 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / December 2006Contact lenses is 10-20x safer than lasik. Lasik is *not* safe! Glenn posted a false article!
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.lasik-eyes/browse_thread/thread/8cee187dd3bd7 10c/8873b3a62601d714? Please read the above. Lasik is *not* safer than contacts! The risks of contacts is far, far less than lasik! The optometrists here are going to have alot to comment! Glenn, you know I dont attack you or anyone else. But do you honestly believe this false, fiction, fabricated(three F's) report? I have explained why it is false. Explain why you think its false or not. That article might be true in one extreme circumstance, if a contact lens wearer was totally irresponsible with caring for them, didnt clean them properly or at all, wore them for days, weeks without taking them out to clean, slept in them(especially if they are NOT silicone hydrogels!) In other words, a worst case scinerio showing a total lack of care and regard! Properly cared for, the risks of contacts is at least ten times(probably much more) lower than lasik over your lifetime. With lasik, the 1 in 1250 losing 1 line of vision is false, its more like 1 in 5 to 1 in 10 that lose a line.(10-20% will lose a line) Even the surgeons websites state this risk! I can show you hundreds of articles stating the damage of lasik. There are some articles stating the damage of contacts for those unlucky or careless, but contacts damage far less eyes. The fact 20 million wear contacts and only 1 million got lasik, most of them former glasses wearers is more evidence people would much rather wear glasses/contacts than risk lasik! i don't think its appropriate to attack glenn on this posting. he doesn't say anything other than point out the existence of the publication and post a link to it. whats wrong with that? however i disagree with the conclusions that lasik is safer than the proper use of contact lenses (silicon hydorgel). the article itself hedges on this point. much of the morbidity data that the author might have used in the article probably involved older HEMA-based lenses (the summary in the posting is unclear on these details). i also believe that the authors are likely biased toward the conclusions they claim the analysis supports. they are in fact MD's who benefit from surgical intervention rather than fitting contact lenses. i am sure that i could post a link to numerous review articles in optometric journals that claim exactly the opposite conclusions. i am sure that glenn can recognize that potential biased in this article as well. given that, i do sort of wonder why glenn would call out this article in particular!?! do you benefit in some way by the acceptance of this conclusion glenn? ===================== > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.lasik-eyes/browse_thread/thread/8cee187dd3bd7 10c/8873b3a62601d714? > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > than risk lasik! > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.lasik-eyes/browse_thread/thread/8cee187dd3bd7 10c/8873b3a62601d714? > > Please read the above. Lasik is *not* safer than contacts! > The risks of contacts is far, far less than lasik! > The optometrists here are going to have alot to comment! Ace, I wouldn't be surprised if most optometrists believe that LASIK is safer than contact lenses, at least insofar as the rate of microbial keratitis is concerned. I read Mather's article, which is about 5 paragraphs of commentary as in a letter to the editor. His assumptions about the visual morbidity rate arising from LASIK are selective (Hammond, and internal audit of Casey Eye Institute patients), with other authors have reporting higher rates of vision loss -- as much as 7% in fact. Also, he cites a study about the average rate of infection following refractive surgery being 1 in 800 cases, with 25% of those experiencing 'moderate vision loss,' when in fact, in the abstract of the cited article, the author(Chang) reports a 'moderate to severe' vision loss of greater than 49% of eyes. Across studies, the reported rate of vision loss from microbial keratitis associated with overnight contact lens wear is something on the order of 13-15%. His assessment also assumes that the risk of contact lens associated infections accumulate linearly, when some evidence suggests it may not. In a recent study from Johns Hopkins, the safety of contact lenses was re-affirmed, and showed that patients who wore silicone-hydrogel lenses continuously for more than 3 weeks had lower rates of infection than those who wore them less than 3 weeks. I do agree with Mathers that the risks do need to be reassessed, and that other measures of visual morbidity need to be taken into account, not restricted to just microbial keratitis, and with less reliance on Snellen visual acuity as the metric. DrG I am not the author of the article and I provide no comment on the article. The article has been quoted or republished in whole or part by CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox News, the Associate Press, and Reuters. I am in good company. Glenn Hagele Executive Director USAEyes.org