Has/does anyone believe in the lasering one eye at a time strategy?
Ace
OD(right eye)-4.5 sphere, -.5 cylindar.
OS(left eye)-5 sphere, -.5 cylindar.
UCVA=worse than 20/400, count fingers(CF)
BCVA=sharp 20/30 in OS, 20/30 to 20/40 in OD
pupil size=9mm or so. +2.5 accomodation in each eye(mild presbyopia).
Mild dry eyes sometimes occurs.
My strategy:
This applies if(as in hypothethical) I were to get lasered today or in
the near future(before any major technological advances) What I would
do is get my dormant left eye which is at least half diopter more
myopic lasered first using the most advanced lasek machine with true
wavefront epi-lasek. The optical zone would be 8mm, the largest FDA
approved and the largest possible. Theres no way ill go for an oval
astigmatic zone for only -.5 astigmastim since such said zone will be
8x6 instead of a round 8x8 zone! My dilated pupils could be 9x9! The
oval zone may give me slightly better daytime UCVA but seriously hurt
my night vision.
I have a strategy and this is to ask for a -2 correction in my dormant
eye. This is to greatly reduce anisopia in case I have a less than
satisfactory result in my dormant eye. I will then of course be done
with surgury and see well from my virgin eye and see reduced from the
lasered eye. If I were to get fully corrected in one eye and decide not
to do the other, glasses will be a major problem due to severe
anisopia. I cant tolerate contacts so those are out. Other surgeries
are just as risky. Id be stuck with anisopia glasses or laser the other
eye and hope for the best.
Lasering -2 diopters will also reduce possible night vision issues
because there will be only 2 diopter difference between the 8mm optical
zone and the untreated zone my pupil dilates past. If I am still having
any vision quality and/or accuracy issues, I will be thankful its not
more severe. My uncorrected vision will improve and ill be a little
less dependant on glasses. Id end up -3(left eye) and -4.5(virgin right
eye)
This will give me a great opporunity to compare my virgin eye vs. my
lasered eye using glasses with -3 and -4.5 lens with whatever
astigmastim power I will need. I will wait three months or more before
I take my next course of action. If im happy with results, I will get
my virgin right eye lasered and ask to be -1 undercorrected to greatly
reduce the likehood of overcorrection. I dont mind being undercorrected
but an overcorrection is a disaster!
If im still happy at this point after 3+ months wait to heal and
stabalize, I will get an enhancement to the left eye and probably ask
for a -.5 undercorrection again for safety. With my mild monovision, a
small difference of half diopter can easily be tolerated and will allow
me to see the computer monitor clearly and sharply with no need for
reading glasses, not even as I get older. I also can put off needing
reading glasses for near for some time. My distance vision should be
like 20/50 in the -.5 sphere, -.5 cylindar left eye, correctable to
20/30. Right eye will be more undercorrected at 20/70 but 20/30 BCVA.
This is all if I dont lose any lines of BCVA and if I did, I would stop
after lasering -2 from my dormant left eye in the first place!
step 1:
laser dormant left eye from -5 to -3
step 2:
wait at least 3 months
step 3:
If results are good, laser right eye from -4.5 to -1
step 4:
wait at least 3 months
step 5:
If results are good, enhance left eye from -3 to -.5
step 6:
enjoy reduced dependancy on glasses and greatly improved UCVA!
20/50(left) 20/70(right)
RT
Please let us know if you ever find an ophthalmologist who shares your
flight of fancy. I love this step process, kind of like trying on
different pairs of jeans until one pair fits (allowing for anticipated
weight gain/loss) and one leg being longer than the other--for now. LOL!
LASIK ala which is better, one or two? I love it!
Just curious, how old are you? ADD +2.5 doesn't necessarily indicate
presbyopia.
--
~RT
Brent Hanson - LASIKFRAUD.com
Not on my patients!
by Jame J. Salz, MD
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have personally never performed bilateral simultaneous RK, AK, PRK,
LASIK, clear lens extraction, or cataract surgery because I am
convinced it is not in the patient's best medical interest to do so.
