 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / January 2006How much safer are contact lenses and orthoK than lasik or laser surgury?
Some people(wont be giving names) have stated the risks of contact lenses. They are correct but I argue that the risks are tiny compared to the risks of lasik. Both options will reduce your dependancy on glasses but contacts, including orthoK will achieve the goal safely, effeciently and with much less risks. I dont think they should even be arguing against contact lense based correction when its the far safer and also non-permaent choice of vision correction. If something goes wrong with contacts, you can go back to glasses with no ill effects, no permaent effects. With lasik, there is no going back to your pre-operative pescription. You are stuck with whatever lasik gives you. Of course glasses is the safest but contacts are safe enough that many millions wear them, even 12 year olds have been known to wear them! Of course children are more likley to get complications because they dont take as much responsability. There will be reports of complications from contacts and orthoK because so many people wear them that a few will turn up with bad luck. I see much more reports of lasik complications. Life is all about risks and how you manage them. I am going to take the very small, calculated risk with orthoK to reduce my dependancy on glasses. > Some people(wont be giving names) have stated the risks of contact > lenses. They are correct but I argue that the risks are tiny compared [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > going to take the very small, calculated risk with orthoK to reduce my > dependancy on glasses. Sounds like you've answered your own question. Dom Dear All, I`m writing to You, in the name of our club, hoping that You will join us in humanitarian action "RIDE BICYCLE AGAINST DRUGS, ALCOHOL AND VIOLENCE". After January 1., 2006. this action will become program named "WHEEL OF ENJOYMENT". This program is supported by Ministry of health Republic of Serbia, Ministry of labour, employment and social policy Republic of Serbia and Ministry of education and sport Republic of Serbia. Program "WHEEL OF ENJOYMENT" also includes actions "Cancer is hard, Friendship is easier" and "Diabetes has its enemy" dedicated to people with cancer and diabetes. Bicycling club " SIRMIUM BIKE INTERNATIONAL" from Sremska Mitrovica is promoter and initiator of this program. Beside bicycling promotion, this program`s goal is to build Rehabilitation center for addiction diseases, too. After January 1., 2006. our multiethnic bike team will ride again across Serbia and districts of Kosovo. In Jun 2006. we will ride trough Europe with same goal to pay attention on existing problems of addiction diseases, cancer and diabetes. We invited great number of economic subjects in country and abroad, to join us in this program giving their support. We asking You, too, to join us and to give us your support or to direct us to competent humanitarian, financial and medical institutions. Sincerely, President of bicycling club "SIRMIUM BIKE INTERNATIONAL" and program`s coordinator Mr. Kamenko Vladisavljevic Dear All, I`m writing to You, in the name of our club, hoping that You will join us in humanitarian action "RIDE BICYCLE AGAINST DRUGS, ALCOHOL AND VIOLENCE". After January 1., 2006. this action will become program named "WHEEL OF ENJOYMENT". This program is supported by Ministry of health Republic of Serbia, Ministry of labour, employment and social policy Republic of Serbia and Ministry of education and sport Republic of Serbia. Program "WHEEL OF ENJOYMENT" also includes actions "Cancer is hard, Friendship is easier" and "Diabetes has its enemy" dedicated to people with cancer and diabetes. Bicycling club " SIRMIUM BIKE INTERNATIONAL" from Sremska Mitrovica is promoter and initiator of this program. Beside bicycling promotion, this program`s goal is to build Rehabilitation center for addiction diseases, too. After January 1., 2006. our multiethnic bike team will ride again across Serbia and districts of Kosovo. In Jun 2006. we will ride trough Europe with same goal to pay attention on existing problems of addiction diseases, cancer and diabetes. We invited great number of economic subjects in country and abroad, to join us in this program giving their support. We asking You, too, to join us and to give us your support or to direct us to competent humanitarian, financial and medical institutions. Sincerely, President of bicycling club "SIRMIUM BIKE INTERNATIONAL" and program`s coordinator Mr. Kamenko Vladisavljevic I think the only statistics that matter are those dealing with visual morbidity, i.e. what is the probability that wearing a contact lens, or undergoing