|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > March 2006 > 35% LASIK INDUCED DRY EYE, PERSISTS PAST 6 MONTHS
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 |
35% LASIK INDUCED DRY EYE, PERSISTS PAST 6 MONTHS
|
|
|
| Glenn, why are you informing patients that LASIK dry eye is temporary? The
FDA website warns that LASIK dry eye may be permanent. Do you disagree with
the FDA?
The article below presents findings of long-term nerve damage (35.29% still
had dry eye at 6 months). How can medical doctors justify damage to the eye
on this level? I have seen patients bounce back from multiple bypass surgery
faster than this (which unlike LASIK is a justifiable, medically necessary
procedure).
Are patients being informed that their odds of suffering from dry eye are
this high? Perhaps you should make sure that everyone at the ASCRS knows
about the devastation caused by LASIK so that they can STOP damaging healthy
eyes.
Medical doctors are inducing a painful, protracted, and often debilitating
medical condition, and calling it MEDICINE.
http://lasikflap.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=348
Am J Ophthalmol. 2006 Mar;141(3):438-45.
The incidence and risk factors for developing dry eye after myopic LASIK.
De Paiva CS, Chen Z, Koch DD, Hamill MB, Manuel FK, Hassan SS, Wilhelmus KR,
Pflugfelder SC.
Department of Ophthalmology, Cullen Eye Institute, Baylor college of
Medicine, Houston, Texas.
PURPOSE: To determine the incidence of dry eye and its risk factors after
myopic laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK).
DESIGN: Single-center, prospective randomized clinical trial of 35 adult
patients, aged 24 to 54 years, with myopia undergoing LASIK.
METHODS: setting and study population: Participants were randomized to
undergo LASIK with a superior or a nasal hinge flap. They were evaluated at
1 week and 1, 3, and 6 months after surgery. intervention: Bilateral LASIK
with either a superior-hinge Hansatome microkeratome (n = 17) or a
nasal-hinge Amadeus microkeratome (n = 18). main outcome measures: The
criterion for dry eye was a total corneal fluorescein staining score >/=3.
Visual acuity, ocular surface parameters, and corneal sensitivity were also
analyzed. Cox proportional-hazard regression was used to assess rate ratios
(RRs) with 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS: The incidence of dry eye in the nasal- and superior-hinge group was
eight (47.06%) of 17 and nine (52.94%) of 17 at 1 week, seven (38.89%) of 18
and seven (41.18%) of 17 at 1 month, four (25%) of 16 and three (17.65%) of
17 at 3 months, and two (12.50%) of 16 and six (35.29%) of 17 at 6 months,
respectively. Dry eye was associated with level of preoperative myopia (RR
0.88/each diopter, P = .04), laser-calculated ablation depth (RR 1.01/mum, P
= 0.01), and combined ablation depth and flap thickness (RR 1.01/mum, P =
0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Dry eye occurs commonly after LASIK surgery in patients with no
history of dry eye. The risk of developing dry eye is correlated with the
degree of preoperative myopia and the depth of laser treatment.
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
| |
|
| anyone can get dry eyes after lasik because the flap damages most of
your nerves. PRK is less damaging but can cause haze, especially in
high myopes. IOLs dont seem to be popular but some surgeons are saying
anyone over -8 to -10 should be getting IOLs instead of laser surgury
as its less damaging.
OrthoK is due for a big comeback. I read about corneal molding and its
a quantium leap for orthoK. Instead of sleeping nightly in retainer
lenses, youll only need to sleep every other week in them! I also read
about orthoK in the works to correct even higher myopia! There is even
orthoK for hyperopia out now! Ditto to toric orthoK! Considering 90%(if
not more) have pescriptions less than -6 diopters, in fact most of them
are less than -3, orthoK can address the visual needs of almost
everyone. Even those with -6 to -8 diopters can get close to plano. I
know one woman who was -7 and she is -3 now after orthoK and is very
pleased! She used to need glasses full time, now she wears them much
less and can see alot of things without glasses, such as her alarm
clock when she wakes! Her glasses are much thinner and lighter too with
less minification!
Yes lasik probably could get her even closer to plano, but lasik is too
risky and damages every eye. OrthoK is the much safer choice and is why
she went that route.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2006-03-22, 4:23 pm |
| I have consistently stated that the vast majority of patients do not
have dry eye complications at six months postop. I have never said that
all refractive surgery induced dry eye is temporary.
It is important to read more than the abstract of a study and sometimes
one must even talk with the authors. Although clinically measurable
reduction in TBU and Shirmer was reported, a much smaller percentage of
patients were actually symptomatic and/or complained the condition was
problematic at six months postop.
| |
| serebel 2006-03-22, 4:24 pm |
| Here comes the multi personality "flappie" "dry lie" spiel again.
Of course ace the parrot falls in line with the bullcrap. It's true,
some people can be that stupid.
| |
| Ragnar 2006-03-22, 4:24 pm |
| First of all.. LASIK has nothing to do with the condition known as dry
eye. Dry eyes can result from many different things.. including
LASIK. The effect is temporary. And since when is the FDA a
credible source of information on anything? They are a regulatory
agency - that does a very pitiful job.
