Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > July 2006 > Re: Ophthalmology. 2004 Dec;111(12):2175-85. Conclusion is wavefront increases, induce





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 Re: Ophthalmology. 2004 Dec;111(12):2175-85. Conclusion is wavefront increases, induce
Ragnar

2006-07-31, 8:28 am

HOA's are not that big of a deal. Up until a few years ago, almost
nobody even spoke of them. The reason they are mentioned now is that
with wavefront technology - which was advanced tremendously in the
production of the Hubble Telescope - it is now possible to both
measure HOA's and modify them to fine-tune one's vision.

Ace would have people thinking that HOA's are something to worry
about.


On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 09:18:09 +0100, "Tom Lucas"
<news@REMOVE_auto_THIS_flame_TO_REPLY.clara.co.uk> wrote:

>
>"Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1154104788.806134.193720@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
><snip abstract>
>
>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.
>
>
>No it wouldn't. See above.
>
>
>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.
>
>
>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.
>
>
>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.
>

Copyright 2003 - 2008 pahealthsystems.com