of people who have seen and read the stories about all
the people who have been killed climbing Mt. Everest, heard the
warnings about the danger, but then decide to roll the dice and take a
little hike on up the mountain. You might make it back down alive --
but then again you end up as a frozen block of ice to be discovered
10,000 years later and end up in a museum.
| |
|
| Brent,
I'll be sure to return post-op and document my experience there.
Perhaps I'll owe you an apology; perhaps you'll tell me that my results
were "not typical".
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2006-03-22, 4:23 pm |
| In the case of Brent Hanson of LasikFraud.com, TLC was not the
provider of his surgery.
In mid 1996 Brent Hanson, then a Dallas resident, had PRK by a
Canadian doctor who was not affiliated with TLC. Later Hanson had
multiple enhancement surgeries by the same doctor. From all accounts,
the doctor provided substandard results and quite possibly substandard
care.
Two years after his initial surgery, TLC acquired the medical practice
of Hanson's doctor as a part of a merger with a large chain. It was
not long after TLC purchased the practice that the doctor was no
longer affiliated with TLC.
TLC acknowledged that Mr. Hanson had a poor outcome from the surgeon
whose practice they had acquired and agreed to help as they could and
to the degree that they believed they could improve his visual acuity.
Keep in mind, Hanson was not originally a TLC patient, but TLC agreed
to provide follow-up care.
This is where we apply the term, "No good deed goes unpunished."
Exactly which events caused Hanson to turn his venom on TLC is long
lost in the competing rhetoric, but both sides agree that TLC provided
corrective surgery for Hanson in only one eye. Because of the type of
corrective surgery, TLC provided this surgery in Canada and the
surgery was performed by TLC's national medical director. Although
Hanson insisted that he should have additional surgery on the other
eye - demanded it really - TLC's doctors did not believe that any
additional surgery would improve Hanson's visual abilities and that
the slight possibility of an improvement was not worth the risk. It
was about this time that Hanson went ballistic.
Hanson has continued to state that TLC will not honor its "Lifetime
Commitment" for him. I am a very strong opponent of using terms like
lifetime commitment in marketing and believe it is not appropriate.
Nonetheless, Hanson was not a TLC patient when he had his surgery. The
controversial TLC lifetime commitment policy did not exist when Hanson
had surgery. Even if Hanson had had surgery at a TLC facility with a
TLC doctor when the lifetime commitment policy was active, Hanson
would not have qualified anyway. TLC's lifetime commitment policy has
never directly applied to Hanson, however that is not all of the
story.
One of the big problems with Hanson's situation is that the company
that owned the medical practice where he had surgery also had a
long-term commitment policy. It is not clear whether or not Mr. Hanson
qualified and was a recipient of the predecessor's long-term
commitment policy. When TLC acquired the practice chain, they applied
their own policy at their discretion. Patients assumed, and arguably
were led to believe, that the policy at the previous company would be
honored by the new owner: TLC. Yet another example that the "lifetime"
in these kinds of commitments is subject to interpretation. Frankly, I
think TLC brought this on themselves. There is no way you can
advertise a lifetime commitment then try to limit that commitment when
the patient comes through the door without trouble. Somebody will take
exception. When you muddy the waters with the takeover of another
practice with a similar policy, the problems are compounded. It was
inevitable that a Brent Hanson was going to happen.
Hanson then used SurgicalEyes' bulletin board and the board at Dr.
Horn's website to rant and rave about the perceived injustice. Of
course, he then ranted and raved at the perceived injustices
perpetuated on him by SurgicalEyes and Dr. Horn.
Hanson created an anti-refractive surgery, anti-TLC website then
proceeded to secure several website addresses using the names of TLC
executives. Things like www.davideldridge.com would have railing
against the former TLC Executive Vice President for clinical affairs.
Eventually, TLC successfully gained control of the offending websites.
BTW, Dr. Eldridge is a former CRSQA trustee, so consider the perceived
bias.
In my opinion, the saddest part about Mr. Hanson's history is that by
taking aim at TLC, the more important story of his medical situation
became lost. Of course, Hanson's doctor was gone and only TLC remained
to be blamed, but for refractive surgery candidates who are
considering LASIK, there is little that they will learn from Hanson's
rhetoric that can be applied to their circumstances - other than TLC
and LASIK have enemies.
