Board index » lasik-eyes » Complication-of-the-week feature

2004-10-05 11:59:57 AM
With all of the stink and abuse being heaped upon a poor professional
tennis player who admitted to the press that she had trouble seeing in
night matches following LASIK, I am beginning to think that some of the
regulars here are so naive as to think that LASIK complications do not
exist. Perhaps this would be a good forum to discuss real cases and get
some real expert advice. I'm sure Glenn could contribute a few from
complicated eyes.
Take a vote?
DrG
-

"Dr. Leukoma" <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com>wrote:
totally weighted towards complications. Based on population
statistics, if we had a "patient of the week" feature, then
only one week of the year would involve a patient with
complications. And in all likelihood that one complication
would be dry eye. Big deal.
Actually, this illustrates just how paranoid the anti-lasik
crowd is when their protestations are so contrary to the
reality on the ground. First it is lasik causing suicides,
and then it is lasik causing washed up tennis players to
stay washed up. Get real.
-

r5 <r5ahhj@r5ahhj.bounceme.net>wrote in news:r5ahhj-
0F5C82.03302505102004@newssvr30-ext.news.prodigy.com:
year. As long as she steers clear of night matches, she can still compete.
I think you are acting a little paranoid. Are all of you really just the
same person?
Somebody asks a question about athletes and LASIK and you all get bent out
of shape when confronted with the reality that there are a few who didn't
turn out so well? Sounds like a bad case of "reality avoidance" to me.
DrG
-

lasik-eyes

"Dr. Leukoma" <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com>wrote in message news:<Xns9578EBB159239drgleukomacom@204.127.204.17>...
didn't get yours, and tough $hit" attitude.
I think the difference is whose ox is being gored. If you had a good
result, you are an RS proponent; if you had a poor result, you are a
LASIK opponent. If you are an industry shill, you are a proponent. If
you are a medical professional that treats post-RS complications, you
are an opponent. The polarization IS pretty much that simple.
I had a great outcome per the industry in that I can read the 20/20
line, and have monovision to boot and can read close without glasses.
I had a poor outcome in my opinion terms of quality, with ghosting,
multiple images, GASH and the usual nighttime treats.
The first ox is the industry's. The second ox is mine. The proponents
take their ox and breed it so it will multiply, while mine gets
slaughtered and eaten. I may visit the industry's ox again, if it
proves it is calving well, but at this time no.
Any proponents want to ride my ox for a while? No takers? Hmmm...
-

Another fact is that people who are happy with their results don't
necessarily have great results. Some people are happy even with
compromises, as was once again demonstrated to me yesterday. That patient
will, however, be even more happy with her new RGP lenses.
It wasn't my intent to make people uneasy with their results, but I didn't
expect to have my credibility questioned by linking to information that is
readily obtainable with a Google search. Wasn't trying to gore an ox, but
wound up being attacked anyway.
I think Glenn's fan club misses him.
DrG
the_boydstons@hotmail.com (ycdbsoya) wrote in

In article <Xns957976936C60BDrLeukoma@207.217.125.201>,
"Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com>wrote:
questioning anyone's credibility.
This is a exerpt from an email I just wrote to someone else who thought
I was taking "digs" at them:
I am not vested one way or another in the issue of LASIK. I read the
google NG for info and for entertainment. I am an academic. I
sometimes choose to respond to postings because they are of academic
interest to me. Like this recent topic of how the journalist was able
to link Pierce's problems with LASIK without actually ever saying that.
Sometimes I choose to input my own experiences. My posts are not
directed at anyone's person, but only at what they write publicly on the
NG.
--
"The truth lies somewhere between Ragnar and WFI"
~RT
-

RT <RTMD24nospam@yahoo.com>wrote in
words that her results weren't 100%.
www.charleston.net/stories/040903/spo_09_fccnotes.shtml
LASIK may be a "miracle" surgery, but it results in anything but "miracle"
optics. It's all about tradeoffs.
I figured you had too much "class" to stoop to such tactics.
DrG
-

In article <Xns95798188F48DBDrLeukoma@207.217.125.201>,
"Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com>wrote:
Pierce and her LASIK results per say, but how the other article was
written to influence the reader to draw a certain conclusion. My point
was only that hearsay and innuendo doesn't have much weight no matter
what side of the fence you are sitting on.
For example, I personally don't believe for a second that Tiger Wood's
results were as great as the advertising says. He's a PAID endorser.
Pierce may very well and probably does have glare resulting from LASIK.
She may also be having other problems with her game that prevent her
from winning but she can blame on LASIK. Again MONEY is involved. They
have a VESTED INTEREST in what they respond.
I'll repeat again, I don't have a vested interest. I only have my
personal experience. I think everyone should go into any elective
procedure with their eyes wide open (pun intended).
is so great that the only way to describe it is as a miracle. For
others (and the majority probably), so far so good: the trade-offs have
been worth it overall. Hopefully it lasts.
--
"The truth lies somewhere between Ragnar and WFI"
~RT
-

anti-LASIK posts from someone who had a good result, however I know a
lot of refractive surgeons who spend a lot of time caring for patients
with complications, and yet they continue to provide refractive
surgery.
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.
-