Patient Advocacy Surgeon Certification "Consider and Choose With Confidence" Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org http://www.USAEyes.org http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org I am not a doctor. Copyright 2006 All Rights Reserved Glenn - USAEyes.org schreef: > I am not the author of the article and I provide no comment on the > article. The article has been quoted or republished in whole or part > by CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox News, the Associate Press, and Reuters. I > am in good company. > > Glenn Hagele I'm not impressed. The same newsagents also spread other false reports such as the nuclear bombs we should found in Iraq. Good company? Jan (normally Dutch spoken) > Glenn - USAEyes.org schreef: > > I am not the author of the article and I provide no comment on the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Jan (normally Dutch spoken) What Glenn should further add is a disclaimer saying that article cant be validated and may not be true. Any guliable people that seriously believe lasik is safer than contacts is doing a great disservice and may be making the mistake of their lives. Lasik is something elective, not something that has to be done! Well, another way of looking at this is normally lasik is a "one-off" event, whereas contact lens wear is an ongoing risk factor (for instance each time you insert a lens you are exposed to a finite (albeit very low) risk Wear lenses long enough and the overall lifetime risk will build up. > > Glenn - USAEyes.org schreef: > > > I am not the author of the article and I provide no comment on the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > may be making the mistake of their lives. Lasik is something elective, > not something that has to be done! > Well, another way of looking at this is normally lasik is a "one-off" > event, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Wear lenses long enough and the overall lifetime risk will build up. Although true, contacts are still at least 10x safer in your lifetime. Those who got lasik are not off the hook. They face a lifetime of problem long term. I know people who had no problems with their lasik for several years then oneday BAM! It hit them! Dry eyes, ectasia, regression, pain, impaired vision, etc. There is concern about lasik's stability in the long term. With contacts you can discountinue wearing them if they start to pose problems. My cousin wore contacts for a year and got infections several times. Her optometrist told her to just stick to glasses which she did. The problems went away and her eyes have been healthy since. Why risk lasik? Any assessment of risk with contact lenses also needs to take into account non-compliance, ie the wearer doing something really dumb. My guess is this is how the author of the cited paper came to his conclusion. Take the recent fusarium issues with Moistureloc. If the patients had all been 100% compliant with the use of the solution fusarium infections would probably not have ocurred Also if you seach this newsgroup, over the years you will find heaps of people advocating making their own saline to avoid paying for it! These are some of the infections just waiting to happen > Although true, contacts are still at least 10x safer in your lifetime. > Those who got lasik are not off the hook. They face a lifetime of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > stick to glasses which she did. The problems went away and her eyes > have been healthy since. Why risk lasik? > Any assessment of risk with contact lenses also needs to take into > account non-compliance, ie the wearer doing something really dumb. My [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > people advocating making their own saline to avoid paying for it! These > are some of the infections just waiting to happen Its a falacy to assume everyone is incompetent when it comes to contacts. If someone cant be responsable with contacts, they should just stick with glasses. Lasik is also irresponsable because its dangerous and damaging to the eye. > Its a falacy to assume everyone is incompetent when it comes to > contacts. If someone cant be responsable with contacts, they should > just stick with glasses. Lasik is also irresponsable because its > dangerous and damaging to the eye. >From 40 to 91% of contact lens patients have been reported as non-complaint in the use of recommended care and maintenance regimens and many of these are confused or ignorant about their behaviour Source Claydon, BE and Efron, N (1994) Non-compliance in contact lens wear. Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics: The Journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists). 