I emailed Dr. Maller and got a reply. He can indeed address big pupils by making a larger custom orthoK lens. I will recieve more answers tomorrow. I asked whats the largest zone he can make based on a 12mm average cornea. If he can make 8mm zone, thats fantanstic! The least ill accept is 7mm zone. I also asked him how much reduction of myopia can be achieved. Maller is amazing by the way, he treated a -10 lady(I asked him if he treated it fully) because that must be a world record! I also think the zone to treat -10 diopters must be smaller than 5mm. He has treated -4 diopters cylindar as well. Wow orthoK could displace or even replace lasik if it can treat such high pescriptions! I remember decades ago orthoK was only good up to -1 and was used mostly by pilots to go from something like 20/30 or 20/40 to 20/20 or better. In the last 5 years orthoK has become alot more effecient. I have been reading about orthoK for high myopes and it looks like it has become a reality now! Those considering lasik should try orthoK first or instead!
>I emailed Dr. Maller and got a reply. He can indeed address big pupils > by making a larger custom orthoK lens. I will recieve more answers > tomorrow. I asked whats the largest zone he can make based on a 12mm > average cornea. If he can make 8mm zone, thats fantanstic! The least > ill accept is 7mm zone. I also asked him how much reduction of myopia > can be achieved. Maller is amazing by the way, he treated a -10 lady(I > asked him if he treated it fully) because that must be a world record! > I also think the zone to treat -10 diopters must be smaller than 5mm. > He has treated -4 diopters cylindar as well. Wow orthoK could displace > or even replace lasik if it can treat such high pescriptions! I > remember decades ago orthoK was only good up to -1 and was used mostly > by pilots to go from something like 20/30 or 20/40 to 20/20 or better. > In the last 5 years orthoK has become alot more effecient. I have been > reading about orthoK for high myopes and it looks like it has become a > reality now! Those considering lasik should try orthoK first or > instead!
Tom Lucas wrote: > "Ace" <acema...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:1152603212.894110.88930@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > >I emailed Dr. Maller and got a reply. He can indeed address big pupils > > by making a larger custom orthoK lens. I will recieve more answers > > tomorrow. I asked whats the largest zone he can make based on a 12mm > > average cornea. If he can make 8mm zone, thats fantanstic! The least > > ill accept is 7mm zone. I also asked him how much reduction of myopia > > can be achieved. Maller is amazing by the way, he treated a -10 lady(I > > asked him if he treated it fully) because that must be a world record! > > I also think the zone to treat -10 diopters must be smaller than 5mm. > > He has treated -4 diopters cylindar as well. Wow orthoK could displace > > or even replace lasik if it can treat such high pescriptions! I > > remember decades ago orthoK was only good up to -1 and was used mostly > > by pilots to go from something like 20/30 or 20/40 to 20/20 or better. > > In the last 5 years orthoK has become alot more effecient. I have been > > reading about orthoK for high myopes and it looks like it has become a > > reality now! Those considering lasik should try orthoK first or > > instead!
> How much does it cost?
around $1500 if I remember right. I mentioned orthoK to you before you had lasik and you werent interested. Did you ever get my email? If not, email me. Id like to chat to you with an instant messenger service.
> Tom Lucas wrote: >> "Ace" <acema...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:1152603212.894110.88930@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> >I emailed Dr. Maller and got a reply. He can indeed address big >> >pupils >> > by making a larger custom orthoK lens. I will recieve more answers >> > tomorrow. I asked whats the largest zone he can make based on a >> > 12mm >> > average cornea. If he can make 8mm zone, thats fantanstic! The >> > least >> > ill accept is 7mm zone. I also asked him how much reduction of >> > myopia >> > can be achieved. Maller is amazing by the way, he treated a -10 >> > lady(I >> > asked him if he treated it fully) because that must be a world >> > record! >> > I also think the zone to treat -10 diopters must be smaller than >> > 5mm. >> > He has treated -4 diopters cylindar as well. Wow orthoK could >> > displace >> > or even replace lasik if it can treat such high pescriptions! I >> > remember decades ago orthoK was only good up to -1 and was used >> > mostly >> > by pilots to go from something like 20/30 or 20/40 to 20/20 or >> > better. >> > In the last 5 years orthoK has become alot more effecient. I have >> > been >> > reading about orthoK for high myopes and it looks like it has >> > become a >> > reality now! Those considering lasik should try orthoK first or >> > instead!