If you read between the anti-TLC lines, you will see that in 1996
Hanson should never have had refractive surgery. He was a marginal
candidate with the techniques and technology at that time. So
marginal, in fact, that instead of having surgery in his native
Dallas, he had to have surgery outside the US in Canada. By having the
surgery miles away and in a foreign country, Hanson's options when
things went bad were limited. The transportation costs to Canada for
additional treatment were the patient's responsibility. Legal recourse
was severely limited. An American citizen suing for medical
malpractice in Canada is not a very good scenario for the patient.
Even though the medical practice chain had a branch near Hanson's
Texas home, it was the practice that decided where he would get
follow-up care.
In late 2000, Hanson was required to have a corneal transplant in one
eye. Anyone who has had a corneal transplant will be quick to tell you
it does not immediately restore vision. Recovery is very slow and not
often equal to vision on a virgin cornea. Whether or not additional
treatment can help his other eye is a matter of conjecture. Hanson may
seem to be a pain in the posterior on these newsgroups, but he clearly
didn't start this process with that intent. Like every refractive
surgery candidate then and today, he just wanted life without glasses
or contacts. Unfortunately, he received poor care an environment that
spun out of control.
Although Mr. Hanson's situation is one of an extreme, someone
considering refractive surgery should not think that parts and pieces
of what happened to Hanson couldn't happen to them. LASIK Candidates
today are subject to many of the same problems that Hanson faced six
years ago. Technology and techniques have limits, even if those limits
are wider than when Hanson had surgery. Doctors' abilities vary
greatly. Going a long distance from home for care is probably not wise
and presents a major problem if something goes wrong.
"Commitments" are only as good as the willingness and ability of the
company who professes to provide them and will last only as long as
that company desires to provide it. International surgery is subject
to laws and circumstances that are not always to the benefit of the
patient.
It is amazing to me that even with all of the potential that can go
wrong, 97% of patients are still happy with their refractive surgery
outcome.
Hanson attacks me personally and the organization I represent often
and I don't like it one bit. He uses tactics that are often repugnant.
That does not mean, however, that he does not deserve empathy as
someone who has been put through the wringer. Even if the messenger is
distasteful, the message is important.
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.
| |
| Brent Hanson - LASIKFRAUD.com 2006-03-22, 4:23 pm |
| Glenn Hagele's USAEYES is a bogus "patient advocacy" organization that
pretends to represent patients, but is actually funded entirely by fees
from refractive surgeons and support from Alcon:
http://www.lasikinfocenter.net/Webp...s%20Webpage.htm
Glenn Hagele has issued "certifications" to some of the most notorious
surgeons in the industry, such as Dr. Glenn Kawesch.
www.lasikfraud.com/crsqa_surgeons_may_be_hazardous.html
Glenn Hagele of USAEYES is a cyberstalker who attacks LASIK and RK
patients through postings in public forums and websites he creates,
including USAEYES dot org, and Glenn Hagele dot com. Part of his
cyberstalking includes threats to publish divorce records of a lasik
patient, and sue the same patient:
http://www.lasikflap.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=341 He is also a proven
liar who promotes junk LadarVision lasers:
www.lasikflap.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=165
According to court records filed by the IRS and State of California he
has been slapped with tax liens multiple times.
www.lasikflap.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=311 According to court records
filed by Glenn Hagele himself, he is the "King of Deadbeats" and used
Chapter 7 Bankruptcy to get rid of a whopping $431,313.00 in bad debt:
www.lasikflap.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=310 The address listed on his
bankruptcy filings is 8543 Everglade Drive, Sacramento, CA, the very
same address at which he operates USAEYES.
Glenn Hagele is also a "deadbeat dad" who used bankruptcy to write off
$33,727 in child support that the Sacramento County District Attorney
tried to collect.
