Exposing the LASIK Scam

One Surgeon at a Time
It is currently Mon Feb 19, 2018 7:55 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Blend Zones
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 11:40 pm 
Offline
 E-mail  Profile

Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 5:01 am
Posts: 146
OK -

First off, I know I asked about blends zones alot before. I understand their role in lasik eye surgery, but I don't understand their effectiveness. And I think I would understand better through a scenario...

For example, take someone with pupils of 8 mm. They had the option of getting two surgeries. The first surgery had an optical zone of 4 mm, with a blend zone to 8 mm. The second had an optical zone of 4 mm, with a blend zone to 6.

Now aside from removing excess cornea, how will each surgery's visual results vary? Focusing solelyon the blend zones, will the second surgery possible reduce NVD's more than the first?

And finally, in my case, before my surgery I had a Rx of -2.25 in each eye, with a diopter of astigatmism of -1.00 in each eye. Since my pupils are 8.5 mm, and my optical zone was 6.00 mm with a blend to 7.00 mm for both eyes. Now my -2.25 in each eye is gone. For simplicities sake, does that mean that the remaining perpherial 2.5mm (8.5 less 6.00) still has a -2.25 Rx? Did the blend zone effect this at all?

Or does my new Rx of .50 on the 90 degree axis and .25 on the 180 axis for astigatmatism become what my new complete prescription is including the untouched areas of my cornea?

PLEASE NOTE I DO NOT ASK THIS FOR ANY SURGICAL REASONS, I AM JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND MORE AND MORE ABOUT HOW I WAS ALMOST SUCKERED INTO ANOTHER SURGERY BEFORE FINDING THELASIKFLAP AND BEING SHOWN HOW WORTHLESS A BLEND ZONE IS ON EYESIGHT - THANK YOU KINDLY! I DON'T KNOW WHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD I CAN ASK QUESTIONS LIKE THESE AND GET THE HONEST TRUTH!

Coming out of lasik denial was the best thing I ever did for my future self!


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 11:47 pm 
Offline
 E-mail  Profile

Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 5:01 am
Posts: 146
Just for the record, my orginal Rx of -2.25 with minor astigatism seemed like a nightmare at the time and for years I dreamd of lasik until I was old enough the the technology was "safe" enough - especially with "wavefront."

Now having my old corenas and my old Rx back would be the miracle of all miracles to me. That Rx seems like childs play relative to where I am just a few short years later!!

But no more time for regrets, but its funny, I am still wearing my same frames as before the surgery, just with different lenses. I'd love to go back to the day of my surgery.

Right next to my laser surgery center is The King of Prussia Mall, the largest mall on the east coast. I remember my mom asking me the day of my surgery if I would rather spend my $5,500 that I worked so hard for at the mall instead of getting the surgery. She never wanted me to get that surgery.

I am so sorry mom, I never had the heart to apologize to you in person, but I hope you know how much I would have loved to take you shopping that day and saved both our lives. You successfully raised three boys and took care of 4 grandparents all with cancer, all while watching your best friend and cousin die of cancer while I selfishly got lasik. I am so sorry mom.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 12:15 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 4:28 am
Posts: 38
Anthony, the hardest thing many of us post-Lasik patients will have to do is forgive ourselves. I mentioned to an optometrist (pretty much anti-Lasik) I recently visited, the tremendous regret of my hasty choice of choosing Lasik when I, for most of my life, avoided any kind of eye surgery. He said not to beat myself up about it. He said it's due to the slick advertising that makes Lasik seem so modern, professional, predictable, and actually good for a person's health. We all know better now how reckless and damaging all refractive surgery is, despite the admonitions of the Lasik doctors/clinics/flunkies to the contrary. It is very upsetting, though, that anyone would willingly participate in such harmful procedures even if it meant having to get a real job for a change and help people.

I remember recently doing a google search related to Lasik and one of the subjects was a blog among young females, either in their teens or a little older. They were discussing how 'neat' it would be to go for Lasik. They, as most members of the public, do not know the inherent dangers and disastrous results of Lasik and the other refractive eye surgeries and how life-altering the results can be.

Hang in there (easy for me to say) and seek support from those that know better and care about people. There are some really good people on this forum. Wishing you well and continued support.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Blend Zones
PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:33 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 1:23 pm
Posts: 2080
APizzo667 wrote:
For example, take someone with pupils of 8 mm. They had the option of getting two surgeries. The first surgery had an optical zone of 4 mm, with a blend zone to 8 mm. The second had an optical zone of 4 mm, with a blend zone to 6.

Now aside from removing excess cornea, how will each surgery's visual results vary? Focusing solelyon the blend zones, will the second surgery possible reduce NVD's more than the first?