>> How much does it cost?
> around $1500 if I remember right. I mentioned orthoK to you before you > had lasik and you werent interested.
I think we both agreed OrthoK wouldn't be right for me but I am interested to know how much they charge for this sort of thing.
> Did you ever get my email? If not, > email me. Id like to chat to you with an instant messenger service.
Ace's posts used to come from Hollywood Florida, until I pointed out they were coming from Hollywood Florida. Then about a month ago, they started being routed through Atlanta. Recently.. ace has been talkinga about blur quite a lot. And he has always been on an anti-lasik kick and pro-orthok kick.. yet he posts in this newsgroup.. hmm why? I know why.
Ace did live, and probably still does live in Hollywood Florida... which.. coincidentally... is only 5 miles away from Dr. Maller's office.
You poured the praise on Dr. Maller a bit thick Ace. You are a bad liar. You should take more lessons from Keller - she has dedicated her life to lying.
You sure wasted a lot of time with that charade Ace.
On 11 Jul 2006 00:33:32 -0700, "Ace" <acema...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I emailed Dr. Maller and got a reply. He can indeed address big pupils >by making a larger custom orthoK lens. I will recieve more answers >tomorrow. I asked whats the largest zone he can make based on a 12mm >average cornea. If he can make 8mm zone, thats fantanstic! The least >ill accept is 7mm zone. I also asked him how much reduction of myopia >can be achieved. Maller is amazing by the way, he treated a -10 lady(I >asked him if he treated it fully) because that must be a world record! >I also think the zone to treat -10 diopters must be smaller than 5mm. >He has treated -4 diopters cylindar as well. Wow orthoK could displace >or even replace lasik if it can treat such high pescriptions! I >remember decades ago orthoK was only good up to -1 and was used mostly >by pilots to go from something like 20/30 or 20/40 to 20/20 or better. >In the last 5 years orthoK has become alot more effecient. I have been >reading about orthoK for high myopes and it looks like it has become a >reality now! Those considering lasik should try orthoK first or instead!
>"Ace" <acema...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:1152603212.894110.88930@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >>I emailed Dr. Maller and got a reply. He can indeed address big pupils >> by making a larger custom orthoK lens. I will recieve more answers >> tomorrow. I asked whats the largest zone he can make based on a 12mm >> average cornea. If he can make 8mm zone, thats fantanstic! The least >> ill accept is 7mm zone. I also asked him how much reduction of myopia >> can be achieved. Maller is amazing by the way, he treated a -10 lady(I >> asked him if he treated it fully) because that must be a world record! >> I also think the zone to treat -10 diopters must be smaller than 5mm. >> He has treated -4 diopters cylindar as well. Wow orthoK could displace >> or even replace lasik if it can treat such high pescriptions! I >> remember decades ago orthoK was only good up to -1 and was used mostly >> by pilots to go from something like 20/30 or 20/40 to 20/20 or better. >> In the last 5 years orthoK has become alot more effecient. I have been >> reading about orthoK for high myopes and it looks like it has become a >> reality now! Those considering lasik should try orthoK first or >> instead!
> OrthoK is good for about 2 diopters at best. Ace is out of his mind > with his -10 nonsense.
Perhaps if you don't mind a 2mm viewing window on the world then you can get -10. It does seem like an awful lot of money for 2 dioptres - you would need to have a very good reason for it.
> Forget Ortho K. it's like burning $1200
Well it may work for some people I suppose but there's not going to be many that it will be right for.
Ragnar wrote: > OrthoK is good for about 2 diopters at best. Ace is out of his mind > with his -10 nonsense.
Id like to see what Dr. Maller says about this -10 lady. I believe him and would never call him a liar or doubt him. I got a response from another doctor who said:
The traditional treatment zone are we use for ortho-k (CRT) is between 4 to 6mm. The higher the prescription, the smaller the treatment zone has to be.
I am betting Maller used a 4mm zone on that -10 lady. Even with a 4mm zone, its highly unusual to treat -10 diopters but Maller said theres many factors that dictate how much myopia can be treated or reduced. She was a truly exceptional and unusual case and had the right factors that allowed her -10 to be treated. I will know more when he responds to my email.
pffffffft orthoK can treat much more than 2 diopters. The average amount of myopia that can be treated with a 6mm zone is -3.25. Some people can be treated at -4 and ive heard as high as -5. You can treat twice as much with a 4mm zone vs. 6mm so treating as much as -5 with 6mm becomes possible to treat as much as -10 with 4mm. Of course the pupil size comes into play but im betting that -10 lady has tiny pupils and/or doesnt care about the "effects" of her night vision. She might have gotten lasik but chose orthoK instead as its much safer and also reversable.