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 13:32:18 -0500, "Eye" <Eye@eyetoohavebadLASIK.com>
wrote:
>Glenn, why are you informing patients that LASIK dry eye is temporary? The
>FDA website warns that LASIK dry eye may be permanent. Do you disagree with
>the FDA?
>
>The article below presents findings of long-term nerve damage (35.29% still
>had dry eye at 6 months). How can medical doctors justify damage to the eye
>on this level? I have seen patients bounce back from multiple bypass surgery
>faster than this (which unlike LASIK is a justifiable, medically necessary
>procedure).
>
>Are patients being informed that their odds of suffering from dry eye are
>this high? Perhaps you should make sure that everyone at the ASCRS knows
>about the devastation caused by LASIK so that they can STOP damaging healthy
>eyes.
>
>Medical doctors are inducing a painful, protracted, and often debilitating
>medical condition, and calling it MEDICINE.
>
>http://lasikflap.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=348
>
>Am J Ophthalmol. 2006 Mar;141(3):438-45.
>
>The incidence and risk factors for developing dry eye after myopic LASIK.
>
>De Paiva CS, Chen Z, Koch DD, Hamill MB, Manuel FK, Hassan SS, Wilhelmus KR,
>Pflugfelder SC.
>Department of Ophthalmology, Cullen Eye Institute, Baylor college of
>Medicine, Houston, Texas.
>
>PURPOSE: To determine the incidence of dry eye and its risk factors after
>myopic laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK).
>
>DESIGN: Single-center, prospective randomized clinical trial of 35 adult
>patients, aged 24 to 54 years, with myopia undergoing LASIK.
>
>METHODS: setting and study population: Participants were randomized to
>undergo LASIK with a superior or a nasal hinge flap. They were evaluated at
>1 week and 1, 3, and 6 months after surgery. intervention: Bilateral LASIK
>with either a superior-hinge Hansatome microkeratome (n = 17) or a
>nasal-hinge Amadeus microkeratome (n = 18). main outcome measures: The
>criterion for dry eye was a total corneal fluorescein staining score >/=3.
>Visual acuity, ocular surface parameters, and corneal sensitivity were also
>analyzed. Cox proportional-hazard regression was used to assess rate ratios
>(RRs) with 95% confidence intervals.
>
>RESULTS: The incidence of dry eye in the nasal- and superior-hinge group was
>eight (47.06%) of 17 and nine (52.94%) of 17 at 1 week, seven (38.89%) of 18
>and seven (41.18%) of 17 at 1 month, four (25%) of 16 and three (17.65%) of
>17 at 3 months, and two (12.50%) of 16 and six (35.29%) of 17 at 6 months,
>respectively. Dry eye was associated with level of preoperative myopia (RR
>0.88/each diopter, P = .04), laser-calculated ablation depth (RR 1.01/mum, P
>= 0.01), and combined ablation depth and flap thickness (RR 1.01/mum, P =
>0.01).
>
>CONCLUSIONS: Dry eye occurs commonly after LASIK surgery in patients with no
>history of dry eye. The risk of developing dry eye is correlated with the
>degree of preoperative myopia and the depth of laser treatment.
>
>
>*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
>*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
| |
| Ragnar 2006-03-22, 4:24 pm |
| you are wrong about everything below.. except for saying dry eyeS
after LASIK which is common. Even most doctors make the mistake of
saying dry eye which gets confused with the condition known as dry
eye.
Those nerves regenerate completely. Normally LASIK cuts 2/3 of the
microscopic nerves, it can be done in a way that cuts only 1/3 of the
nerves, but the advantages of doing that are not worth the
disadvantages of doing the flap in that orientation.
On 19 Mar 2006 11:09:05 -0800, "Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote:
>anyone can get dry eyes after lasik because the flap damages most of
>your nerves. PRK is less damaging but can cause haze, especially in
>high myopes. IOLs dont seem to be popular but some surgeons are saying
>anyone over -8 to -10 should be getting IOLs instead of laser surgury
>as its less damaging.
>
>OrthoK is due for a big comeback. I read about corneal molding and its
>a quantium leap for orthoK. Instead of sleeping nightly in retainer
>lenses, youll only need to sleep every other week in them! I also read
>about orthoK in the works to correct even higher myopia! There is even
>orthoK for hyperopia out now! Ditto to toric orthoK! Considering 90%(if
>not more) have pescriptions less than -6 diopters, in fact most of them
>are less than -3, orthoK can address the visual needs of almost
>everyone. Even those with -6 to -8 diopters can get close to plano. I
>know one woman who was -7 and she is -3 now after orthoK and is very
>pleased! She used to need glasses full time, now she wears them much
>less and can see alot of things without glasses, such as her alarm
>clock when she wakes! Her glasses are much thinner and lighter too with
>less minification!
>
>Yes lasik probably could get her even closer to plano, but lasik is too
>risky and damages every eye. OrthoK is the much safer choice and is why
>she went that route.
| |
| serebel 2006-03-22, 4:24 pm |
| Did you know that 100% of the "flappie" fools persist on their
diatribes for a lot longer than six months.
|
| |
|
|