Exposing the LASIK Scam

One Surgeon at a Time
It is currently Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:01 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Good vs bad multifocality?
PostPosted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:44 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 1:42 am
Posts: 6
Being able to read something in my hand is a neccessity. I have multifocallity with my bifocals already, and no benefit whatsoever for my aberrations. I'm willing to give bifocal lenses a try, altnough I have been told... that like most other correction options, bifocal lenses work less well on patients with large pupils.

My eyes feel better when there is a contact lens covering up my exposed dry corneas...till the end of the day, when my eyes hurt from the lenses drying on my eyes. Then, of course, when I take them out because I can no longer stand them, I have spectacle blur until I go to bed.

Once you have corneal refractive surgery you are SCREWED for life.

Still I long for uncomplicated correction. Probably an unrealistic hope.

_________________
Wavefront retreatments are a hoax. Once you rip up a flap or remove the epithelium, the wavefront map is no longer applicable to that eye. No wonder so many patients are made worse by wavefront retreatments.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:55 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 4:33 am
Posts: 12
Location: California
My update:

I went to a non lasik eye doctor and was told I have severe dry eye. He suggested temporary plugs. I'm not sure what I will do about that yet. I have my 3 month follow up for my Lasik on Friday. I am not going to tell them about my other diagnosis of severe dry eye and I'll see what they tell me. I also had to get glasses. Yep...I had Lasik so I would never have to wear glasses or contacts again right? Yeah, right. I wish.

The very very good news....it totally corrects my night blindness...turns out I just couldnt see because I was so undercorrected. I thought I was going to be like that forever...at least I can see with the glasses...that makes me so happy.

They tell me I can have it done again and that would give me the perfect vision I went in for the first time....No thanks.....you screwed up my eyes enough the first time around...I'm done. I can see with glasses thank you very much, and I'll keep it that way. But hey, thanks for taking my $3000.00, and thanks for giving me severe dry eye. I just think what I could have paid for with that money. Ugh. Disgusting.

DONT EVER GET LASIK........EVER!


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 1:45 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 1:23 pm
Posts: 2080
NorCalMrs wrote:
I am not going to tell them about my other diagnosis of severe dry eye and I'll see what they tell me.


That will be interesting.

NorCalMrs wrote:
I also had to get glasses. Yep...I had Lasik so I would never have to wear glasses or contacts again right? Yeah, right. I wish.


Don't feel bad. My latest glasses script reads:
-1.75 -.50 x 180
-1.50 -.25 x 15
+2.00 add

LASIK is a big fat miserable failure.

NorCalMrs wrote:

The very very good news....it totally corrects my night blindness...turns out I just couldnt see because I was so undercorrected. I thought I was going to be like that forever...at least I can see with the glasses...that makes me so happy.


NOW THIS REALLY MAKES ME MAD! WHY DID YOUR YELLOW-BELLY LASIK SURGEON NOT REVEAL YOUR REFRACTIVE ERROR TO YOU AND GIVE YOU A SCRIPT FOR GLASSES SO YOU WOULDN'T BE FREAKING OUT ABOUT YOUR VISION?!!??!! My sorry LASIK center did the very same thing to me. For 2 months I was lied to about the distorted vision in my right eye. All along it was because of induced astigmatism, but do you think they wanted to tell me that???? I had a full diopter of astigmatism, yet they let me panic for 2 months trying to figure out what was wrong with my vision in that eye. These slimy lying low lifes make me sick!

NorCalMrs wrote:

They tell me I can have it done again and that would give me the perfect vision I went in for the first time....No thanks.....


Yeah, they'd love to rip up your flaps and blast away more of your precious cornea. They probably have no clue how much cornea remains under your flaps and probably wouldn't even verify it before blasting away more tissue.


NorCalMrs wrote:
you screwed up my eyes enough the first time around...I'm done. I can see with glasses thank you very much, and I'll keep it that way. But hey, thanks for taking my $3000.00, and thanks for giving me severe dry eye. I just think what I could have paid for with that money. Ugh. Disgusting.

DONT EVER GET LASIK........EVER!


They knew, or should have known, that they would leave you with dry eyes and you should have been warned. "Disgusting" is right.

Yeah, I'm in a bad mood. I hardly slept last night thinking about some of the things that are going on in this stinking industry. They should all be ashamed of themselves, but apparently they have no conscience.

_________________
Broken Eyes

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


Top
 
 Post subject: I found out about acuity problems on TheLasikFlap.com!
PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2007 5:47 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 5:16 am
Posts: 138
Location: New Jersey
NorCalMrs wrote:
I am not going to tell them about my other diagnosis of severe dry eye and I'll see what they tell me.


Ha! The old *see a 2nd Dr.--find out some info-- see if the 1st Dr. fesses up trick*!