Even with a 7mm zone, 2 diopter reduction in myopia is very doable. Three diopters would be above average but attainable for some people. I do not expect nor do I care to get to plano, I just want a reduction in my myopia which will reduce my dependacy on glasses. I spend like 6 hours a day in front of the computer and without glasses I have to be a foot from the monitor which makes it impossible. With orthoK I should see clearly from 2 feet or more which is far enough not to need glasses. Also since my accomodation isnt very good, leaving some myopia will help retain clear vision from near.
"Perhaps if you don't mind a 2mm viewing window on the world then you can get -10. It does seem like an awful lot of money for 2 dioptres - you would need to have a very good reason for it."
I doubt orthoK goes that small, she probably got a 4mm zone. OrthoK costs a third of what lasik costs and less than a tenth the risks too. And like I said, a slight undercorrection is a nonissue for me. If I insisted on perfect vision I wouldnt be talking about orthoK in the first place.
"Well it may work for some people I suppose but there's not going to be
many that it will be right for."
You never know till you get a consultation for orthoK. Far safer and reversable compared to lasik, it should be your first choice if you are mildly myopic or if your eyes are bad, dont mind a reduction in glasses dependancy. Lasik can treat higher pescriptions but the truth is most people are mildly myopic, very few people have high myopia. Probably 80% of people have pescriptions that can be treated well with orthoK. I fall in the 80% and I can be fully treated with a small zone or partially with a large zone. Since I dont mind an undercorrection and my pupils are big, im getting a large zone.
> > Id like to see what Dr. Maller says about this -10 lady. I believe him > > and would never call him a liar or doubt him.
> Of course not, when he tells you what you want to hear. > You're not even going to do this as you'll never leave your mommie's > basement.
Serebel, that -10 case was exceptional and theres good reasons including a 4mm zone. Read below
I got another reply from him. He answered most questions but im left wondering about that -10 lady. No matter, she must of had a 4mm zone, a thick epithelium and other factors that made it a most exceptional and unusual case. If she had a 5mm zone, it would be a small miracle. If my math serves me right, the table below shows how much correction you generally can expect at most with the following zones:
4mm zone at 3 microns per diopter(3x8=24) 5mm zone at 4 microns per diopter(4x6=24) 6mm zone at 6 microns per diopter(6x4=24) 7mm zone at 8 microns per diopter(8x3=24) 8mm zone at 12 microns per diopter(12x2=24)
Not everyone will achieve this much correction, most wont. An exceptional few may achieve a little more than what my table shows. Ive read that the average myopia reduction is -3.25 with 6mm zone.
Contact lenses for orthokeratology provided a temporary full reduction in some patients with up to -3.25 diopters of myopia. For patients with greater than -3.25 diopters of myopia only a partial reduction of myopia can be expected.
an 8mm zone would be nice and give me the best chance of good quality night vision. I know that orthoK will make my cornea slightly oblate and also increase spherical aberrations. My huge pupils will further exceberate this. If I get a toric zone, this will further cause problems due to a smaller oval zone. Ideally, I would want to be plano per my cycloplegic refraction using several days of atropine. I believe my cycloplegic is probably around -3 while my manifast is -4.5 so technically I want to be undercorrected because my manifast correction makes it hard to see clear from near.
I am going to get atropine first and see how much axial myopia I really have. This will make it easier to asset what to do next. Now to research the effects of atropine :)
>Ragnar wrote: >> OrthoK is good for about 2 diopters at best. Ace is out of his mind >> with his -10 nonsense.
>Id like to see what Dr. Maller says about this -10 lady. I believe him >and would never call him a liar or doubt him. I got a response from >another doctor who said:
>The traditional treatment zone are we use for ortho-k (CRT) is between >4 to 6mm. The higher the prescription, the smaller the treatment zone >has to be.