Of all these procedures, I would agree that the strongest case for
bilateral simultaneous surgery can be made for LASIK. Why then do I
advise my patients not to have any refractive surgery procedure on both
eyes at the same time? It really comes down to a personal philosophy to
always place the patient's best medical interest before issues of
patient and surgeon convenience, financial considerations for patients,
surgeons and laser centers, and building refractive surgery volume.
I will concede that if the surgery and post operative course are
without complications and side effects, bilateral simultaneous LASIK
and even PRK and RK are very convenient for the patient since both eyes
heal together, time away from work is minimized, and the necessity of
temporarily wearing a contact lens in one eye is eliminated. The
surgeon and the laser center also benefit financially since it takes
just a few additional minutes to perform the surgery on the second eye
once everything is set but the fees are usually doubled (at times with
a modest discount for the second eye) and the follow-up visits are
effectively cut in half. Because the vast majority of patients will do
quite well, this is a very effective practice builder since all these
satisfied (WOW) patients will go out and sing the praises of the
surgeon and the center.
So why not do it? Let's look at that little word if at the beginning
of the previous paragraph. What if the surgery, the postoperative
course and side effects present problems. I can separate my arguments
against simultaneous surgery into three potential disadvantages for the
patient and one potential major disadvantage for the surgeon. Potential
disadvantages for the patient are: the risk of serious complications
leading to significant visual loss; the possibility of an unpredictable
outcome; and potential dissatisfaction with the side effects of the
surgery. For me to recommend simultaneous surgery, I have to be certain
there will not be a vision threatening complication, that the outcome
will be predictable, and if the outcome is predictable that the patient
will be satisfied with the quality of their vision in the real world.
Since I can never be certain of any of these three conditions, I cannot
in good conscience recommend this to my patients. If our primary
responsibility as physicians is to always do what is in the patient's
best medical interest, it's hard to justify elective, simultaneous
surgery. The disadvantage to the surgeon involves the potential
magnitude of a potential malpractice claim in the event of significant
bilateral loss of vision. Let's first explore the potential
disadvantages to the patient.
Risk of serious bilateral loss of vision
The risk of infection following LASIK appears to be very low, despite
the fact that it is not truly a completely sterile technique like
cataract surgery because it is not performed in a hospital operating
room with more stringent standards of sterile technique and the entire
microkeratome cannot be completely sterilized because of the motor and
cord. Although the risk of infection appears to be quite low, the
presence of an infection under the LASIK flap presents unique
challenges in management and would be quite likely to lead to
significant scarring and loss of vision. Should an infection occur in
one eye, it will quite likely occur in the other eye since the same
microkeratome and blade are used in both eyes. Even if this risk is
only 1 in 5,000, given the potential for the infection to occur in both
eyes and the potential for serious scarring at the interface, even if
the infection is adequately controlled, I don't think the risk is
justified. What's the hurry?
Although not as potentially serious as an infection, Bobby Maddox and
others have reported numerous cases of bilateral interface haze
appearing within the first two or three postoperative days. At the
recent ISRS meeting is San Francisco, Dr. Lawrence Spivak from Denver,
Colorado described interface haze in 22 eyes following LASIK. Although
one or two were unilateral cases, most had bilateral simultaneous
surgery. On the first postoperative day, the haze was mild to moderate,
gradually increasing over the next several days, with clearing over the
next few weeks following treatment with topical corticosteroids. The
decrease in best corrected visual acuity varied from 20/25 to 20/200
during the acute phase with recovery to 20/20 in all but one eye which
was overcorrected to +2.00 D with 20/30 visual acuity. Interestingly,
this case was a re-operation where the original flap was lifted without
the use of the microkeratome. Since the etiology and exact incidence of
this unusual but perplexing complication is unknown, it would seem only
prudent not to put both eyes at risk. What's the hurry?