Every time I go to the office of the Dr. who did my LASIK, I sit in her chair for a good 5 minutes. She tells me to read the chart, and I say it's blurry and tell her about my double vision, ghosting, difficulties at work, etc. Her response is always, "You're fine!" and "I consider your surgery a success!" Then she stands up, as if to push me out of the room.

So, I did the old *see a 2nd Dr.--find out some info-- see if the 1st Dr. fesses up trick*! The 2nd Dr. said that I'm under corrected and now have an astigmatism that I did not have prior to the surgery. Needles to say, there was no fessing up at my next visit to the 1st Dr.

After I read the eye chart, I asked what my prescription was, and I asked about glasses. She then got very defensive, like she always does, and answered in a snotty manner, "I'm not checking for a prescription, I'm checking your visual acuity!" Then my fiance told her that I see double and ghosting, as if I have an astigmatism. Then she said that everyone has natural aberrations, and these are mine.

As if I had ever heard the terms ?visual acuity? and ?visual aberrations? before finding it myself on Thelasikflap.com! She sure as hell didn?t mention the terms at my consultation. Clearly, ?visual acuity? and ?visual aberrations? are both common components of the average person?s vocabulary bank, with full understanding of how the terms relate to ones vision!

I tried to hand feed the opportunity to fess up right to her...and she didn't even take the bait! It's bad enough to lie, but then when being presented with the opportunity to come clean and you still keep lying...you're a disgusting person. Plain and simple.

NorCalMrs, let us know what your Dr. says when you tell him/her that they caused you to get severe dry eye and you still have to use glasses as well. Best of luck to you.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2007 1:13 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 1:23 pm
Posts: 2080
Regrets wrote:
After I read the eye chart, I asked what my prescription was, and I asked about glasses. She then got very defensive, like she always does, and answered in a snotty manner, "I'm not checking for a prescription, I'm checking your visual acuity!"


That sounds like the only thing she was being honest about. They can't tell you your script by what line you can read on the eye chart. She has to do a refraction -- the same thing you used to have done when you would go to the optometrist for glasses.... you know, "which one is better, one or two"? Demand a refraction and demand it be written down on a script and given to you.

Regrets wrote:
Then my fiance told her that I see double and ghosting, as if I have an astigmatism. Then she said that everyone has natural aberrations, and these are mine.


Oh man, this makes me mad. She is covering up something. Three tests can tell you what's going on with your vision. A refraction, a topography, and a wavefront scan taken at the same diameter as your pupils in the dark.

Regrets wrote:
As if I had ever heard the terms ?visual acuity? and ?visual aberrations? before finding it myself on Thelasikflap.com! She sure as hell didn?t mention the terms at my consultation. Clearly, ?visual acuity? and ?visual aberrations? are both common components of the average person?s vocabulary bank, with full understanding of how the terms relate to ones vision!


Visual acuity is simply what line you can read on the eye chart... 20/20, 20/30 or whatever.

Higher order visual aberrations (a/k/a irregular astigmatism) are measured with a wavefront aberrometer. All surgeons who perform custom LASIK have one. The trouble with wavefront aberrometers is getting the scan taken large enough to be meaningful. Irregular astigmatism can be seen on topography also.

These terms can be confusing. And to compound the confusion, even LASIK surgeons themselves don't use some terms correctly, and don't agree on their meaning. "Haze" and "Glare" for example... Who the heck ever knew that "glare" meant starbursts at night? Is haze what a patient sees, or is haze something *they* see when they look at your cornea under the slit lamp, or both? (I know the answer, I'm just using this as an example how confusing all of this can be).

_________________
Broken Eyes

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


Top
 
 Post subject: Surgeons don't care a bit about patients' visual quality
PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2007 3:25 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 4:28 pm
Posts: 643
Broken Eyes said:
Quote:
Is haze what a patient sees, or is haze something *they* see when they look at your cornea under the slit lamp, or both?


I know the answer to that one, too! Haze is what they see. It's always what the surgeons see. The LASIK surgeons don't care what patients see, as long as they can squeeze decent Snellen chart results out of them... in optimal lighting and contrast situations. :twisted:

If LASIK surgeons cared a whit about patients' visual quality they would have taken steps to measure visual QUALITY. Ooops, but that would spoil the scam, because visual quality generally goes down with LASIK as compared with visual quality with glasses or contacts before surgery.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2007 6:36 am 
Offline
 E-mail  Profile

Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 5:01 am
Posts: 146
Two questions and some thoughts...

1. Can wavefront scans take image sizes large enough for patients with large pupils?

I am curious because then the wavefront scans (post-op) would show a sharp drop in patients with smaller than required optical / blend zones.

Also, in your case, since you had no blend, wouldn't your wavefront scan have a sharp drop from about 4mm on out?


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2007 11:15 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 1:23 pm
Posts: 2080
APizzo667 wrote:
Two questions and some thoughts...

