Exposing the LASIK Scam

One Surgeon at a Time
It is currently Wed Jun 20, 2018 1:54 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Future Generations of Lasers / Ativan / Artemis Scans
PostPosted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 2:38 am 
Offline
 E-mail  Profile

Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 5:01 am
Posts: 146
I was wondering if anyone knew why the FDA only approved lasers only up to 6.5 mm?
This really makes me wonder why they could only approve them to a certain degree. This is really devastating to me to consider any surgeon who would have actually had placed the correct optical zone treatment on my 8 mm pupils would have been doing my surgery "off label."
Will the FDA every approve larger optical zones? Will larger optical zones be equally risky or more so than smaller optical zones?

Also, does anyone know where I could get an Artemis scan in the Philadelphia, PA area? I really would like to get one soon. If anyone knows the approximate cost of this scan and any other information it would be appreciated. I am currently trying to research this myself but sometimes all lasik related issues are insane. Also, what makes so valuable in a patient has thick corneas? Are the results of a Artemis scan something than can be actively applied to a refractive surgery? What I am trying to ask is if anything can be done with the results of the scan if a patient has thick corneas all around.

I also wanted to try Ativan. But the possibility of taking another medicine for as a result of lasik makes me sick. I know I would really ask my family doctor for this but I trust you all so much you all can relate so much more as to what I am going through. At this point in my life, I am very capable of being addicted to something since I am so depressed and anxious. I was wondering if anyone else is similar to me in this sense and has still had success with Ativan.

I am really sorry again. I know I post on thelasikflap a lot with a lot of similar questions. But next time I see my lasik surgeon I want to be armed with all of the right information and make no more mistakes when I discuss the future of my eyesight with him.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Future Generations of Lasers / Ativan / Artems Scans
PostPosted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 12:50 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 1:23 pm
Posts: 2080
APizzo667 wrote:
I was wondering if anyone knew why the FDA only approved lasers only up to 6.5 mm?
This really makes me wonder why they could only approve them to a certain degree. This is really devastating to me to consider any surgeon who would have actually had placed the correct optical zone treatment on my 8 mm pupils would have been doing my surgery "off label."
Will the FDA every approve larger optical zones? Will larger optical zones be equally risky or more so than smaller optical zones?


The reason optical zones generally don't go wider than 6.5 is because wider treatments take off too much cornea, placing the patient at risk of ectasia. Like me, you should have never had LASIK, period. Your pupils are too large.

The LASIK Report discusses this issue in more detail. You really should read it if you haven't already.

Don't hesitate to ask questions. I'd much rather you get straight answers here than BS answers elsewhere.

_________________
Broken Eyes

"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." Plato


Top
 
 Post subject: Artemis scans a good idea for damaged LASIK patients
PostPosted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 2:38 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 1:06 am
Posts: 621
Quote:
Are the results of a Artemis scan something than can be actively applied to a refractive surgery? What I am trying to ask is if anything can be done with the results of the scan if a patient has thick corneas all around.


The issue is not so much the total thickness of your cornea after LASIK, but how much of that is tissue under the flap, and whether your flaps are of even thickness. Microkeratomes are notoriously unreliable in creating a consistent flap thickness... the thickness can vary a great deal. Unless your surgeon performed intraoperative pachemetry, which should always be performed, but SELDOM is, you have no idea how thick your flaps happened to turn out and how much of your total corneal thickness is residual stromal thickness supporting your intraocular pressure.

Not enough tissue = bulging = regression, possible ectasia.

This is why you need an Artemis. An artemis scan can tell you, in a non-invasive manner, how thick your flaps are, how much tissue you have remaining in your stromal bed, and whether your flap has thin areas.

With this information, your doctor will know how deeply a surface treatment could 'safely' be applied. I use the term 'safely' loosely, because every form of refractive surgery compromises visual health and quality.

An artemis scan will also show flap undulations, which are universal in LASIK patients and cannot possibly be a 'good thing' in terms of visual quality.

_________________
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark. The real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. -Plato


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 4:17 am 
Offline
 E-mail  Profile

Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 5:01 am
Posts: 146
I just heard that my lasik surgeon's office was purchased by TLC laser centers. This should make things much more interesting!


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Future Generations of Lasers / Ativan / Artemis Scans
PostPosted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:27 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 10:58 pm
Posts: 130
APizzo667 wrote:
Will larger optical zones be equally risky or more so than smaller optical zones?


larger optical zone = larger flap
larger optical zone = more tissue loss
larger optical zone = more nerve damage
larger optical zone = more corneal strength loss
larger optical zone = more dry eye prompt

For post-op patients, it helps to know whether their flaps are large enough for optical zone enlargement.


Last edited by surgieyes on Tue Dec 19, 2006 11:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 5:31 am 
Offline
 E-mail  Profile

Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 5:01 am
Posts: 146
http://www.crstoday.com/PDF%20Articles/ ... 6_supp.pdf

And I quote...

"...a study in young naval pilots that concluded
that night vision problems are unrelated to the pupil?s size...if the effective treatmentzone is less than 6.5mm, patients with large pupils
do not experience night vision problems
as long as the
ablation references the wavefront and the zone is at least
6.5mm. The WaveLight ALLEGRETTOWAVE excimer laser
(WaveLight, Inc.) features both wavefront-guided and
Wavefront Optimized technologies and also delivers a 6.5-
mm treatment zone to further prevent unwanted visual
symptoms"...Stephen F. Brint, MD, is Associate Clinical Professor of
Ophthalmology at Tulane University School of Medicine in
New Orleans. He is an ambassador for WaveLight, Inc., and
receives travel expenses from the company


How do people get away with this? This is unbelievable to me. How could a doctor write that and believe it? Shocking.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 1:51 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 1:23 pm
Posts: 2080
The reference is a 1991 article about radial keratotomy. What are they calling a large pupil, 7mm?

Holladay JT, Lynn MJ, Waring GO 3rd, et al. The relationship of visual acuity, refractive error, and pupil size after radial keratotomy. Arch Ophthalmol. 1991;109:1:70-76.

Read this excerpt from the FDA transcript of the first wavefront LASIK trials submitted for approval:

FDA Ophthalmic Devices Panel meeting
August, 2002
Dr. George Pettit is speaking on behalf of ALCON for approval of it's wavefront guided platform.

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/02/ ... 3883t1.doc

Quote:
Just to follow up a little bit on an earlier question. This is George Pettit from Alcon. I think Dr. Matoba asked the question about the pupil sizes and were the patients informed. Given this high-level expectation, it's important to note that the optical zone was 6.5mm and we informed all patients considering being in the trial that if their natural pupil was larger than 6.5mm, even with this new technology, there was a potential risk for them to have night vision symptoms. So we tried to bring their expectations more in line.


Anyone who says pupil size doesn't matter is dumber than a box of rocks.

_________________
Broken Eyes

"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." Plato


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Design By Poker Bandits