Just this past year I have examined 3 patients for second
opinions that had bilateral complications following LASIK. One was an
ophthalmologist, one a dentist and one a businessman. All three missed
several weeks of work because of their bilateral complications,
primarily
related to the inflammation under the flap, called diffuse lamellar
keratititis. Had only one eye been operated on, they would have been
able to
function with their contact lens in the unoperated eye while the eye
with the
complication gradually improved with treatment.
In addition to the risk of bilateral simultaneous infection and
bilateral interface haze, an even more serious concern is the
possibility of vision threatening retinal complications. Certainly the
possibility of vitreous hemorrhage , central retinal artery occlusion,
retinal hemorrhage and retinal detachment all exist, and some of these
complications have now been documented. At the International Society of
Refractive Surgery Symposium, October 25, 1997 in San Francisco, Dr.
Jose Luna from Argentina reported non-refractive complications after
700 bilateral simultaneous LASIK cases. One patient (approximately -12
D pre-op) who underwent bilateral simultaneous LASIK was found to have
bilateral sub-macular hemorrhages and best corrected visual acuity of
20/400 on the first post-operative day. Six months later best spectacle
corrected visual acuity was 20/60 in each eye. Dr. Luna also reported a
post-operative retinal detachment in one eye and another case with
bilateral iatrogenic keratoconus following the inadvertent use of a 360
micron thickness plate.
At the annual meeting of the Argentine Society of Ophthalmology last
summer, Dr. Ricardo Dodds reported bilateral simultaneous retinal
detachments on the first post-operative day following bilateral LASIK
and another case with extension of lacquer cracks into the macula. Try
to tell these unfortunate patients with the retinal complications, some
facing permanent loss of vision in both eyes, that these complications
are rare. For them, the incidence is 100%. These problems could have
been avoided with even a delay of one day between eyes.
In a recent article in Ophthalmology Times the headline stated
"Same-time LASIK safe, study says." This was based on a study at Emory
comparing the results of a prospective randomized study on 709
patients, 378 had bilateral simultaneous LASIK and 331 had sequential
LASIK two weeks apart. Fortunately, there was no significant difference
in intraoperative complications or in the number of patients who lost
two or more lines of best spectacle corrected visual acuity. In
discussing the study, Dr. George Waring stated: "The risk for
intraoperative complications is the same, because if we are operating
on a patient where we intend to do bilateral surgery and have a
complication in the first eye, we don't do the second eye, so that
safety is built in."
In fact, not having an intraoperative complication in the first eye is
certainly no guarantee that the patient will not end up with a
bilateral post-operative complication. None of the procedures leading
to serious retinal complications in the patients from Argentina and
none of the patients with bilateral interface haze had complications at
the time of surgery. I think it is misleading to state that the Emory
study showed that "same time LASIK is safe, "because the numbers are
too small. Simply doubling the number of cases as was reported in the
study in Argentina, resulted in serious bilateral complications.
If I performed 378 bilateral simultaneous cataract operations without a
serious complication and compared them to a series of 378 unilateral
cataract operations, I could state that my study showed that bilateral
simultaneous cataract surgery is safe. Does that really mean we should
all start doing it? At least cataract surgery is being performed on
eyes with true pathology and already decreased vision. The majority of
these LASIK eyes have 20/20 best corrected vision. Why risk permanent
bilateral visual loss no matter how low the risk. Refractive surgery,
being performed on essentially normal eyes, should surely be held to a
higher standard. What's the hurry?
Predictability of outcome
Although there is certainly less influence in the healing process by
surface mediators in LASIK compared to PRK, the possibility of an
unexpected result still exists. The algorithms are still being modified
for the various lasers and even now the role of factors such as patient
age, amount of myopia and room humidity in predicting the final
refractive outcome in LASIK are still being debated among the experts.
Individual variations in the cornea's response to the excimer laser
still occur, and by delaying the surgery at least five to seven days
between eyes permits the surgeon to modify the surgical plan in the
second eye based on the results in the first eye. This can at least
theoretically lead to a better outcome in the second eye and possibly
eliminate the need for a re-operation in the second eye.