1. Can wavefront scans take image sizes large enough for patients with large pupils?

I am curious because then the wavefront scans (post-op) would show a sharp drop in patients with smaller than required optical / blend zones.

Also, in your case, since you had no blend, wouldn't your wavefront scan have a sharp drop from about 4mm on out?


Not all aberrometers can measure large pupils but some can. I've had a wavefront scan taken at 8mm on an Alcon aberrometer.

Yes, it definitely shows a sharp decline in quality of vision (sharp increase in aberrations) with increasing pupil size.

I had a 6mm no blend treatment. You have to understand that due to the cosine effect, corneal remodeling and epithelial hyperplasia, the transition is not as sharp as you would think. My aberrations start increasing dramatically beyond about 4 - 5mm. With each increasing scan size, there is an exponential increase in aberrations.

Using a mathematical area calculation, only about 50% of my cornea that I see through was treated.

_________________
Broken Eyes

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


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2007 11:39 pm 
Offline
 E-mail  Profile

Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 5:01 am
Posts: 146
I think that clears things up a little.

I was going to ask you how do wavefront treatments know how much cornea to remove for large pupils if aberrometers (at maximum) only measure out to 8MM.

Then I thought about it, and realized that there will never be an aberrometer (there would be no legal use for it in the U.S.) to measure large pupils because no FDA approved laser can safely give large optical zones.

Is my logic correct?

PS: If you had an aberrometer scan at 8MM....wouldn't that be damning evidence in a legal case???

On a side note... I think you should get your degree in Opthamology (You already know enough), take a lasik weekend class to say you learned the prodcedure, and be a specialist for court cases.

On another side note, I am past my statute of limitations here in Philadelphia. I tried to sue one year after surgery but the doctor did not understand lasik and dropped my case. Last week I went to lasikdisaster.com and saw a list of lawyers in the Philly area who could help with post lasik cases and one said I had a great and well documented case but that I was past my statue of limitations. Ahhh, if only...
I am actually thinking of asking my lasik doc straigt out for the 100,000 I have in loans.

Sorry for getting side tracked, but if you could see if my logic was correct in that on that aberrometer thing, it would be appreciated!


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 12, 2007 12:19 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 1:23 pm
Posts: 2080
APizzo667 wrote:
I think that clears things up a little.

I was going to ask you how do wavefront treatments know how much cornea to remove for large pupils if aberrometers (at maxium) only measure out to 8MM.

Then I thought about it, and realized that there will never be an aberrometer (there would be no legal use for it in the U.S.) to measure large pupils because no FDA approved laser can safely give large optical zones.

Is my logic correct?


Even though some aberrometers can measure aberrations over a large diameter, most lasers only treat the aberrations within a 6mm or 6.5mm zone, then taper the treatment (blend). I need to remind you that there is simply not enough corneal thickness to fully treat out to 8mm -- it would make your cornea too thin and you'd get ectasia and need a transplant. The aberrometer *measures*... the laser *treats*.

APizzo667 wrote:
PS: If you had an aberrometer scan at 8MM....wouldn't that be damning evidence in a legal case???


Yes. However, the legal system is almost as corrupt as the LASIK industry. To begin with, you have to have an "expert witness" to testify against your surgeon. And the laws in many states are so anti-malpractice victim it's ridiculous. A few strong cases win a lot of money, but they are few and far between.

APizzo667 wrote:
On a side note... I think you should get your degree in Opthamology (You already know enough), take a lasik weekend class to say you learned the prodcedure, and be a specialist for court cases.


And the first question I'd be asked is "How many LASIK procedures have you performed?", and I'd say "I wouldn't perform LASIK on my worst enemy" and I'd be immediately disqualified as an "expert witness". :lol: However, working behind the scenes helping patients with their lawsuits and educating their attorneys and providing documentation to assist in proving their cases is something I do and enjoy very much. And I've never charged a patient a penny except for reimbursement for copying charges and postage. I've stood at the copier at Kinkos for hours at a time making copies til my back hurt, and never asked for a penny for my time.

APizzo667 wrote:
On another side note, I am past my statue of limitations here in Philadelphia. I tried to sue one year after surgery but the doctor did not understand lasik and dropped my case. Last week I went to lasikdisaster.com and saw a list of lawyers in the Philly area who could help with post lasik cases and one said I had a great and well documented case but that I was past my statue of limitations. Ahhh, if only...
I am actually thinking of asking my lasik doc straigt out for the 100,000 I have in loans.

Sorry for getting side tracked, but if you could see if my logic was correct in that on that aberrometer thing, it would be appreciated!


If you understand that an aberrometer is just a device that measures what the eye sees, and the laser is what does the treatment, and the laser is not capable of or approved to treat large pupils because of corneal thickness limitations, then you'll have it.

_________________
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  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

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