14(4):pp. 356-364. At least one aspect of non-compliant behaviour was seen in 74% of patients. This non-compliance could be correlated with the occurrence of signs indicating potential wearing problems. Source: Collins, Michael J. and Carney, Leo G. (1986) Compliance with care and maintenance procedures amongst contact lens wearers. Clinical and Experimental Optometry 69:pp. 174-177 Adherence to published lens care guidelines was used as a basis for segregating patients into a compliant and a non-compliant group. By the criteria selected, 46% of the sample was non-compliant in their lens care Source JL SOlkol et al, CLAO J (1990), 16, 209-13 OK those studies may be a little dated now, but not much has significantly changed. Patient non-compliance is a very real issue for contact lens wear, and means of improving compliance is the subject of much activity within the CL industry (both for lens and solution manufacturers). I think that false, midleading article should either be removed or a strong disclaimer be posted above and below. I have linked one of the optometrists to this post. I think that false, midleading article should either be removed or a strong disclaimer be posted above and below. Doctor G posted here stating that article is a fallacy and must be addressed with before people ruin their eyes with lasik when contacts did the job fine. > I think that false, midleading article should either be removed or a > strong disclaimer be posted above and below. Doctor G posted here > stating that article is a fallacy and must be addressed with before > people ruin their eyes with lasik when contacts did the job fine. Ace, you are a bald-face liar. Please show me where I used the word "fallacy," or even implied such nonsense. The article was simply a commentary and NOT a scholarly article. It was speculative, and the author concluded that he looked forward to future articles comparing the safety of contacts and LASIK. You are a first-class troublemaker, and that is ALL that you are. Well, maybe not first-class. DrG > > I think that false, midleading article should either be removed or a > > strong disclaimer be posted above and below. Doctor G posted here [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > DrG Ill apologize for the mistake. I had implied you said fallacy. Still that article needs a big disclaimer because some people might take it seriously and go out and get lasik. Even a commentary like that needs a big bold disclaimer. Speculation like that *can* be dangerous. How am I a trouble maker? Ok so I apologize for that mistake. Should Glenn do anything about that commentary he posted? I would put a big bold disclaimer. > Ill apologize for the mistake. I had implied you said fallacy. Still > that article needs a big disclaimer because some people might take it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > anything about that commentary he posted? I would put a big bold > disclaimer. Just be more careful about putting words into people's mouths that they did not say. I said that the piece was a commentary that made selective use of published studies, but was not a study in itself. It was entirely speculative, and the author concluded by stating that he looked forward to additional studies. Yes, I do think that clarification is needed, and this is not the proper forum. Fortunately, the piece did not get all that much coverage. It does show the ability of our "ivory towers" of academe to influence public opinion by feeding tidbits to a hungry press. DrG > Just be more careful about putting words into people's mouths that they > did not say. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > DrG I have a habit of putting words in others mouth and assumptions. My opinion after reading his speculation is he sounds like hes promoting lasik and highly exaggerating the risks of contacts or taking the worst case scinerio with contacts. Additional studies will no doubt prove him wrong and that contacts are at least 10x safer than lasik short and long term. Thankfully it didnt get much coverage because there are guliable people out there who would take his speculation as fact and ruin their eyes with lasik. His opinion(in my opinion) was bad and potentionally dangerous if anyone takes it seriously. Should I dare say its a fact you know how dangerous lasik is? Trying to scare patients out of contacts and into surgery is a well-worn tactic. This topic merits careful and thoughtful analysis, not the treatment you would like to give it here. DrG > > Just be more careful about putting words into people's mouths that they > > did not say. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > potentionally dangerous if anyone takes it seriously. Should I dare say > its a fact you know how dangerous lasik is? I think that under some circumstances Laser eye surgery is really safer than contact lenses. And sometimes it makes more sense than glasses. As an example. In developing countries like India or Africa hygiene cannot be assured. Lasik is definitely safer in such countries than contact lenses. Another example. There are refractive surgeons who do Lasik on people of third world countries because they cannot afford glasses. And even if they get glasses, after some time the glasses will be lost or destroyed. So for those people Lasik is better than contacts or glasses. In modern countries Lasik/Prk makes sense only when contact lens tollerance is limited to a few hours a day and glasses are no solution (But I think that in most cases glasses are a good solution). I thought that I was contact lens intollerant until I cured underlying conditions of dry eye (which was gut flora in my case). I don't like the concept of Ortho-K. I think my eyes would feel terrible if I left a hard lens in my eye overnight. This would be really dangerous to my eyes. I disagree. They will still get cataracts. Better to do clear lens exchange. DrG > I think that under some circumstances Laser eye surgery is really safer > than contact lenses. And sometimes it makes more sense than glasses. