Board index » lasik-eyes » 5-year anniversary

2005-03-08 05:11:10 AM
I had my lasik surgery exactly 5 years ago today. Performed by Dr.
Gary Varley at Cincinnati Eye Institute. As far as I can tell, my vision is
still in the 20/20-20/15 range. Previous to the surgery I was a -8.5 in
both eyes with mild astigmatism.
Dry eye nuisance is still there, but is not a major problem. Four
months ago I finally stopped using artificial tears. Mainly because some of
the liquid would end up on my eyelash, dry up, and cause my eyelashes to
stick together. To my surprise, I don't miss the artificial tears, and I
save a few bucks.
-

It is good to hear of your excellent long-term results. Due to
refinement in technology and techniques, the probability of someone
who has surgery today having your kind of outcome seems to be
increasing.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
www.USAEyes.org
www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
-

When I had my lasik surgery in 2000, the procedure was a hot topic on
the news and on the Internet. Plus many people I knew were talking about
it. The past 3 years I haven't paid much attention to the subject.
Is Lasik still gaining in popularity, or have there been some
setbacks? And has a better procedure replaced Lasik, as Lasik replaced RK?
"Glenn - USAEyes.org" <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org>wrote in message

lasik-eyes

It's popularity is not declining, however its growth has leveled off.
The number of procedures every year goes up still, but not by much.
The main reason for that is that there isn't an unlimited number of
people who would benefit from the operation who can afford it who
haven't already had it done.
On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 22:26:57 -0500, "History Fan"
<IreallyHATEspam@iREALLYhateSPAM.com>wrote:

Glad to hear you've had a good experience.
-

Shortly after you had your surgery the lay press was alive with tales
of gloom and doom. Certain individuals and groups who desired the
demise of LASIK did a very good job of promoting the unfortunate
result of the minority. That coupled with the aftereffects of 9/11
caused the growth of LASIK do stop, and in some areas volumes actually
went decline.
Today the story is very different. IMO results are getting better,
doctors are doing a better job of screening patients, fewer doctors
are willing to attempt to push the envelope and do marginal patients,
patients have much more information available, everybody knows
somebody who has had LASIK, and informed consent is more informing.
The economy has settled, 9/11 does not dominate, and LASIK growth has
returned.
January issue of "Ophthalmic Market Perspectives" headlined the 2004
Refractive Highlights. As noted by publisher Dave Harmon, global
demand for refractive surgery grew approximately 14% to 3.4+ million
procedures, from 3.0 million in 2003.
The smaller segment of other refractive technologies, including phakic
IOLs, accommodating IOLs, multifocal IOLs, and CK grew by more than
48% to 119,000 procedures. The global market for refractive surgical
products, at the manufacturers level, grew 23% to $756 million, up
from $614 million in 2003
Market Scope is projecting 8-10% LASIK volume growth in 2005 with
Custom Mix climbing near 10 points to 50% due to expansion into
hyperopia and marketing efforts by the manufacturers.
While the gross percentage of people with unresolved complications at
six months postop has remained stable at 3%, the type and severity of
the problems is significantly less threatening than in previous years.
If it were not for LASIK induced dry eye - which continues to be a
problem - the gross percentage would have declined significantly.
There are still problems, of course. The reality of new technology
and techniques seldom lives up to its hype and it takes a while to
know what is reality and what is wishful thinking. Patients do have
refractive surgery induced problems that can be debilitating, it is
just occurring much less often than before. People still go into
refractive surgery "blind" without completing the due diligence that
they really should.
One thing that has not changed much. A vocal few that had surgery
years ago and received a bad outcome continue to make a lot of noise
as if what happened to them is going to happen to every other person
who signs up for LASIK. By and large their experiences are irrelevant
to what happens today, but you would never know that to hear them.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
www.USAEyes.org
www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
-

Glenn - USAEyes.org wrote:
operation, she'd tell you not to have lasik, in her usual long winded
way.
SErebel
-

I'm not suggesting that anyone who complains of problems does not have
problems. It is just that, in part due to the early mistakes, doctors
have learned how to avoid some problems before they happen and treat
others when they do occur. Even still, surgery is not perfect and
there will always be a percentage that have surgery induced
complications. No matter how small that percentage, if it is you, it
is 100%.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
www.USAEyes.org
www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
-