>I am betting Maller used a 4mm zone on that -10 lady. Even with a 4mm >zone, its highly unusual to treat -10 diopters but Maller said theres >many factors that dictate how much myopia can be treated or reduced. >She was a truly exceptional and unusual case and had the right factors >that allowed her -10 to be treated. I will know more when he responds >to my email.
>pffffffft orthoK can treat much more than 2 diopters. The average >amount of myopia that can be treated with a 6mm zone is -3.25. Some >people can be treated at -4 and ive heard as high as -5. You can treat >twice as much with a 4mm zone vs. 6mm so treating as much as -5 with >6mm becomes possible to treat as much as -10 with 4mm. Of course the >pupil size comes into play but im betting that -10 lady has tiny pupils >and/or doesnt care about the "effects" of her night vision. She might >have gotten lasik but chose orthoK instead as its much safer and also >reversable.
>Even with a 7mm zone, 2 diopter reduction in myopia is very doable. >Three diopters would be above average but attainable for some people. I >do not expect nor do I care to get to plano, I just want a reduction in >my myopia which will reduce my dependacy on glasses. I spend like 6 >hours a day in front of the computer and without glasses I have to be a >foot from the monitor which makes it impossible. With orthoK I should >see clearly from 2 feet or more which is far enough not to need >glasses. Also since my accomodation isnt very good, leaving some myopia >will help retain clear vision from near.
>"Perhaps if you don't mind a 2mm viewing window on the world then you >can >get -10. It does seem like an awful lot of money for 2 dioptres - you >would need to have a very good reason for it."
>I doubt orthoK goes that small, she probably got a 4mm zone. OrthoK >costs a third of what lasik costs and less than a tenth the risks too. >And like I said, a slight undercorrection is a nonissue for me. If I >insisted on perfect vision I wouldnt be talking about orthoK in the >first place.
>"Well it may work for some people I suppose but there's not going to be
>many that it will be right for."
>You never know till you get a consultation for orthoK. Far safer and >reversable compared to lasik, it should be your first choice if you are >mildly myopic or if your eyes are bad, dont mind a reduction in glasses >dependancy. Lasik can treat higher pescriptions but the truth is most >people are mildly myopic, very few people have high myopia. Probably >80% of people have pescriptions that can be treated well with orthoK. I >fall in the 80% and I can be fully treated with a small zone or >partially with a large zone. Since I dont mind an undercorrection and >my pupils are big, im getting a large zone.
On 11 Jul 2006 17:14:53 -0700, "serebel" <sere...@aol.com> wrote:
>Ace wrote:
>> Id like to see what Dr. Maller says about this -10 lady. I believe him >> and would never call him a liar or doubt him.
> Of course not, when he tells you what you want to hear. >You're not even going to do this as you'll never leave your mommie's >basement.
I have to disagree with you here SERebel... garage maybe.. not basement. Almost no houses in Florida have basements due to being at sea level and other reasons.
>> > Id like to see what Dr. Maller says about this -10 lady. I believe him >> > and would never call him a liar or doubt him.
>> Of course not, when he tells you what you want to hear. >> You're not even going to do this as you'll never leave your mommie's >> basement.
>Serebel, that -10 case was exceptional and theres good reasons >including a 4mm zone. Read below
>I got another reply from him. He answered most questions but im left >wondering about that -10 lady. No matter, she must of had a 4mm zone, a >thick epithelium and other factors that made it a most exceptional and >unusual case. If she had a 5mm zone, it would be a small miracle. If my >math serves me right, the table below shows how much correction you >generally can expect at most with the following zones:
>4mm zone at 3 microns per diopter(3x8=24) >5mm zone at 4 microns per diopter(4x6=24) >6mm zone at 6 microns per diopter(6x4=24) >7mm zone at 8 microns per diopter(8x3=24) >8mm zone at 12 microns per diopter(12x2=24)
>Not everyone will achieve this much correction, most wont. An >exceptional few may achieve a little more than what my table shows. Ive >read that the average myopia reduction is -3.25 with 6mm zone.
>Contact lenses for orthokeratology provided a temporary full reduction >in some patients with up to -3.25 diopters of myopia. For patients with >greater than -3.25 diopters of myopia only a partial reduction of >myopia can be expected.