Anthony, both surgeries would be terrible for a patient with 8 mm pupils. The optical zone is what's important. The blend to 8 mm would not make much difference with a 4 mm optical zone. Maybe in dim light it would make a small difference, but still the patient would be severely visually impaired. It's like asking, would it be better if a patient broke his back in 4 places or 5? That's why I keep saying that a retreatment is not going to fix a LASIK patient with very large pupils. They can't give a patient an 8 mm optical zone -- they can't even do a 7mm optical zone on most patients because of ablation depth issues. Maybe they can blend it a little more... maybe it will improve a little... but it's a big gamble for a small improvement, in my opinion, because it could make matters worse and then your cornea is even thinner. If they do it on top of the flap you will lose your Bowman's layer plus they'll apply a toxic substance, MMC.

APizzo667 wrote:
And finally, in my case, before my surgery I had a Rx of -2.25 in each eye, with a diopter of astigatmism of -1.00 in each eye. Since my pupils are 8.5 mm, and my optical zone was 6.00 mm with a blend to 7.00 mm for both eyes. Now my -2.25 in each eye is gone. For simplicities sake, does that mean that the remaining perpherial 2.5mm (8.5 less 6.00) still has a -2.25 Rx? Did the blend zone effect this at all?


Anthony, I don't have your records in front of me at the moment, so I'm using the information you posted here to answer. The -2.25 refractive error was only treated on 6mm of your cornea. So yes, in theory (but not really), it's gone, but only on 6mm. Yes, the blend did affect it, but only a little, and only across a .5 mm diameter at the edge of the ablation zone.

Think of it this way:

6 mm was correctly centrally. All the way around .5 mm received a small amount of ablation, but not much. Now you're probably thinking, "no, it was a 1 mm blend zone". But if you actually took a millimeter ruler and measured the entire treatment zone diameter, it would be 7 mm.

.5mm blend, plus 6mm optical zone, plus .5mm blend = 7.00mm ablation zone.

A lot of people think that if they have a 6.00mm optical zone plus a 1.00mm blend, that the blend goes out 1mm all the way around, but it's actually 1/2 of the stated blend zone that goes out all the way around.

APizzo667 wrote:
Or does my new Rx of .50 on the 90 degree axis and .25 on the 180 axis for astigatmatism become what my new complete prescription is including the untouched areas of my cornea?


Anthony, what you have now outside of the 6mm optical zone is irregular astigmatism, which is not correctable and therefore not reflected in your refraction of .50 x 90 and .25 x 180. (You also have some irregular astigmatism within the 6mm optical, primarily coma from a decentered ablation).

A refraction (Rx) is the best that glasses can correct you. In good lighting that might mean that your Rx gives you 20/20 vision. But that's based on Snellen acuity which is black letters on a white background (high contrast) under good lighting which makes your pupils block a lot of the irregular astigmatism.

Maybe if I can make an image, it might help you understand. I'll work on that...

Problem is, once you get this, then we have to move on to the next level... "radial compensation function"... 6mm is not really 6mm... (we'll do that later!)

APizzo667 wrote:
Coming out of lasik denial was the best thing I ever did for my future self!


"Welcome to the real world." ~ Morpheus
(Sorry, LasikBS! I can't help myself! ~ Trinity) 8)

_________________
Broken Eyes

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


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 2:39 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 1:23 pm
Posts: 2080
OK, Anthony, I made you an image.

This is a picture of a patient with 8mm pupils holding a millimeter ruler under her eye. Through the magic of computer software, I added the red area and the yellow area that you see in the pupil center, as well as the two thin rulers in the center of the pupil. The rest of the image is the original photograph taken in a dark room with the camera set for macro-photography and flash.

The red area represents the 6mm optical zone. The yellow rim represents the blend zone. I copied a section of the ruler that she's holding under her eye, and pasted it over the pupil twice. The ruler at the top is lined up to measure the entire pupil diameter (8mm) and the optical zone (6mm). The ruler below is lined up to measure the entire ablation zone (7mm).

Everything outside of the red is not fully corrected. To really show you the area of the cornea that is causing visual disturbances, I would have to do the image with just the red area and not include the yellow area, but I used the yellow area (blend) to show you how this all works.

And of course as you know, the black area of the pupil wasn't even touched by the laser in your case. It's still nearsighted out there. The problem is that the out of focus area in the black part of the pupil is distoring the entire image in dim light when the pupil dilates.

I hope this helps.

Image

_________________
Broken Eyes

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


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 3:06 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 1:23 pm
Posts: 2080
Here's what a 6mm optical zone looks like superimposed on an 8mm pupil. If you calculate the area, 44% of the cornea that contributes to the retinal image is uncorrected and out of focus.

8mm pupil = 50.26 area
6mm optical zone = 28.27 area
21.99 area uncorrected = 44%

Image

_________________
Broken Eyes

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


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 2:23 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 1:23 pm
Posts: 2080
These next images don't relate to blend zones, but they might help understand the effect that pupil size has on light rays passing through a multifocal cornea like you have, Anthony. The yellow area on the 2nd image shows spherical aberrations.