Glenn Hagele uses domain names such as SurgicalEyes dot org and
LasikDisaster dot org to cause confusion with www.SurgicalEyes.org and
www.LasikDisaster.com as he does not enjoy the support of a single
pro-patient web site operator. He also operates a web site at
ComplicatedEyes dot org in which he claims to take credit for operating
a web site that is actually operated by Dr. William Trattler:
http://www.lasikflap.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=215
To see what others say about about Glenn Hagele visit the community
forum at http://www.lasikflap.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=21
| |
|
| I gathered that the story went something like you described from
reading previous posts. And as I said before, I don't really blame
Brent for being angry about his treatment; but I don't see what it has
to do with *all* LASIK procedures. I am aware of the dangers and accept
them, like the valiant Mt. Everest explorers before me, heh. (I love
that analogy. It would make sense, if he added the detail that millions
of people have successfully gone up and down the mountain before me).
In fact as you pointed out, its kind of incredible that there aren't
more posts like Brent's; with so many people electing for this surgery,
even a 3% complication rate would create a *lot* of potentially
disgruntled patients. And as we know, its human nature to focus on the
negative. Its doubtful that the first impulse of someone who's had
totally successful LASIK surgery is to jump on alt.lasik-eyes and
continually spam the group about how fantastic and wonderful it was,
for months on end.
| |
|
| Post something that ISN'T at lasikflap.com, and I'll consider it.
The personal attacks are reprehensible and besides the point.
Here's what is interesting to me: your tone. Are you trying to help and
warn people, or are you just grief whoring?
| |
| serebel 2006-03-22, 4:23 pm |
|
Ryan wrote:
> Post something that ISN'T at lasikflap.com, and I'll consider it.
>
> The personal attacks are reprehensible and besides the point.
>
> Here's what is interesting to me: your tone. Are you trying to help and
> warn people, or are you just grief whoring?
I see you've met hanson and the "flappies". "Grief whoring", that's
their secret motto. They haven't gotten around to the handshake yet
though.
Sounds like that with your script and if the other standard
measurements are in bounds, you'll enjoy a great outcome. The skill and
technology is getting better every day.
Best of luck going forward.
SErebel
| |
|
| "I am aware of the dangers and accept
them, like the valiant Mt. Everest explorers before me, heh."
If you read about all the risks and what can go wrong and seen pictures
of bad lasik vision and still want to get lasik, your well informed and
willing to accept the risks. May I suggest epi-lasik? Itll take a
little longer to heal but not dealing with a flap for the rest of your
life is well worth having epi-lasik instead. How large are your pupils?
If they are larger than the optical zone, expect some anormalities at
night and in low light. Have you read the part that all refractive
surgury induces aberrations? I would be suggesting you stick with
contacts since you can still tolerate them but your willing to take the
risks of laser surgury for convinence. Good luck!
| |
|
| serebel wrote:
> I see you've met hanson and the "flappies". "Grief whoring", that's
> their secret motto. They haven't gotten around to the handshake yet
> though.
It is a really strange phenomenon, the whole cult-of-the-wronged thing.
I don't understand the purpose.
> Sounds like that with your script and if the other standard
> measurements are in bounds, you'll enjoy a great outcome. The skill and
> technology is getting better every day.
> Best of luck going forward.
>
> SErebel
Thanks.
One thing that is bugging me, is that I didn't note my pupil size when
they did the tests. I didn't have a good grasp of what constituted a
large vs small pupil before I had my evaluation (in millimeters; I do
now). So I'll have to ask about that before I go under the beam. I do
know that I have fairly thick corneas (now there's a phrase I never
thought I'd type).
| |
|
| Ace wrote:
> If you read about all the risks and what can go wrong and seen pictures
> of bad lasik vision and still want to get lasik, your well informed and
> willing to accept the risks. May I suggest epi-lasik? Itll take a
> little longer to heal but not dealing with a flap for the rest of your
> life is well worth having epi-lasik instead. How large are your pupils?
> If they are larger than the optical zone, expect some anormalities at
> night and in low light. Have you read the part that all refractive
> surgury induces aberrations? I would be suggesting you stick with
> contacts since you can still tolerate them but your willing to take the
> risks of laser surgury for convinence. Good luck!
Thanks for the reply (and luck) Ace.
I have a question - I thought epi-lasik still created a flap, but using
a blunt keratome instead, lower in the eye region? The procedure they
outlined for me was completely bladeless, IntraLASIK I believe... and I
am still somewhat new to all this so forgive me if I am making a dumb
omission here. From what I've read the complication can indeed arise
from the flap but a laser certainly seems preferable to a (blunt!)
blade? What's the advantage?