>an 8mm zone would be nice and give me the best chance of good quality >night vision. I know that orthoK will make my cornea slightly oblate >and also increase spherical aberrations. My huge pupils will further >exceberate this. If I get a toric zone, this will further cause >problems due to a smaller oval zone. Ideally, I would want to be plano >per my cycloplegic refraction using several days of atropine. I believe >my cycloplegic is probably around -3 while my manifast is -4.5 so >technically I want to be undercorrected because my manifast correction >makes it hard to see clear from near.
>I am going to get atropine first and see how much axial myopia I really >have. This will make it easier to asset what to do next. Now to >research the effects of atropine :)
Ragnar wrote: > Since you are a stooge for Dr. Maller and live 5 miles from his > office.. why not take a nice WALK to his office and not email him?
Except I live further than 5 minutes. Doesnt matter as I am broke at the moment but once I make a little money, thatll go for a consultation to see that genius in person.
"I have to disagree with you here SERebel... garage maybe.. not basement. Almost no houses in Florida have basements due to being at sea level and other reasons."
You CAN have a basement in Florida, its just difficult and expensive so very few people have one. They would rather have a second or even third story for much cheaper and it makes the house look nicer. I have my own bedroom and once I make money I plan to move out.
"Ace obviously knows nothing about orthoK"
much more than you know. You probably know of the "old" orthoK done 15 years ago but theres modern orthoK
There's our LASIK answer... you are broke... and you are trying to justify in your own mind that you don't want LASIK anyway. You could get your lasik done for free.
On 12 Jul 2006 12:24:38 -0700, "Ace" <acema...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Ragnar wrote: >> Since you are a stooge for Dr. Maller and live 5 miles from his >> office.. why not take a nice WALK to his office and not email him?
>Except I live further than 5 minutes. Doesnt matter as I am broke at >the moment but once I make a little money, thatll go for a consultation >to see that genius in person.
>"I have to disagree with you here SERebel... garage maybe.. not >basement. Almost no houses in Florida have basements due to being at >sea level and other reasons."
>You CAN have a basement in Florida, its just difficult and expensive so >very few people have one. They would rather have a second or even third >story for much cheaper and it makes the house look nicer. I have my own >bedroom and once I make money I plan to move out.
>"Ace obviously knows nothing about orthoK"
>much more than you know. You probably know of the "old" orthoK done 15 >years ago but theres modern orthoK
> You sure wasted a lot of time with that charade Ace.
You haven't proven anything, Roiland. You are most likely way off-base with this, just like you are by calling me WizKid. I don't think that Ace has posted as Malcontent, either.
Sandy wrote: >> You haven't proven anything, Roiland. You are most likely way off-base > with this, just like you are by calling me WizKid. I don't think that > Ace has posted as Malcontent, either.
You've got to be kidding Keller. If you can't see the same retard writing style and misspellings, you are fk'ed up in the head.
That's because you are the queen bitch of lies and wrong about just about everything. If you say something is white, it is probably black. You continue to make a mistake that you have made for years.. but that one I'm not going to point out.
On 13 Jul 2006 01:03:59 -0700, "Sandy" <sa...@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>> You sure wasted a lot of time with that charade Ace.
>You haven't proven anything, Roiland. You are most likely way off-base >with this, just like you are by calling me WizKid. I don't think that >Ace has posted as Malcontent, either.
I am likley to get an orthoK consultation in the future, maybe there is a work around or a good solution for guys like me with huge pupils. More pressing is how much axial myopia I have and ill find out very soon, going to see an opthamologist. My true cycloplegic refraction may be significently lower than my -4 manifast(in better eye with cylindar in both) orthoK works very well for low prescriptions. There may be other procedures like epithelial thinning
Don't say that you weren't warned that OK is a waste of time.
Why don't you get some RGP lenses? You had better get RGP lenses before attempting OK because they are the same type of material. A character such as yourself isn't likely to tolerate them.
Thinning the epithelium is not a good thing.
On 18 Jul 2006 22:33:40 -0700, "Ace" <acema...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I am likley to get an orthoK consultation in the future, maybe there is >a work around or a good solution for guys like me with huge pupils. >More pressing is how much axial myopia I have and ill find out very >soon, going to see an opthamologist. My true cycloplegic refraction may >be significently lower than my -4 manifast(in better eye with cylindar >in both) orthoK works very well for low prescriptions. There may be >other procedures like epithelial thinning
Ragnar wrote: > Don't say that you weren't warned that OK is a waste of time.
> Why don't you get some RGP lenses? You had better get RGP lenses > before attempting OK because they are the same type of material. A > character such as yourself isn't likely to tolerate them.