Image



Image

An after-thought: On the blue and green areas I should have said "treated area" (blue) and "untreated area" (green). The terms "corrected" and "uncorrected" may not be as clear as "treated" and "untreated" (meaning, treated by the laser, or not treated by the laser). It's a lot of trouble to go back and fix it, but if anyone needs to use these images for something important, I'll take the time to redo them.

_________________
Broken Eyes

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


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 7:51 am 
Offline
 E-mail  Profile

Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 5:01 am
Posts: 146
I am not even going to lie, it took me illegal pain killers to read the responses in full. I never watched the matrix so I don't quite get all the references, but believe me, beyond all humanity, I unforntunatly understand all the truth of it. I will be sure to re-read all over the posts tommorrow and thank you so much for your posts BE - your posts made all of my questions more clear now. Thank you once again and I will make sure to review all of your information tommorrow once again to fully comprehend the butcher who worked on my eyes.

No advice from any doctor at TLC could make the pain associated with the truth lessen in any amount. I know my lasik surgeon and his associates read my posts REGULARLY and your posts REGULARLY. THEY CALLED MY CELL PHONE AND CALLED ME ABOUT MY POSTS ON LASIK FLAP (THIS WEEK)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I don't know how any person with red blood in their veins can read this and continue to do what they do. THANK YOU BE / STANDARDS / SCIENTIST!!

Thank you BE


Top
 
 Post subject: Thank God for THELASIKFLAP.com!
PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 11:54 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 1:23 pm
Posts: 2080
Anthony, please don't let them scare you. That's exactly what they want... to scare you into silence. I've been through something very similar. I've been terrorized, harassed and threatened. I've been threatened with legal action, even though I have never done anything illegal. I am a victim of criminal harassment by the LASIK industry hitman.

If you post the truth, or your posts are clearly YOUR OPINION, you cannot be successfully sued AND THEY KNOW IT! These blow-hards will treaten you and may even send you a threatening letter from an attorney. THE BEST STRATEGY IS TO IGNORE IT! If you do anything other than ignore it you could fall right into a trap. The only thing you have to respond to is a court order signed by a judge. LASIK industry terrorists and their attorneys cannot force you to do ANYTHING without a court order. Just be sure all of your posts are truthful or clearly your opinion. If you say your surgeon is a scumbag bottom-dweller, that is clearly your opinion. If you say your vision was ruined by LASIK by your surgeon, THAT IS TRUTHFUL.

These jerks are just a bunch of terrorists. If John Potter is harassing you, he's a LASIK industry terrorist (MY OPINION!). Just stick to the rules, Anthony -- truthful or clearly your opinion. This is a free country and speech is protected by the first amendment. DO NOT negotiate with terrorists! Don't let them scare you. Just stick to the rules, Anthony. And don't worry. And don't talk to them anymore if they are threatening you. Remember, you are the who was harmed. And you have a right to talk about it. THE LASIK INDUSTRY DOESN'T WANT YOU TO TALK ABOUT BECAUSE THEY WANT TO KEEP THE DECEPTION GOING. THEY DON'T WANT PROSPECTIVE PATIENTS TO READ THAT PATIENTS HAVE BEEN PERMANENTLY AND SEVERELY HARMED! THE LASIK GRAVY TRAIN IS SLOWING DOWN AND THEY ARE DESPERATE. THANK GOD FOR THELASIKFLAP!

_________________
Broken Eyes

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


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 11:34 pm 
Offline
 E-mail  Profile

Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 5:01 am
Posts: 146
Thank you for the images.

Tommorrow (10/17/07) I am going to free legal aid here in Philly to see about support for my disability, bankruptcy (student loans), and lawsuit.

Then on Thursday I am going to the welfare office for hopefully some basic health insurance.

The pictures will make those who have no idea about lasik understand much better what's goin on in my eyes!!

I'll keep you all posted.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:30 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 10:58 pm
Posts: 130
BE,

An image is worth a thousand words.

Thank you for the images, esp. the one showing unfocused light rays from outside the optical zone (spherical aberrations).


Top
 
 Post subject: Never blame yourself for LASIK
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 10:58 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 4:28 pm
Posts: 643
Unless you are responsible for it (LASIK surgeon, part of the LASIK industry, etc.) If you're a patient, good GRIEF - you are a victim and were misled.

If you had the advantage of seeing the real unmassaged clinical trials data and were properly informed the real known risks of LASIK you would have run screaming out the door.

Something unhealthful was packaged and sold to you.

It's only natural to want better vision. If you had been properly informed it WOULD have been your decision to have LASIK. But you didn't have all the facts.


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


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