As I noted earlier in the thread, I didn't remember to check my pupil
size, but I will, and verify it against the area to be dealt with
before I go through with it.
I am aware that refractive surgery can tend to introduce more HOA after
surgery, but this is not a linear thing, right... not all HOA affect
vision in the same way, and my understanding is that the wavefront
guided map identifies those structures that are most troublesome for
the procedure. If those bad HOA had a consistent affect on the quality
of the vision post-op, it would show up in the results, no? Yet most
are happy. Again, if I missed something, let me know - that's what I'm
here for...
Your suggestion about contacts is well-taken, and frankly were I to be
perfectly logical about the whole thing I would probably be playing
better odds with the contacts. I've decided the risk is minimal enough
to warrant eliminating the problem altogether. My prescription is not
terrible, it's what I'd call light-medium; I'm hoping this too will be
something in my favour as not as much tissue is being ablated as a
typical laser surgery candidate (who seemingly has an average -8 or -9
vision adjustment, to my -3ish).
Thanks for the help, its much appreciated.
| |
| Ragnar 2006-03-22, 4:23 pm |
| You got that right Ryan. One thing you should think about is how
FEW sites there are like that considering how many millions of people
who have had LASIK done.
On 16 Mar 2006 11:52:12 -0800, "Ryan" <nerfgun@gmail.com> wrote:
>Hi Brent, thanks for the links. I've read those sites before. I feel
>sad for the people described in those stories, as they are obviously
>distraught, but frankly I think their anger is misplaced. Anecdotal
>evidence is no match for proper studies; these people are lashing out.
>But I do appreciate the information.
| |
| Ragnar 2006-03-22, 4:23 pm |
| I agree that anecdotal evidence is important. And in the case of
LASIK.. it is incredible how few negative anecdotal cases are out
there. What is even more interesting is that the negative stories
that do exist.. the anecdotes are so often obviously exagerrated and
full of contradictions and misinformation that even those anecdotes
are ignored as being just some malcontent's rants.
On 16 Mar 2006 12:41:36 -0800, "Brent Hanson - LASIKFRAUD.com"
<administrator@lasikcourt.com> wrote:
>"but frankly I think their anger is misplaced. Anecdotal evidence is no
>match for proper studies"
>
>I find that to be a remarkable statement, clearly it wasn't the Easter
>Bunny who damaged our vision and then ignored our requests for
>assistance. I don't think you'll find that TLC has performed a proper
>study on the number of patients that they kick out after damaging their
>vision.
>
>I am reminded of people who have seen and read the stories about all
>the people who have been killed climbing Mt. Everest, heard the
>warnings about the danger, but then decide to roll the dice and take a
>little hike on up the mountain. You might make it back down alive --
>but then again you end up as a frozen block of ice to be discovered
>10,000 years later and end up in a museum.
| |
| Ragnar 2006-03-22, 4:23 pm |
| Why is it that you pick on CRSQA.. yet you never mention ABES?
Everything you have an issue with CRSQA about is much more the case
with ABES.
When surgeon's say they are "Board Certified" or ABES certified or
CRSQA certified... only CRSQA even bothers to attempt to evaluate the
surgeons. Try contacting ABES.. they don't even know the names of
the surgeons they have certified without looking them up.
Another trick that doctors pull is saying they are board certified...
and the patient assumes that they are board certified for the type of
procedures they do.. when in fact, their board certification is often
in a completely different field. For instance... a surgeon who
treats people for heart disease could say they are board certified...
and the patient would assume that the surgeon is board certified for
cardiology... when in fact.. that surgeon might be board certified for
podiatry.
On 16 Mar 2006 13:30:55 -0800, "Brent Hanson - LASIKFRAUD.com"
<administrator@lasikcourt.com> wrote:
>Glenn Hagele's USAEYES is a bogus "patient advocacy" organization that
>pretends to represent patients, but is actually funded entirely by fees
>from refractive surgeons and support from Alcon:
>http://www.lasikinfocenter.net/Webp...s%20Webpage.htm
>Glenn Hagele has issued "certifications" to some of the most notorious
>surgeons in the industry, such as Dr. Glenn Kawesch.