Although many LASIK surgeons discuss the ease of lifting the flap and
doing more surgery, this is not as benign as it sounds, and many of the
speakers at the recent ISRS symposium discussed the increased risk of
complications such as epithelial ingrowth following secondary flap
manipulations. If sequential surgery can possibly improve the outcome
in the second eye because the amount of correction can be adjusted
after seeing the result in the first eye, then the incidence of
re-operations in the second eye can be reduced, thus reducing the risk
of complications. What's the hurry?
Patient satisfaction with the procedure
There is certainly more to the final result of any refractive surgery
procedure than the uncorrected visual acuity and best spectacle
corrected visual acuity. Both of these objective measurements can be
excellent in a patient who is nonetheless quite unhappy with some
aspect of their postoperative vision. We have all had patients who have
had a refractive surgery procedure with an excellent outcome in terms
of visual acuity but are unhappy about some aspect of their vision in
the real world. It can be halos or glare at night, difficulty with
night vision due to some loss of contrast sensitivity, or vision that
is simply "not as good as it is with my contact lens in the other eye."
Of course I have heard bilateral LASIK advocates seriously state that
this is one reason to do the two eyes together, so that the patient
can't compare the LASIK eye with the contact lens eye!
This perceived difference in the quality of their vision can be a major
concern for some patients, and it is certainly in their best interest
to let them fully appreciate the quality of their new vision in the
real world before they commit to having the surgery in the second eye.
This is particularly true in patients with relatively low refractive
errors who have the option of either wearing glasses or contact lenses
in the untreated eye. With all the advances in contact lens technology,
even the higher myopes can usually be fit with a contact lens in the
second eye while they evaluate the quality of their vision in the
treated eye. If they are not completely satisfied, they have the option
of continuing in the contact lens until new developments such as larger
ablation zones, flying spot lasers with customized potentially smoother
ablations or phakic intraocular lenses become available. Once again,
what's the hurry?
Ace
unilateral approach. If you were the "perfect" candidate and had
confidence then go for bilateral lasik but for many of us, its safer to
dip your toe in the pool than just dive in. What if you have a bad
lasik experience? Youll be glad it was only on one eye then! This will
also give you the chance to compare your lasiked eye to your virgin eye
and see for yourself if its really better or if theres visual
distrubances, especially at night, a common problem for us large pupil,
higher myopic folks. Are you famillar with anisopia? Look it up. As for
mild presbyopia, +2.5 is my maximum accomodation power, a little low
for a 23 year old. I wont be able to see fine print without some myopia
or + glasses to "make" me myopic.
RT
"Ace" <acem...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Has nothing to do with the one eye at a time approach. I have no opinion
on that.
At 23 years old, you are not presbyotic any more than my 9 year old who
has ADD +3 over -7.50. Check with your optometrist. The ADD is most
likely to accommodate for the mimification of your Rx, not presbyopia.
That's not the same thing. And you're not that highly myopic either.
Getting one eye done at a time will definitely lead to anisopia at least
temporarily and permanently if you decide not to proceed. Since you
cannot tolerate contacts (so you say) how will you handle the difference
between your two eyes with spectacles? I don't think I'd be happy with
that.
But it's this wonderful scenario you've worked out correcting to this
and then that and then maybe this that I love. If only LASIK outcomes
were that exact and pre-imaginable esp when leaving residual myopia. You
forgot to factor in the possibility of having a "bad" LASIK outcome on
the second eye but not the first.
At 23 years old, you have a long way to go. Glad to see you're asking a
lot of questions. But really, I don't understand why you are still
mulling this over given your large pupils and your penchant for
imagining all sorts of scenarios. You are not a good candidate no matter
how you cut it. I can tell you now, no matter what your outcome is, you
will find something wrong with it and you won't be happy. It's not like
finding the perfect pair of jeans and discarding them in the fitting
room when they don't fit just right.
Better to figure out why you can't be corrected to 20/20 with corrective
lenses and fix that.