LASIK will cause permanent decrease in visual function. Traditionally, this has meant loss of visual acuity on the Snellen chart. We know what those numbers are for contact lenses, because the subject has been studied exhaustively for years, with several large-scale population studies. Currently, there are ongoing post-market studies involving the new silicone-hydrogel lenses. We do not have information of the same quality for LASIK or for orthokeratology. We do NOT have a good handle on the infectious keratitis rate for overnight OK. DrG > Currently, there are ongoing post-market studies > involving the new silicone-hydrogel lenses. We do not have information > of the same quality for LASIK or for orthokeratology. We do NOT have a > good handle on the infectious keratitis rate for overnight OK. Ace--did you read this?  Signature~RT I assume infectious keratitis is treatable (and cureable) with antibiotics. A poor LASIK result is something you'll have til you die. > I assume infectious keratitis is treatable (and cureable) with > antibiotics. A poor LASIK result is something you'll have til you die. True, although the keratitis often leaves you with a nasty (and vision robbing) scar that will also be with you forever (or until you get a corneal transplant). I'd guess that more serious damage, as measured by loss of acuity, has occured from such ulcers than has occured from LASIK. But one thing is for sure, far more LASIK patients are glad they had it than not. And I must add that most post-ortho K people I've seen think they wasted their money, and I've agreed with that assessmment in every single case. To be balanced, I admit I have one patient who wishes he'd never had LASIK. Although he went from -8.00 to 0.00 and gets 20/20 after standard LASIK then wave front secondary, he hates his night vision and claims he is now a hazard driving at night. I'm counting on his pupils get smaller as he ages (yes he has used Alphagan, but still is not a happy camper). w.stacy, o.d. > True, although the keratitis often leaves you with a nasty (and vision > robbing) scar that will also be with you forever (or until you get a > corneal transplant). But, this happens in only 13% of ulcer cases. Probability dictates that they will occur peripherally and off-axis most of the time. Without taking you through the calculations, the probability of vision loss from sleeping in a conventional hydrogel lens is 0.026% per year. > I'd guess that more serious damage, as measured by loss of acuity, has > occured from such ulcers than has occured from LASIK. But one thing is > for sure, far more LASIK patients are glad they had it than not. And I > must add that most post-ortho K people I've seen think they wasted their > money, and I've agreed with that assessmment in every single case. Sure wish you had numbers to back-up your guess, Dr. Stacy. Looking at the clinical trials, we might come up with an educated guess of from 0.5% to 1%. If you divide 0.5 by 0.026, you get something like 20 years. But, even this statistic is moot, because most patients don't sleep in their lenses, in which case the probability of an infection is reduced by a factor of 5 or 10, in which case 20 patient years becomes 100 or 200 patient years. No contest. Contacts win. DrG >>True, although the keratitis often leaves you with a nasty (and vision >>robbing) scar that will also be with you forever (or until you get a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >loss from sleeping in a conventional hydrogel lens is 0.026% per year. > Only 13%? That's quite a few. I wasn't trying to blame them all on contact lens wear for sure. >No contest. Contacts win. > I think there are a few million LASIK recipients who might argue with you on that, as most of them went to LASIK because they didn't like contacts for one reason or another. But you're right, I have no numbers to back me up, just my patient base which includes 40 or 50 LASIK patients and a couple thousand CL wearers. w.stacy, o.d. > >>True, although the keratitis often leaves you with a nasty (and vision > >>robbing) scar that will also be with you forever (or until you get a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Only 13%? That's quite a few. I wasn't trying to blame them all on > contact lens wear for sure. Really? That's 13% of 1/500, or 0.026%. That qualifies as "quite low" in my vernacular. > >No contest. Contacts win. