| Tom Lucas 2006-07-31, 8:28 am |
|
"Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1154104788.806134.193720@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
<snip abstract>
>
> BE's comment: Notice how they reported the post-op wavefront
> measurements at a 3.5 mm pupil and 6.0 mm pupil. They wouldn't DARE
> report the wavefront measurements larger than 6.0 mm because the
> INCREASE in HOAs would be ALARMING!!! How do they get away with this?
Misleading. The measurements are done as a function of area so of course
there will be more HOAs for bigger pupils - there is more area. However,
the effects of them will be the same as for smaller pupils because it is
the density that counts for visual quality.
> Ace's comment: Whoa thats alot of extra aberrations at 6mm pupils! It
> would be terrible for those with 7mm, 8mm or larger pupils!
No it wouldn't. See above.
> It does
> reduce your myopia and astigmastim but not always eliminates it. Those
> who "gained" a line of vision is because glasses minifies everything,
> making the 20/20 line too small to read.
The intention is reduction but elimination is a stretch target. All
clinics will offer Lasik to reduce dependency on glasses but none will
promise to eliminate them. Minification might possibly account for some
of the improvements in BCVA but the procedure often improves the eye
too - that is just another benefit of Lasik.
> 83% may be 20/20 but this isnt
> the case over the long term as lasik does not stop the eye from
> changing. Also regression is common due to corneal bulging and
> sometimes an increase in axial myopia.
No, no, no. Ecstasia is very rare and Lasik patients statistically have
a lower chance because they are screened before surgery. Regression does
occur sometimes but not through corneal bulging.
> I am not bashing lasik here, it
> works to get you closer or even reach plano, I only present the facts
> that todays lasik, even wavefront still induces 50% more aberrations
> with 6mm pupils and possibly doubles your aberrations with 8mm+
> pupils.
You are bashing Lasik or at least purposefully putting it in a bad light
by misrepresentation of facts.. What you are presenting are facts but
they are to be taken in a different context - you can't use unrelated
statements to construct a integrated premise. I.e. There is a very
slight risk of ecstasia after Lasik and some people regress over time
therefore the regression is due to ecstasia induced by Lasik is not a
valid argument. Similarly saying bigger pupils have more HOAs and HOAs
are bad for vision therefore big pupils have worse vision is faulty too
because important detail has been left out such as the method of
measuring the severity of HOAs.
|