--
~RT
CatmanX
What sort of bumb fuck are you????
multiple surgeries for no valid reason??? stupid to the max. Risk of
post surgical complications increases dramatically with further
surgery.
anisoMETROPIA??? what anisometropia?? you dont have it.
if you are 23, you are not presbyopic, so why the fuck would you be
undercorrected? undercorrection is likely to make you go more myopic.
you would like that after paying $15000.00 for 5 surgeries.
with a -5.00 script, you will never get an 8mm OZ, more likely 6.0mm if
you are lucky, so forget about going for 8.00mm as it wont happen.
finally, go see a competent surgeon if you want rs. he will go for a
treatment that is proven successful, not some hypothetical drivel
thought up by someone with no knowledge of the process.
dr grant
RT
"CatmanX" <gra...@connexus.net.au> wrote:
Grant
I usually hate your foul mouthed rants, but reading this made laugh
coffee through my nose.
--
~RT
Ace
wear weaker glasses for the computer and around the house. No point
overcorrecting myself for things closer than 20' or optical infinity.
Light rays are parrallel in the distance but for near, they become
perpendicular.
look at that image. When you get closer than infinity such as 4 meters,
you need 1/4 diopter accomodation. This is not a problem for me and
even if someone had NO accomodation, 1/4 diopter just isnt much of a
blur. At 1 meter you need +1 accomodation or you will experience a +1
diopter hyperopic blur. Youd need +1 lenses to resolve this. Myopia is
like having built in reading glasses. A -2 myope is in focus at half
meter and if he can accomodate, hes in focus from less as well.
I just dont see very well from near with glasses because it corrects my
nearsightness and lets me see from distance but im no longer
nearsighted with minus lenses, see?
If I could tolerate contacts, there would be no point getting
refractive surgury. Everyone who does has remarked they hate their
contacts(and glasses)
you are right having a bad experience in the 2nd eye but having two
ruined eyes will make you much more miserable than one ruined eye.
I still have not gotten "official" word if im not a candidate and I
havent an official messurement of my pupils. I probably wont get lasik
now but the future is open because of new technological advances. I
dont know when or if ill ever get lasik but its quite likley I wont in
the near future. However lasik is right for some people.
I have a good idea why I cant see 20/20
1. spectacle minification. My -5 glasses make things smaller. The 20/20
line
is just a bunch of .......... dots to me. There are people seeing 20/20
even with -5 glasses
but they have perfect or nearly perfect optics
2. I have astigmastims and high order abberations. Almost everyone has
this, some people more, some less than others.
I might see 20/20 with RGP contacts, those do a very good job providing
an optically smooth surface on your cornea and helps mask some
astigmastim and HOA's plus they dont minify so that 20/20 line will
appear larger.
Hello dr. Grant, thats no way to talk! What language! Unprofessional of
any doctor!
Who said multiple surguries? You get one surgury and perhaps one
enhancement.
anisopia means a large pescription difference such as being
hypermetropic in one eye and myopic in the other for example. I know I
dont have it but me or anyone that does unilateral lasik will if he
decides not to do the other eye!
"if you are 23, you are not presbyopic"
even if I am not, I still dont see very well from near and the more
minus, the worse I see from near. I see much better from near with less
minus, this is why im using -3.25 for the computer but my real
pescription is like a diopter and a half higher.
"undercorrection is likely to make you go more myopic."
I will be myopic with an undercorrection but then I wont need reading
glasses. I am considered a moderate myope at -4.5 to -5 and I cant see
even one feet past my eyes clearly! If I get my myopia reduced to -1.5
I will be able to see the computer monitor clearly without reading
glasses and things in the distance will be just a little blurry.
If I wont get an 8mm zone for -5 then I would never consider lasik in a
million years. In the past the largest zone was 6mm and anyone with
pupils larger, especially those with much larger than 6mm can kiss
their night vision bye. Some even have problems 24/7! GASH was their
symptoms and sometimes worse! I have yet to get an official measurement
on my pupils but if they are larger than the zone I can get, forget
about lasik then! Does any of you think there will be new procedures in
the future that can address patients with huge pupils? If not I can and
will never get refractive surgury.