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to back me up, just my patient base which includes 40 or 50 LASIK > patients and a couple thousand CL wearers. The subject was "safety," or so I thought. Obviously, if they were happy in their contacts, they wouldn't be motivated to have LASIK. This just motivates ME to do a better job at keeping my contact lens patients happy, just so that they won't be tempted to trade the SAFETY of contact lenses for something more risky. I think there is another underlying factor that we eye docs don't want to talk about, and that is the hassle of wearing contact lenses includes that "pesky" annual eye exam. I think that successful LASIK patients actually believe that they have less need for eye examinations, when the exact opposite is true. They have a greater need for continued care, especially for dry eye. DrG > Obviously, if they were >happy in their contacts, they wouldn't be motivated to have LASIK. > > Actually, (and here I go again, guessing based only on my experience and what I've heard/read), I'd guess that fully half the people who have had LASIK were quite happy with their contacts. They just liked the idea of not having to buy contacts, solutions, etc. (in addition to the CL evaluations), the idea of waking up with clear vision, the idea of less dependence on the CL or SRx "crutches"; plus, a lot of them just succumbed to the advertising, the "coolness" of having the surgery (keeping up with the Joneses), etc. w.stacy, o.d. > > Obviously, if they were > >happy in their contacts, they wouldn't be motivated to have LASIK. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > succumbed to the advertising, the "coolness" of having the surgery > (keeping up with the Joneses), etc. I would actually agree with you on all of the above. A good contact lens patient is an ideal LASIK candidate. Those with contact lens-related pathology probably have a higher incidence of dry eye, high prescriptions, etc., which make them less than ideal LASIK candidates. Therefore, you can expect the LASIK marketers to target those patients. I'm not sure what's so cool about having a resected cornea, though. DrG >I'm not sure what's so cool about having a resected cornea, though. > > You probably also don't see what's cool about sky diving or bungee jumping, either? bill > >I'm not sure what's so cool about having a resected cornea, though. > > > You probably also don't see what's cool about sky diving or bungee > jumping, either? > > bill I guess if having a resected cornea is necessary for said activities, then no. About as close as I have gotten to such daredevilish behavior is skiing the olympic downhill run at Snowbasin, Utah, and a little rock climbing at Smith Rock....while wearing contact lenses, of course. DrG >>> I'm not sure what's so cool about having a resected >>> cornea, though. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > run at Snowbasin, Utah, and a little rock climbing at > Smith Rock....while wearing contact lenses, of course. I don't recollect ever seeing a sky diver without goggles... Not sure about bungee jumpers but I have seen a bunch that do wear goggles. Point is that I agree about the relative inconvenience of contacts relative to (successful) surgery but I don't consider the very infrequent necessity for protective eye gear (that you wouldn't normally wear as part of it. Swimming, maybe. -Quick > Point is that I agree about the relative inconvenience of > contacts relative to (successful) surgery but I don't consider > the very infrequent necessity for protective eye gear (that > you wouldn't normally wear as part of it. Swimming, maybe. I have never found contact lenses to be an inconvenience, except when I was in high school and struggled with hard lenses, and I am not about to push my luck with an elective surgery. Especially when I don't feel that my lifestyle is being compromised. The original point had to do with the relative safety, i.e. what are the chances I am going to lose some vision if I get surgery vs. if I stick with contact lenses, not which is preferable. DrG "Ace--did you read this?" Yes and my risks are at least 10x lower with overnight orthoK than lasik. Also if im not satisfied with orthoK such as if it doesnt give me satisfactory vision I can simply discountinue the procedure and my pescription will revert back to square one. Lasik is permaent and you are stuck with the results. I have met many people that wish they could "undo" lasik and said they woulda tried orthoK instead because orthoK can be undone. "I assume infectious keratitis is treatable (and cureable) with antibiotics. A poor LASIK result is something you'll have til you die." Thats correct. Complications from lasik is more serious and permaent than are complications from contacts including orthoK "far more LASIK patients are glad they had it than not." The satisfication rate is 90% but even among those, many said there were some aspects of lasik that could have been improved upon. One of my friends is happy with lasik but wishes the night vision was better. Another wishes she ended with 20/20 