Board index » lasik-eyes » Physician essays

2005-02-20 01:11:09 AM
Physicians and other medical professionals are encouraged to add to
this thread to expose adverse consequences of the LASIK procedure.
I had "Custom Wavefront" LASIK on both eyes. I have severe dry eye and
had to have both my lower puncta cauterized. I also developed erratic
visual acuity and loss of contrast sensitivity; glasses and contacts
can't help since refraction for me is a moving target. I also now have
terrible accommodative dysfunction which no one seems to be able to
explain. I guess this generates a lot of the eye pain that I
experience.
I am in a procedure-intensive specialty and I have some knowledge of
the informed consent. The consent form offered up by most refractive
surgeons is a sorry document which is guided by legal standards and
doesn't give the patient realistic information by which to make their
decision. I fully believe that that constitutes malpractice in the
setting of an elective procedure. There is also too much reliance on
patient satisfaction surveys and not enough emphasis on real science.
Sure, if you were trying to market an expensive surgical procedure,
glowing patient testimonials are better for the bottom line than
evidence-based medicine. Not even a marketing 101 flunkie would submit
a brochure which lists these real, possible outcomes...
-likely decrease in low light and night vision
-definite decrease in tear quantity and/or quality...no real way
to estimate if you will be symptomatic or not
-eye fatigue and/ or eye pain
-unpredictable quantities of metallic debris left behind
-permanent denervation or paresthesias of the cornea
-retinal detachment or ischemia during surgery
If I would have suspected that any of the above outcomes were possible,
I'd be sitting here right now CLEARLY viewing my computer screen with
my old trustworthy glasses on.
I genuinely believe that RS [refractive surgery] is a crime in its
present form. LASIK may be the worst of the offenders. It "cheapens"
the field of medicine and is perpetuated by greed. I don't consider
refractive surgeons colleagues...these people aren't healers. I've
also given lots of thought on how to reach potential victims of the RS
industry. At least patients deserve accurate information before making
such a potentially life-altering decision.
-

It's frightening to think of all the potential LASIK complications
which haven't yet happened. There are thousands of people out there who
will follow me into the LASIK casualty heap...patients that the
ophthalmologists would like to forget...patients marketing types don't
even consider when pressing out their glossy brochures. I really feel
for these unsuspecting myopes and hyperopes. I'd give almost anything
to turn back time, to be in the pre-surgical decision phase. Next best
thing is to keep others from making the catastrophic mistake that I did.
-

Patients should be encouraged to report bad behavior of LASIK surgeons
to their state medical board.
The medical board answers to no one and will properly scrutinize those
actions. The board's function is to
monitor, review and police substandard care and non-professional
behavior of the licensed physican. As a
medical professional, I can assure you that I have observed actions
that are unethical. Well, any
ophthalmologist performing LASIK is unethical by reasonable standards.
-

lasik-eyes

I'm not religious by any means, but if there is a Hell, there is a
special place in it for Refractive surgeons.
I've been trying to understand the phenomenon of LASIK surgery's
tenacity despite all the clear indications that it should be abolished.
I believe that there are several key elements that refractive surgeons
consciously or inadvertently exploit. First, we all hated our glasses
and contact lenses. The promise of "perfect", unaided vision is so very
seductive. The lure took away much of my objectiveness so I was hearing
and reading only the propaganda and little of the real science. The
dense marketing overwhelms the objective information on RS. Next,
vision is poorly quantitated. Visual acuity is a subjective report by
the patient..."yeah, one looks clearer than two...wait, let me see two
again". No none really assesses how light is refracted by the anterior
eye then interpreted by the retina and brain. The optics of the human
eye are not static either. So the patient, ecstatic to be free of
lenses, believes he or she is now seeing great just because the 20/20
line can be resolved without glasses. Never mind the loss of contrast
sensitivity, loss of night acuity, loss of accommodation, corneal
derangement, dry eye...........etc. Now you have a population of LASIK
patients who want to believe their vision has been improved. They go on
to be poster children for LASIK and tell their friends and the vicious
cycle perpetuates. Those of us who get the complications are written
off as unlucky bastards. Like the crazy aunt in the basement, no one
wants to acknowledge us because of the impact this may have on a
profitable industry. And our numbers are not small. If you know what
questions to ask, and you ask them directly you will find that most
people have some issue with their LASIK.
The FDA is a joke. They obstruct good medications, devices and
procedures and seem to bless the crap. Physicians on those panels are
notoriously the bottom 5% of their medical school classes. Most
couldn't critically read a peer reviewed journal if their lives
depended on it. It may take a class action lawsuit to stop the
butchering of eyes.
Getting physicians to organize a campaign might be a start. Let's get
the PhD's involved too.
We'll see the day that this tragic surgery is banned.
-