I will get a rs evaluation soon. I have discussed intacs with one and
he says they may work out better for me because ill be undercorrected
and wont need reading glasses. Plus intacs can be removed at anytime.
Also I dont run much of a risk getting overcorrected with intacs since
they usually dont correct more than -3 myopia.
CatmanX
dr grant
CatmanX
about and make less sense than Ragnar, who is mostly incomprehensible
(LOL).
Sorry you don't appreciate my language, but stupid assholes really piss
me off, so my fucking language starts to bloody well change as I can't
jump down the wire and swear at you in person.
Lets look at a few of your points:
1) First 2 paras, you repeat optics 101. You don't make or have a
point. What is this diatribe supposed to mean?
2) Para 3 - WTF???
3) You may or may not be able to tolerate contacts, nut have you tried
the new breed of lenses. Most RS people who are CL failures are
predisposed to problems as their CL problem was dry eye related, so
post RS dry eye is more likely.
4) You are discussing RS and haven't seen a surgeon to establish
whether you are suitable or not. But you are espousing how RS should be
performed and make out like you know something. Jesus F#%^ing Christ.
5) You don't get 6/6 because you have crap optics. Spectacle
minification has nothing to do with it. All -5.00 patients have crappy
optics, that is why they are -5.00 in the first place.
6) -0.50 is hardly astigmatism. How do you know you have HOA's as you
have not had RS evaluation???
7) Fucking sorry to offend you with my bad language.
8) There is no word anisopia. Don't show your ignorance. The word is
ANISOMETROPIA.
9) Unilateral Lasik is a temporary situation, why would any self
respecting doctor go for multiple surgeries to minimize a short term
issue. This is why god invented CL's and eyewire screws to remove one
lens from your glasses.
10) You are wearing -3.25D for computer but your real Rx is -0.50 more.
So what is your Rx? -3.75 , -4.50 or -5.00???? Any wonder you have near
problems, tour saying you are overcorrected.
11) If you get myopia corrected to -1.5 you will probably go more
myopic due to blur. By the way, is your prescription stable? Has it
changed in the past year or 2?
12) You will not get an 8.0mm zone with -5.00. That one is a guarantee.
13) For god's sake, get an evaluation.
A few notes:
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. You have very little
knowledge. Your ideas are very dangerous. Stop hypothesizing total crap
and see a good surgeon and discuss your options, but for god's sake,
don't talk about any of the crap you talk about here, it only makes you
sound stupid.
A distance diagnosis to your problems is there are optical and
accommodative problems. I would already be dubious as to success with
RS due to this. I would want the accommodative issues evaluated and
addressed first. Corneal aberration may or may not be able to be
addressed with RS. I shall be sending you an account for that
consultation, by the way LOL.
Stop listening to anything eye, bill and brent (presumably all the same
person) have to say. They are much more stupid and incoherent than
Ragnar. ROFLMAO
dr grant
p.s. apologies to Ragnar. I know he gets offended when his name is in
the same sentence as brent's.
RT
"CatmanX" <gra...@connexus.net.au> wrote:
> 8) There is no word anisopia. Don't show your ignorance. The word is
> ANISOMETROPIA.
I looked up anisopia since I had never heard of the word when Ace used
it. Apparently it does mean an inequality of vision between the two
eyes, but the word hasn't been used in peer reviewed studies since the
1950s as far as I can tell.
http://tinyurl.com/9fmya
--
~RT
CatmanX
Cheers RT.
grant
CatmanX
relates more to amblyopia. Still, it is antiquated and not the correct
word for the circumstance.
grant
Ace
infinity. To focus at 1 meter, you need +1 diopters. Take someone whos
-1, his eyes are +1 diopters too much focusing power so -1 lenses
subtracts this refractive error and brings him to plano. However at 1
meter, he will be in perfect focus and see clearly. Make him plano and
he wont be in focus at anything less than infinity unless of course he
can accomodate.