>www.lasikfraud.com/crsqa_surgeons_may_be_hazardous.html
>
>Glenn Hagele of USAEYES is a cyberstalker who attacks LASIK and RK
>patients through postings in public forums and websites he creates,
>including USAEYES dot org, and Glenn Hagele dot com. Part of his
>cyberstalking includes threats to publish divorce records of a lasik
>patient, and sue the same patient:
>http://www.lasikflap.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=341 He is also a proven
>liar who promotes junk LadarVision lasers:
>www.lasikflap.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=165
>
>According to court records filed by the IRS and State of California he
>has been slapped with tax liens multiple times.
>www.lasikflap.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=311 According to court records
>filed by Glenn Hagele himself, he is the "King of Deadbeats" and used
>Chapter 7 Bankruptcy to get rid of a whopping $431,313.00 in bad debt:
>www.lasikflap.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=310 The address listed on his
>bankruptcy filings is 8543 Everglade Drive, Sacramento, CA, the very
>same address at which he operates USAEYES.
>
>Glenn Hagele is also a "deadbeat dad" who used bankruptcy to write off
>$33,727 in child support that the Sacramento County District Attorney
>tried to collect.
>
>Glenn Hagele uses domain names such as SurgicalEyes dot org and
>LasikDisaster dot org to cause confusion with www.SurgicalEyes.org and
>www.LasikDisaster.com as he does not enjoy the support of a single
>pro-patient web site operator. He also operates a web site at
>ComplicatedEyes dot org in which he claims to take credit for operating
>a web site that is actually operated by Dr. William Trattler:
>http://www.lasikflap.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=215
>
>To see what others say about about Glenn Hagele visit the community
>forum at http://www.lasikflap.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=21
| |
| Ragnar 2006-03-22, 4:23 pm |
| Brent's main complaint isn't his treatment.. it's that he wants MORE
treatment and TLC won't do it for free. He went in for surgery which
would have been further treated for free by the TLC surgeon that did
it.. but that TLC surgeon left TLC and TLC wouldn't honor the work
done by that surgeon. That's not a fault of LASIK.. that is a
fault of TLC. Bren'ts mistake is that he has gone too far in lashing
out at TLC and LASIK when he should be holding that surgeon
responsible.
On 16 Mar 2006 13:32:26 -0800, "Ryan" <nerfgun@gmail.com> wrote:
>I gathered that the story went something like you described from
>reading previous posts. And as I said before, I don't really blame
>Brent for being angry about his treatment; but I don't see what it has
>to do with *all* LASIK procedures. I am aware of the dangers and accept
>them, like the valiant Mt. Everest explorers before me, heh. (I love
>that analogy. It would make sense, if he added the detail that millions
>of people have successfully gone up and down the mountain before me).
>
>In fact as you pointed out, its kind of incredible that there aren't
>more posts like Brent's; with so many people electing for this surgery,
>even a 3% complication rate would create a *lot* of potentially
>disgruntled patients. And as we know, its human nature to focus on the
>negative. Its doubtful that the first impulse of someone who's had
>totally successful LASIK surgery is to jump on alt.lasik-eyes and
>continually spam the group about how fantastic and wonderful it was,
>for months on end.
| |
| Ragnar 2006-03-22, 4:23 pm |
| There is virtually no difference between epi-lasik, LASEK, and PRK.
You were the one that was worried about regression just days ago. One
advantage of LASIK is virtually no regression.
On 16 Mar 2006 18:17:53 -0800, "Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"I am aware of the dangers and accept
>them, like the valiant Mt. Everest explorers before me, heh."
>
>
>If you read about all the risks and what can go wrong and seen pictures
>of bad lasik vision and still want to get lasik, your well informed and
>willing to accept the risks. May I suggest epi-lasik? Itll take a
>little longer to heal but not dealing with a flap for the rest of your
>life is well worth having epi-lasik instead. How large are your pupils?