I was contemplating life in general today. It's amazing how drastically
the LASIK has altered my life. I realize that for me, I'm waging two
battles. The obvious one is the post-LASIK eye damage with all the
associated treatments and daily misery. But possibly more debilitating
is the way that this outcome has screwed up my psyche. At first, pure
regret and anger wore me down. I haven't yet regained my previous self.
I still feel kind of dazed. It seems everything about my daily
experience has recentered on my eyes and vision. If my eyes feel better
one day, it's a good day. If I'm seeing particularly bad one day,
getting through a day is Hell. Every activity from reading to driving
at night reminds me of what I once had but have no more. I hate having
my mental state and moods hard-wired to my eyes.
-

Who knows, maybe in the near future, there will be good therapy to
treat the LASIK-damaged cornea...I'm counting on the ophthalmologists
wearing the white hats to persevere over the fat cat hacks. One of the
things that really irritated me about USA eyes was that idiot Glenn
Hagele, who posts here also. What a bag man for the LASIK industry. He
tries to come off as some patient advocate but he shamelessly promotes
the butchers. Patients with real injuries are simply referred to the
"links". I watched a long bulletin board thread where some guy with
serious complications was communicating with Glenn. Glenn's advice was
so pathetically worthless that someone finally jumped in and told the
guy he needed real help from a real specialist. Those generic "links"
and canned advice Glenn was touting were going to get him nowhere, and
might delay some needed intervention. Turns out that the guy was
sitting on an overlooked retinal detachment. NICE! Glenn (not a doctor)
was almost an accomplice in the blinding of a patient. Glenn needs to
go sell used cars.
-

There is a good backgrounder on the informed consent issue at
www.lasikfraud.com/news/archives/000011.html. I cannot agree
that LASIK surgery is a crime but I can agree that the acts of
ommission related to the informed consent is.
WK
-

Thank you for the link, I will look into it. So called 'informed
consent' for LASIK is almost universally an act of omission because
patients are not clearly informed about what LASIK does to the eye -
or of many of the known future risks such as ectasia, difficulty in
wearing contact lenses, the possibliity of persistent pain, and the
potential permanence of dry eye. Issues such as future IOL power
complications with cataract surgery are also not discussed by doctors
or in informed consent materials. Witholding known future risks during
counseling for an elective procedure is ndeed malpractice. I'm sticking
up for the principle of Hippocrates.
-

Damaged,
I'm sorry to hear that you had a lousy lasik outcome. I wish it
happened to no one.
Since this doesn't happen except to very few people, why would you
blanket bash the procedure itself ? Since you state that you are in
the medical field, you may have a leg up on locating some relief for
yourself. Take your case as an indivual one instead of as a group
problem and fight back for yourself. Your surgeon probably screwed up.
Your posts may or may not change the minds of the undecided.
SErebel
-

What a sad case you are. You can't get people to respond to your thread so
you keep responding to yourself. Do you talk to yourself in real life too
or only cyberspace?
Wal
<damageddoc@yahoo.com>wrote in message

On 19 Feb 2005 20:21:26 -0800, "serebel" <serebel@aol.com>wrote:
DamagedDoc is a lunatic of the highest order. I already have some
ideas about whom it is. I don't believe that DD even had LASIK
performed. Assuming that DD did have LASIK and it came out lousy.. is
that a bad thing?
Katherine Hepburn or Michael J. Fox having parkinson's is BAD...
Hitler having parkinson's is GOOD.
My pet dog having kidney problems is BAD... O'sammy Bin Hidin having
kidney problem is GOOD
Succinctly.. when bad things happen to bad people.. that is GOOD.
I wonder how often the following happens... you get a malcontent who
thrives on exchanging embellished/enhanced horror stories about their
surgery... who then meets another malcontent who does the same...
then one of the malcontents thinks to themselves "oh my god! this
whacko is REALLY nuts!"
-