2. I explained it well in paragraph one. Things from near are clear
only as long as one can accomodate or is myopic. My -5(left eye) is in
perfect focus at 8 inches or 1/5 meter. Now give me -5 glasses and I
will need to accomodate 5 diopters, else it will be blurry!
3. I hear claims that surface ablation doesnt really promote dry eyes,
just the flap lasik because it severs nerves.
4. I got a brief evaluation test earlier this year but I do not have
enough info. I am getting another and this time I want my pupils
measured with a pupilometer plus I want comphrensive testing including
cycoplegia for possible pseudomyopia which I suspect I have at least a
little of
5. Put on some -5 glasses and get back to me about minification. crap
optics? Well true but correction greatly improves vision to 20/20,
20/25, 20/30, whatever the optics of your eye itself is capable of.
Minification is an artifical limit of visual accuracy. Give a high
myope contacts and hes gonna achieve a better visual accuracy because
the line hes reading wont be too small.
6. Correct and it doesnt even make a difference because mines
irregular. I have gotten refractions and sometimes they "detect" no
astigmastim, other times -.5 or so. I could get a different result if I
returned the next day. I have glasses with no astigmastim correction
and glasses with and I see exactly the same. I know about HOAs,
everyone has them, some have more than others so they achieve 20/30,
20/40 or worse BCVA while some may be very lucky and have few HOAs so
they see 20/20 or even better!
7. makes a bad impression. Everyone knows you swear!
8. ok so the spellcheck was wrong
9. unilateral lasik is problamatic for glasses wearers due to
ANISOMETROPIA. Bilateral is performed most of the time but your in
trouble if a complication affects both eyes!
10. My real pescription is probably -4.5 in the right and -5 in the
left from the near point test. I measure with a ruler how far is clear.
My right eye sees clear from 22cm and the left from 20cm
I also get an estimate based on 20/xxx vs. diopters. If I am seeing
20/40 with -4.25 lenses in the right eye and 20/50 in the left, then im
barely undercorrected. The .25 undercorrection in the right makes the
20/40 line blurry while a stronger lense makes the 20/40 line easier to
see. A -5 dioper lense brings my left eye to its 20/30 BCVA, more minus
does nothing and even more minus starts to blur things again. Going
from 20/30 with -5 to 20/50 with -4.25
11. LOL I have been wearing glasses that undercorrect me for the
computer and around the house and I became less myopic! My brother
doesnt really wear glasses and his pescription improved by half a
diopter! Minus lenses make your eyes more myopic, plus lenses do the
opposite! Instead of putting a + lense on my full power glasses, it
makes more sense to wear weaker glasses so I will become less myopic.
12. Then why do people with pupils larger than the true optical zone
still go ahead? I know lots of moderate to high myopes with huge pupils
and zones smaller than that. They of course lose some or alot of night
vision and sometimes even 24/7! Do they hate glasses so much that
trading some vision is worth reducing glasses dependancy?
13. This is already a priority to me
RT
"Ace" <acem...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> including
> cycoplegia for possible pseudomyopia which I suspect I have at least a
> little of
I've figured out what's going on here.
Ace has a "Fictitious Disorder." Ace doesn't need help from an
optometrist or ophthalmologist, but from a psychiatrist. Please get
yourself some help Ace.
Adult Munchausen Syndrome is found most often in young adult males
looking for attention through exaggerating real or imagined physical or
mental disorders. It is usually characterized by someone submitting
themselves to numerous medical tests and procedures and extensive use
medical terminology and text book medical procedures to describe their
condition.
People with factitious disorder feign or actually induce illness in
themselves, typically to garner the nurturance of others.
http://tinyurl.com/37hje
"FACTITIOUS DISORDER, (of which MUNCHAUSEN SYNDROME is a sub-type),
(also called "Adult Munchausen", and "Adult Factitious Disorder") is a
formal, DSM-IV mental health diagnosis in which people deliberately
exaggerate and/or fabricate and/or induce physical and/or
psychological-behavioral-mental health problems in themselves. The
primary purpose of this behavior is to gain some form of internal
gratification, such as attention, for themselves."
http://www.mbpexpert.com/definition.html
"What is Munchausen syndrome?