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > terrible if I left a hard lens in my eye overnight. This would be > really dangerous to my eyes. Dr. Leukoma ha scritto: > I disagree. They will still get cataracts. Better to do clear lens > exchange. That's a good point. But they would loose short distance vision which could be catastrophic for some who have to do close work. So they should be first operated by laser and later, when cataracts develop, by CLE. > Dr. Leukoma ha scritto: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > should be first operated by laser and later, when cataracts develop, by > CLE. Then, use the Restor lens. DrG > I disagree. They will still get cataracts. Better to do clear lens > exchange. > > DrG Its a shame some people make the lasik mistake instead of CLE's then they have problems with lasik and in a few years develop cateracts and got lasik for nothing! In fact you may end back in glasses because of miscalculated IOLs thanks to lasik. No one over 40 with a high prescription should ever consider lasik. Low myopes shouldnt get CLE either but stick with glasses(and take em off for reading) > Its a shame some people make the lasik mistake instead of CLE's then > they have problems with lasik and in a few years develop cateracts and > got lasik for nothing! In fact you may end back in glasses because of > miscalculated IOLs thanks to lasik. No one over 40 with a high > prescription should ever consider lasik. Low myopes shouldnt get CLE > either but stick with glasses(and take em off for reading) This public service message brought to you by Retard Inc. @all! I would like to introduce operationauge.com - the international website of the nonprofit-organization Operation Auge e.V. We have two aims: 1. If you plan to undergo a laser eye surgery, such as IntraLASIK, LASIK, LASEK, PRK, Epi-LASIK you should have the possibility to acquire a good understanding of the benefits, risks and complications of laser vision correction. 2. If you suffer from complications after laser eye surgery you should receive help, such that you could correct the problem yourself. Operation Auge e.V. aims to provide you with medical, psychological and legal support...more? => http://www.operationauge.com Kind regards, Ron > Trying to scare patients out of contacts and into surgery is a > well-worn tactic. This topic merits careful and thoughtful analysis, > not the treatment you would like to give it here. If people are being tricked or scared into getting lasik, something has gotta be done about that misleading opinion. I know a woman who was tricked into trading her comfortable problem free contacts for problems with lasik. She doesnt see as well now and regrets lasik when contacts did the job fine and much better. eric_8_7_5 wrote: > I think that under some circumstances Laser eye surgery is really safer > than contact lenses. And sometimes it makes more sense than glasses. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > terrible if I left a hard lens in my eye overnight. This would be > really dangerous to my eyes. The only scinerio where lasik might be safer than contacts is if you refuse to care for contacts like I know one guy. He leaves them in his eyes till they begin to hurt then he throws away the contacts, waits for the pain to stop and pops in a new pair and wears them 24/7 till his eyes cant take it anymore. He wants to get lasik soon. In developing countries, people dont have $200 for glasses, much less $5000 for lasik! The good news is myopia is rare because they dont do much, if any near work. Most myopes there are only a -1 or -2 and quite functional without glasses. We are donating glasses for the very rare high myope in developing countries. I dont see a good reason for lasik. Everyone can tolerate glasses, its just some people dont like its inconvinences. Glasses doesnt dry nor irritate your eyes like contacts do for many, including me. Lasik is way too dangerous to trade for glasses. If you think your having problems with glasses, youve seen nothing of the problems lasik causes. OrthoK is far safer than lasik and could help reduce my dependency on glasses. > Glenn - USAEyes.org schreef: >> I am not the author of the article and I provide no comment on the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > bombs we should found in Iraq. > Good company? The safety of contacts vs. LASIK partly depends upon how conscientious the contact-wearers are. With LASIK there are no daily precautions that must be taken by the patient, such as disinfection. I get the impression that the risk of vision impairment from either option is rather low.  SignatureRobert T. Kopp http://analytic.tripod.com/ |
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.