> If it worked that well, I think most retinologists would jump at the
> idea of doing it. It would be a real money maker, for sure.
Many procedures work well and are not routinely done, just as some that
are not so successful are done too often. And, of course, profit it the
most likely motivator.
The risk factors often cited, retina pathology and increased vitreous
opacities and strands are the deal killers for many docs. I don't think
there is a large enough test group to validate either of those issues
but from what I've read they may indeed be a non-issues.
Personally, I think that if someone's vision or lifestyle is compromised
by floaters, laser (as opposed to vitrectomy) should be a discussed
option. Risk/benefit thing. I just don't think there are that many
people who fit into that category to make it $$$$$. And if we did the
less serious ones and screw up, then there ARE issues.
Perhaps when the LASIK market dries up, LAFF (laser assisted floater
fixer) will be the next big thing.
LB
Dave Bell - 12 Feb 2007 20:23 GMT
> > If it worked that well, I think most retinologists would jump at the
> > idea of doing it. It would be a real money maker, for sure.
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> less serious ones and screw up, then there ARE issues.
> LB
I'll have to ask my doc, next visit. I'm (very slowly, and perhaps
unsurely) recovering from a retinal detachment last May. With no lens
(early cataract, would be exacerbated by oil fill, plus pars plana
approach), hypotension in that eye, and a wait-and-watch approach to an
implant lens, I have one decently working eye. And that one has had an
annoying floater for many months, that mostly hangs right where it most
obscures the computer screen. I can flick it out of the way, but it
usually drifts back, all too soon...
Dave