>If they are larger than the optical zone, expect some anormalities at
>night and in low light. Have you read the part that all refractive
>surgury induces aberrations? I would be suggesting you stick with
>contacts since you can still tolerate them but your willing to take the
>risks of laser surgury for convinence. Good luck!
| |
| Ragnar 2006-03-22, 4:23 pm |
| The epi-lasik flap should not be confused with a LASIK flap. The epi
flap is just the ultra thin epithelium layer being saved so that it
acts as a bandage of sorts. It's really no different than standard
PRK.
On 16 Mar 2006 22:11:05 -0800, "Ryan" <nerfgun@gmail.com> wrote:
>Ace wrote:
>
>
>Thanks for the reply (and luck) Ace.
>
>I have a question - I thought epi-lasik still created a flap, but using
>a blunt keratome instead, lower in the eye region? The procedure they
>outlined for me was completely bladeless, IntraLASIK I believe... and I
>am still somewhat new to all this so forgive me if I am making a dumb
>omission here. From what I've read the complication can indeed arise
>from the flap but a laser certainly seems preferable to a (blunt!)
>blade? What's the advantage?
>
>As I noted earlier in the thread, I didn't remember to check my pupil
>size, but I will, and verify it against the area to be dealt with
>before I go through with it.
>
>I am aware that refractive surgery can tend to introduce more HOA after
>surgery, but this is not a linear thing, right... not all HOA affect
>vision in the same way, and my understanding is that the wavefront
>guided map identifies those structures that are most troublesome for
>the procedure. If those bad HOA had a consistent affect on the quality
>of the vision post-op, it would show up in the results, no? Yet most
>are happy. Again, if I missed something, let me know - that's what I'm
>here for...
>
>Your suggestion about contacts is well-taken, and frankly were I to be
>perfectly logical about the whole thing I would probably be playing
>better odds with the contacts. I've decided the risk is minimal enough
>to warrant eliminating the problem altogether. My prescription is not
>terrible, it's what I'd call light-medium; I'm hoping this too will be
>something in my favour as not as much tissue is being ablated as a
>typical laser surgery candidate (who seemingly has an average -8 or -9
>vision adjustment, to my -3ish).
>
>Thanks for the help, its much appreciated.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2006-03-23, 11:30 am |
| > I have a question - I thought epi-lasik still created a flap, but using
> a blunt keratome instead, lower in the eye region? The procedure they
> outlined for me was completely bladeless, IntraLASIK I believe... and I
> am still somewhat new to all this so forgive me if I am making a dumb
> omission here. From what I've read the complication can indeed arise
> from the flap but a laser certainly seems preferable to a (blunt!)
> blade? What's the advantage?
I was not sure if you received an answer to this concern.
It will be important to understand some of the layers of the cornea.
The outermost layer is the tear film. It actually has three layers of
its own. Next is the epithelium, which is comprised of the fastest
reproducing cells in the human body. Below the epithelium is the
Bowman's layer, which is a thin membrane the purpose of which is not
clearly known. It may be the appendex of the eye. Below Bowman's is the
stroma.
In traditional Lasik, a metal blade or a laser cuts through the
epithelium, Bowman's, and into the stroma. The laser removes tissue
deep into the cornea. This essentially "fools" the cornea into not
knowning that it has had surgery so the wound response is different.
That difference keeps the probability of corneal haze and discomfort
low, while providing almost instant vision recovery after the flap of
stroma, Bowman's, and epithelium is repositioned over the treatment
area.
Epi-Lasik uses a microkeratome affixed to the eye with suction and then
slides a blunt blade across the front of the cornea to create a flap of
epithelium. The blade does not penetrate Bowman's, so all epithelial
cells are removed in a soft and malieable "flap". The epithelial flap
is moved out of the way and the laser removes the underlying tissue
including Bowman's and some stroma.
All epithelial cells disrupted during Epi-Lasik are mortally wounded,
but it takes time for them to disperse and be replaced. The epithelial
flap can be repositioned over the treatment area and act like a
bandage.
The purpose of Epi-Lasik is to combine all the recovery and comfort
advantages of Lasik with the advantages of a surface ablation. The
primary advantages of surface ablation are more cornea untouched for
added stability, a more nuanced ablation pattern realized after
healing, and no possibility of a Lasik flap related complication during
surgery or for the lifetime of the patient.
|
| |
|
|