Munchausen syndrome is a type of factitious disorder, or mental illness,
in which a person repeatedly acts as if he or she has a physical or
mental disorder when, in truth, they have caused the symptoms. People
with factitious disorders act this way because of an inner need to be
seen as ill or injured, not to achieve a concrete benefit, such as
financial gain. They are even willing to undergo painful or risky tests
and operations in order to get the sympathy and special attention given
to people who are truly ill. Munchausen syndrome is a mental illness
associated with severe emotional difficulties."
http://www.clevelandclinic.org/health/health-info/docs/2800/2821.asp?inde
x=9833
--
~RT
Ace
Ragnar
get concepts into your head. Everyone makes mistakes.. but you have
a habit of repeating your mistakes.. over and over again.
On 19 Nov 2005 13:33:22 -0800, "CatmanX" <gra...@connexus.net.au>
wrote:
Glenn - USAEyes.org
participants of this newsgroup.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
USAEyes.org
"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.
RT
Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hage...@USAEyes.org> wrote:
> There has seemed to be Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy among some
> participants of this newsgroup.
Not exactly. The "by proxy" part means someone makes another ill like a
mother with her child. The Munchausen Syndrome alone is what is more
applicable.
You'll find people suffering from FD (Fictitious Disorders) on any
medically oriented group. It took me a while to recognize it in Ace, but
it's clear that s/he's struggling with something that's not related to
eyes.
--
~RT
nunaya...@yahoo.com
litterbox? You climb all over a greenhorn newbie's ass cuz he asks alot
of questions, you believe that Ace/Eye/etc are all Brent (you stupid
cow!!!!!!!), but never say boo to the crap posted by Ragnar and
SErebel, two total -bumb fucks- (as your Dr. Mason would say).
Besides, if you could read past a second grade level, (or maybe your
Lasik ain't so great and you can't read so easy?) you might have got
that Ace didn't have any kind of surgery! He says he can't be
corrected to 20/20, wonders if any surgery could fix him, is looking
for answers to a bunch of questions. You gave him such a nice welcome.
Linda wrote:
> what fiction stuff are you talking about?
>
> O.K Ace (although I believe that Ace/Eye/etc are all Brent). You may
> have had a bad outcome. However instead of taking appropriate steps to
> improve your situation, you seem to do the rounds of doctors and
> optometrists who never seem able to help you. Do you really want help
> or are you simply exaggerating your position because it is now too hard
> to back down? On top of this, you post the most incredibly childish
> attacks on people and spam the NG constantly. You also reply to your
> own aliases which is incredibly bizarre behaviour for an adult.
> Linda
Linda
nunaya...@yahoo.com wrote:
> What's wrong Linda? Don't like those other kids playing in your
> litterbox? You climb all over a greenhorn newbie's ass cuz he asks alot
> of questions, you believe that Ace/Eye/etc are all Brent (you stupid
> cow!!!!!!!)
Would you use this type of language if you were responding to a man? I
don't think so! This is precisely what I mean by childish attacks and a
mysogynist to boot!
serebel
nunaya...@yahoo.com wrote:
> What's wrong Linda? Don't like those other kids playing in your
> litterbox? You climb all over a greenhorn newbie's ass cuz he asks alot
> of questions, you believe that Ace/Eye/etc are all Brent (you stupid
> cow!!!!!!!), but never say boo to the crap posted by Ragnar and
> SErebel, two total -bumb fucks- (as your Dr. Mason would say).
>
> Besides, if you could read past a second grade level, (or maybe your
> Lasik ain't so great and you can't read so easy?) you might have got
> that Ace didn't have any kind of surgery! He says he can't be
> corrected to 20/20, wonders if any surgery could fix him, is looking
> for answers to a bunch of questions. You gave him such a nice welcome.
>
Looks like we have another pissy one with nothing to add here, exept
for the usual profanities.