|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > September 2006 > FDA and LASIK surgeons/LASIK industry placing patients at risk for ectasia
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 |
FDA and LASIK surgeons/LASIK industry placing patients at risk for ectasia
|
|
| knowthedirt@yahoo.com 2006-09-23, 9:33 pm |
| An excellent question from a friend:
"Why hasn't the FDA raised the residual stromal thickness limit from
250 um?
Medical research shows 250 is not safe. Conservative surgeons won't go
below 300 (some maybe more). But until the FDA changes the approval,
surgeons will keep endangering patients by planning for 250, then
inadvertently cutting a thicker than planned flap, and placing patients
at risk.
And if the FDA is going to have a guideline in the first place of 250
um, why didn't it require intraoperative pachymetry to verify it???!!!!"
| |
|
| excellent questions to ASK THE FDA!... dumbass
<knowthedirt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1159050337.339145.186030@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> An excellent question from a friend:
>
> "Why hasn't the FDA raised the residual stromal thickness limit from
> 250 um?
>
> Medical research shows 250 is not safe. Conservative surgeons won't go
> below 300 (some maybe more). But until the FDA changes the approval,
> surgeons will keep endangering patients by planning for 250, then
> inadvertently cutting a thicker than planned flap, and placing patients
> at risk.
>
> And if the FDA is going to have a guideline in the first place of 250
> um, why didn't it require intraoperative pachymetry to verify it???!!!!"
>
| |
|
|
knowthedirt@yahoo.com wrote:
> An excellent question from a friend:
>
> "Why hasn't the FDA raised the residual stromal thickness limit from
> 250 um?
>
> Medical research shows 250 is not safe. Conservative surgeons won't go
> below 300 (some maybe more). But until the FDA changes the approval,
> surgeons will keep endangering patients by planning for 250, then
> inadvertently cutting a thicker than planned flap, and placing patients
> at risk.
>
> And if the FDA is going to have a guideline in the first place of 250
> um, why didn't it require intraoperative pachymetry to verify it???!!!!"
The FDA should have never approved lasik in the first place. They got
bribed into approving it and even lying and calling it "safe" when its
far from safe. A haircut may be considered safe.
| |
| Tom Lucas 2006-09-27, 4:30 pm |
|
"Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1159359190.043617.277690@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> knowthedirt@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
> The FDA should have never approved lasik in the first place. They got
> bribed into approving it and even lying and calling it "safe" when its
> far from safe. A haircut may be considered safe.
You've been away for a while, who on earth have you been speaking to in
that time to come back spouting this tripe? Are you drunk?
| |
|
| not at the hands of my wife...
"Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1159359190.043617.277690@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> knowthedirt@yahoo.com wrote:
SNIP
> A haircut may be considered safe.
>
|
| |
|
|