Glenn,
admission from you that corners were cut by this industry in it's
formative stages. Thank you for your candor.
that it is surprising that we speak out. What do you expect us to do -
suffer in silence? Your statement that the experinece of an injured
patient is "irrelevent" reveals a lot about the calculating nature of
this industry. Lasik injuries are never "irrelevent" to the people that
live with them. And yes, they will certainly speak out about it.
How people like you can sleep at night amazes me.
John Hoge
myLasikStory.com
-

arrogance, greed, a sincere desire to help patients, or other
motivation, would do LASIK on just about anybody. Every once in a
while you will see reports of a 20 diopter myope having LASIK in the
early years. I cannot think of any doctors who today would do LASIK
on a 20 diopter myope today. Part of that reason is that those
reports on the 20 diopter myopes show just how poorly the surgery
turned out.
All new medicine is to some extend trial and error. In the early
years, there is always too much of both.
circumstances being considered today. The relevance of that 20
diopter myope's outcome is very low today, because virtually nobody
would perform LASIK on a 20 diopter myope today. If that same 20
diopter myope with a poor LASIK outcome states to new potential
patients that they should not have LASIK because of their own poor
result, their statement is not relevant to the new patients unless the
new patients also happen to be very high myopes.
My position regarding the relevance of the current statements made by
some of the vocal few is that they often present their outcome, which
was an anomaly, as if it is about to happen to everybody - regardless
of the specific circumstances of the person considering refractive
surgery. A perfect example is that the founder of SurgicalEyes, who
used his own poor outcome in his campaign against LASIK, actually had
RK. You didn't see that fact volunteered to the press.
As exampled above, the relevance or lack thereof of any patient's
previous experience needs to relate to the circumstance of the
individual being advised. The experience (good or bad) of an RK
patient or a 20 diopter myope has little to do with the probable
experience of a 1.00 diopter hyperope considering LASIK today.
the people who suffer them. They may be, however, irrelevant to those
who are advised against LASIK by the person who suffered a previous
poor outcome.
helpful. Irrelevant, hyperbole, and misinformation is not valuable to
anyone. Your personal experiences can be used in a helpful or an
unhelpful manner. It is your choice.
get it.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
www.USAEyes.org
www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
-

jhoge123@yahoo.com wrote in news:1110970866.716084.33570
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
irrelevent. He said that they are irrelevent to what happens today, due
to the fact that things have changed over time. Not going to get into an
argument over whether that is true or not, that is a different issue.
--
Richard
-

I can think of a reason for doing LASIK on a 20 diopter myope. At
-20, a person would have to wear some elaborate device on their head
with inch thick lenses. Althould LASIK can't correct 20 diopters, it
could bring them from -20 to -6. At -6, they could wear rigid
contact lenses.
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:58:21 GMT, Glenn - USAEyes.org
<glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org>wrote:

Glenn and Richard,
This is a new twist on the "standard of care" arguement. Sure, the
Ability to perform lasik surgery has improved over the years. This is
like saying that a Ford Taurus is less dangerous than a Ford Pinto.
True but meaningless, if you are stuck driving a Pinto.
The real question to ask is whether the "standard of care" was in any
relation to the "standard of propaganda." The marketing literature
produced by the lasik doctor I visited, as well as his cohorts did not
describe an experimental procedure. Lasik was sold as a polished,
finished product back in 1999 just as it is sold today.
Plainly the advertising/propaganda in those days was much more
optimistic than the reality. I can't say whether the risks today are in
line with industry propaganda, but why should anybody believe the
statements of an industry that has not shown complete candor in the
past?
-

Let us use your analogy as I reference the issue of irrelevance.
If you were a single female in her 20s who bought a Ford Pinto back in
1972 and had trouble with it, what relevance would that have to a
married male with two children considering purchasing a 2005 Taurus?
Not much, really. If you told the person considering the Taurus today
to not buy it because you had a bad experience with a Pinto in 72, I
think your comments would be considered irrelevant. In a very big
way, that is what some people have done with their poor refractive
surgery results. Not all, and not all to the same extent, but some.
As to the standard of care, that is an ever moving target. What was
considered appropriate in 1999 may not be considered appropriate
today. Let's put this to a greater degree of perspective. It is
reasonable to assume that refractive surgery in 2035 is probably not
going to greatly resemble what is being done today. That is called
progress.
For most people considering refractive surgery today, the issue is
normally about whether or not they have a probability of getting what
they want within their own comfort level. If not, they should wait.
Things most certainly will change.
Was LASIK over hyped? Absolutely. Every new widget, gizmo, or idea is
over hyped until reality catches up with it. That is the nature of
humanity, and medicine is created by and for humans. With surgery, a
bit of cynicism can be healthy. With elective surgery, a large bit of
cynicism can be very healthy.
Is anti-LASIK over hyped? Absolutely. Two wrongs continue to not
make one right.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
www.USAEyes.org
www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
-