but considers 20/30 acceptable and is still satisfied. "And I must add that most post-ortho K people I've seen think they wasted their money" If thats the worst thing that can happen with orthoK, sign me up! With lasik you stand to lose alot more than just money! "Although he went from -8.00 to 0.00 and gets 20/20 after standard LASIK then wave front secondary, he hates his night vision" This is something us large pupil people worry about. My pupils certainly are large so theres too much risk of that. My friends have provided words of wisdom, dont get lasik if your pupils are larger than 6mm or you can give up some or more night vision. "If you divide 0.5 by 0.026, you get something like 20 years." So this means someone whos slept in contacts for 20 years is "due" for a complication on average. I read that overnight orthoK is 5 times safer than other overnight contacts because your eyes get a chance to rest and soak oxygen durning the day while they are suffociated for a week to a month with standard soft overnight contacts. Focus day and night comes to mind, my optometrist said he gets patients all the time who develop complications that way. However with orthoK you DONT wear the contacts for a month strait! Just 8-10 hours a night for 2-5 nights a week. "as most of them went to LASIK because they didn't like contacts for one reason or another" That is absolutely true. I have a friend I know in person whos like -4.75 with astigmastim and she hates her toric contacts, they dont give very good vision, rotate, dry her eyes, irritate them and just are a pain. She said shes looking into lasik and may have to get it. I just said research everything about lasik, make sure you are a good candidate and are well informed and good luck, hope it goes well if you get it. "The subject was "safety," or so I thought. Obviously, if they were happy in their contacts, they wouldn't be motivated to have LASIK. This just motivates ME to do a better job at keeping my contact lens patients happy, just so that they won't be tempted to trade the SAFETY of contact lenses for something more risky." absolutely true. Of course theres always glasses and many people who werent satisfied with lasik wish they could undo lasik and go back to their glasses. I suggest all contact lens wearers take at least one day off a week to rest their eyes and be in glasses so they can get used to it. Or they can take their contacts off at home and wear glasses. My mom only wears contacts when she gets out of the house. Someone whos worn contacts full time for years is going to need some time to get used to glasses. Make it easy and get used to glasses now so when you can no longer tolerate contacts, glasses wont be much of a problem. "I'd guess that fully half the people who have had LASIK were quite happy with their contacts. They just liked the idea of not having to buy contacts, solutions, etc. (in addition to the CL evaluations), the idea of waking up with clear vision, the idea of less dependence on the CL or SRx "crutches"; plus, a lot of them just succumbed to the advertising, the "coolness" of having the surgery (keeping up with the Joneses), etc." How true. The pressure is strong when your friends, family and coworkers are all getting lasik. It becomes the "in" thing. When I was in Israel lasik was the "thing" for soldiers and I talked to many of them who say all their fellow soldiers got lasik or are getting it and they say they want lasik too! In fact glasses are not just an inconvinence, but a hinderence when you are in the army. Lasik is encouraged for soldiers and a very large percentage get it. Many others who get lasik do so because their friends got it and raved about it and that person feels left out. Sometimes their brother, offspring or spouse gets it and they want it too! Theres tons of marketing and hype about lasik. Just about every myope has heard about lasik. I bet most of them have read about it and thought about it too. Most people who look into lasik decide its not for them after all. Its my opinion if you are happy with glasses and/or contacts that it makes no sense to get lasik just for the sake of it. Its not something to be done on a whim or taken lightly. Many people regretted getting lasik for no reason when their resultant vision wasnt as good as they had with glasses and especially contacts. In fact lasik centers point out that you arent a good candidate if you are content with glasses/contacts. Lasik is for those with a strong desire to reduce their dependancy on glasses. Youd really have to hate glasses to take the risks of lasik. Youd be much better off going to contacts and especially orthoK to reduce glasses dependancy and which is what im doing! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.