SErebel,
Apparently you haven't been keeping up with the latest findings in the
field of Opthalmology. LASIK compromises the optical quality and
mechanical integrity of every cornea which is subjected to this
ill-advised procedure. And you think complications are rare? Even the
2002 AAO report on LASIK used the word "common" to describe the LASIK
side effects dry eyes and starbursts and haloes - which we commonly
refer to as GASH. Go to a medical library, get yourself a copy (the
reference is below) and if you have trouble understanding what you
read, post your questions and I will help you.
If anything posted here prevented spared a single pair of eyes from
LASIK surgery it would be terrific. If you still don't believe that
truth about LASIK is scary enough check out this quote from the FDA
transcripts:
Dr. I Howard Fine, Past President of the American Society of Cataract
and Refractive Surgery:
"As we all know, Lasik transects the cornea nerves, therefore inducing
dry eyes in most patients."
www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/01/transcripts/3806t1.doc
Ophthalmology 2002;109:175-187
-

The meeting you reference below involving Dr Howard Fine Howard
occurred 4 years ago. The fact that you had to dig back 4 years to
get even this trivail comment about the temporary effects of dryness
shows how desperate you are for negative information.
I'm glad I never read your garbage before I had my LASIK surgery. If
I had, I might still be seeing 20/800 instead of roughly 20/20. No
more ineffective glasses clouding up and slipping. No more contacts
that stick and slide and restrict eye movement and result in corneal
ulcers and stretched corneas and milky pools of fluid trapped under
the lens.
Here's something to do to someone you hate.. tell them not to have
refractive surgery! If they are old and have cataracts and you don't
like them. Tell them how awful refractive surgery is.. don't go get
those cataracts removed and IOL's put in. Have those people you hate
enjoy the bliss of blindness.
On 20 Feb 2005 11:36:55 -0800, damageddoc@yahoo.com wrote:

damageddoc@yahoo.com barfed:
Why did the guy not go back to his original surgeon?
Or to hospital?
Or a general doctor?
Or get a second opinion?
It seems totally insane to me for somebody who knows they've got a
problem with their eyes to ask in a newsgroup, any newsgroup, for
advice. Its not as if anyone can examine you over the net is it?
--
frag
-

Ragnar wrote:
I think I know who you mean. There is an eerily similar post over at
Minarik's lunatic asylum site from the mighty "Casey".
SErebel
-

On 20 Feb 2005 20:00:36 -0800, "serebel" <serebel@aol.com>wrote:
better not upset Serebel too much! That website only has about 7
members as it is!
-

damageddoc@yahoo.com wrote:
the "olden days" of 1996. I treated myself to the $5000 surgery for my
40th birthday. What a mistake that was. Nowadays I think a lot about
having more surgery in hopes of fixing the severe GASH that I was
given. But I don't trust surgeons anymore. I probably never will.
Instead I deal with the damage as best I can. I moved so I wouldn't
have to drive after sunset. I changed my practice from Large Animal to
Small Animal veterinary medicine so I wouldn't have to be on unlit farm
roads after dark. Then I found SurgicalEyes and there I learned about
RGP contact lenses. They aren't a miracle but they do help a lot. I
still can't drive after dark if it's snowing or raining. Luckily I
live in a desert and don't have to deal with either much. If I lived
in Seattle I'd probably be dead by now. :-)
I keep three different strengths of reading glasses in my desk. I have
a good surgical loupe for delicate procedures. I've got the largest
computer monitor made. Through trial and error I function about 90%
as well as before LASIK. Now, at age 48 I'm beginning to have
age-problems such as presbyopia. What coping methods I learned dealing
with LASIK complications should make it easier to deal with the added
unsult of age. ;-)
Sorry, no advice for you other than learn to deal with the problems
you've been handed.
Good Luck
Kevin
-