Ah...we created an entire website just to accommodate the unique needs
of patients with refractive surgery related complications. It may be
a small percentage of the whole, but complications are real and are
not nearly rare enough.
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.
-

RT <RTMD24nospam@yahoo.com>wrote in
==========================================================================
The 2000 Family Circle champ is dealing with a new problem now as she seeks
a return to the top of women's tennis. Pierce had laser eye surgery
recently, but the results have not been 2-0/20.
She played last week in Sarasota for the first time since February, and
struggled with her vision while losing her second match.
"It didn't correct my vision 100 percent, only 50 percent," Pierce said
after a 6-3, 6-3 win over No. 48 Nicole Pratt on Tuesday. "So to play
tennis, I'm better off with my contacts, because it's preferable to see 2-
0/20 when you are playing a professional sport, especially when balls are
coming fast at you."
Against Pratt, Pierce played without her contacts. At Sarasota, she tried
it both ways.
"It's not the best right now," said Pierce, currently ranked No. 43. "Today
I didn't play with them in, so I'm just trying to figure that out."
==========================================================================
I hope that this puts the topic to rest. If a person has had a great
result from LASIK, I am happy for them. They don't need an attaboy from
me. If they had a bad result, I am sorry for them and try to help them
because I can.
DrG
-

Dr. G
I have a funny feeling that you didn't read anything I wrote.
Oh well.
Hope you have a restful evening.
--
"The truth lies somewhere between Ragnar and WFI"
~RT
-

RT <RTMD24nospam@yahoo.com>wrote in
Anyway, it is much ado about very little, as night glare is not a rare
post-LASIK side-effect. I suspect that Mary Pierce is not unlike some of
the patients I have treated.
DrG
-

On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 22:35:39 GMT, RT <RTMD24nospam@yahoo.com>wrote:
everything and close their minds to reality. They get an idea in
their heads and there is no changing it.
-

On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 02:59:22 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
<drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com>wrote:
much for your treatments.
I would also suggest that the next time you have a suicidal person who
comes to you, take off your blinders and see the real problems and
refer the guy to a qualified psychiatrist. It's obvious that his
eyes were only a minor part of his depression.
Either that or make a deal with a florist to provide flowers for more
funerals.
-

"Dr. Leukoma" <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com>wrote:
I think we all know where the reality avoidance blame lies.
-

"...a lot of refractive surgeons who spend a lot of time caring for
patients with complications..." This comes as a surprise to me, as I
have gotten the impression that refractive surgery is relatively safe.
It begs the following question:
Is there another field of elective surgery (meaning, a surgery that
can be postponed indefinitely without having a negative effect on
physical health) in which there exists "a lot" of surgeons who spend
"a lot" of time caring for patients with complications of that
surgery?
(Believe me, this is an honest question -- maybe this type of thing is
more widespread in the surgical universe than I would have guessed!
I've been accused of being terminally naive more than once.)
Thanks for your patience with what are probably silly questions!
-

On 6 Oct 2004 02:27:44 -0700, irecall911@yahoo.com (joyceb) wrote:
broken bones, there really isn't any surgery that couldn't be
considered "elective" . For all other things, time and/or medications
and/or therapies can be used instead of surgery.
-

r5 <r5ahhj@r5ahhj.bounceme.net>wrote in news:r5ahhj-
23F41D.04171206102004@newssvr11-ext.news.prodigy.com:
question was, is LASIK good for athletes. The answer is: good for some,
not everybody. In order to prove that statement, all I needed was one
example for each category.
Duh.
Anyway, I save the scientific data for other venues.
DrG
-

RM <rm@yahoo.com>wrote in
Tell me, Ragnar, do you get paid for the number of posts or the number of
words?
DrG
-

In article <Xns9579E1727755Edrgleukomacom@204.127.199.17>,
"Dr. Leukoma" <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com>wrote:
was not about "me"; 2. it was not about "you" and 3. it was not about
Mary Pierce.
I realize now I should have changed the subject line to "How to Read
Newspaper Articles."
Yes, it has been much ado. But I don't agree that it was about very
little. This NG promotes strongly that people should "research" the
procedure before proceeding. How to read and process this research is
step 1.
--
"The truth lies somewhere between Ragnar and WFI"
~RT
-