> Thinning the epithelium is not a good thing.
I pity the poor OD who has to deal with the retard. It's like a life sentence. I feel bad for his parents, he'll never leave the house.
Ragnar wrote: > Don't say that you weren't warned that OK is a waste of time.
> Why don't you get some RGP lenses? You had better get RGP lenses > before attempting OK because they are the same type of material. A > character such as yourself isn't likely to tolerate them.
> Thinning the epithelium is not a good thing.
lasik thins your entire cornea LOL and you preach about how bad thinning the epithelium is? I have thought about RGP lenses and orthoK is much more appealing and also much more likley to be comfortable because I sleep thru it. I would feel discomfort when awake and blinking. Another big problem with RGPs is if you get a tiny spec of dust in your eyes, your eyes will hurt like mad till you remove the RGP(s) and flush your eyes with eyedrops to irrigrate the foreign dust particle. The same optometrist that does orthoK specifically warned me and others of the shortcommings of RGPs and the dust problem. With orthoK my eyes are close so I minimize the problem and even if I get dust, I am 10 steps from the bathroom. With RGPs I may be half a mile from a bathroom or not have eyedrops with me. I could be in a jam unless I take eyedrops with me at all times. Also id have to remove the RGP in a jiffy and that can be hard when my eye feels like something scratching it and its all teary and half shut. My mom and a couple friends said RGPs arent all cracked up to be. I have a friend who would rather suffer with RGPs than wear glasses. He told me several times a week he gets dust in his eyes, lots of pain and must remove the RGP. I think glasses are less trouble than that and orthoK the least trouble of all
> lasik thins your entire cornea LOL and you preach about how bad > thinning the epithelium is? I have thought about RGP lenses and orthoK > is much more appealing and also much more likley to be comfortable > because I sleep thru it. I would feel discomfort when awake and > blinking. Another big problem with RGPs is if you get a tiny spec of > dust in your eyes, your eyes will hurt like mad till you remove the > RGP(s) and flush your eyes with eyedrops to irrigrate the foreign dust > particle. The same optometrist that does orthoK specifically warned me > and others of the shortcommings of RGPs and the dust problem. With > orthoK my eyes are close so I minimize the problem and even if I get > dust, I am 10 steps from the bathroom. With RGPs I may be half a mile > from a bathroom or not have eyedrops with me. I could be in a jam > unless I take eyedrops with me at all times. Also id have to remove the > RGP in a jiffy and that can be hard when my eye feels like something > scratching it and its all teary and half shut. My mom and a couple > friends said RGPs arent all cracked up to be. I have a friend who would > rather suffer with RGPs than wear glasses. He told me several times a > week he gets dust in his eyes, lots of pain and must remove the RGP. I > think glasses are less trouble than that and orthoK the least trouble > of all
Here you go Rags, a retard's lecture on the virtues of ortho-k vs RGP, oh yeah, no experience with either one. Must be retard genius.
The inner cornea is made up of laminated layers of clear collagen fibers that have the tensile strength of steel. Those ces are fixed and do not regenerate. The epithelium is a layer of protection for the eye and not at all stable and screwing with it is only going to cause problems.
You are so ignorant that it gives me pain. You need someone to knock some sense into you.
On 19 Jul 2006 19:15:27 -0700, "Ace" <acema...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Ragnar wrote: >> Don't say that you weren't warned that OK is a waste of time.
>> Why don't you get some RGP lenses? You had better get RGP lenses >> before attempting OK because they are the same type of material. A >> character such as yourself isn't likely to tolerate them.
>> Thinning the epithelium is not a good thing.
>lasik thins your entire cornea LOL and you preach about how bad >thinning the epithelium is? I have thought about RGP lenses and orthoK >is much more appealing and also much more likley to be comfortable >because I sleep thru it. I would feel discomfort when awake and >blinking. Another big problem with RGPs is if you get a tiny spec of >dust in your eyes, your eyes will hurt like mad till you remove the >RGP(s) and flush your eyes with eyedrops to irrigrate the foreign dust >particle. The same optometrist that does orthoK specifically warned me >and others of the shortcommings of RGPs and the dust problem. With >orthoK my eyes are close so I minimize the problem and even if I get >dust, I am 10 steps from the bathroom. With RGPs I may be half a mile >from a bathroom or not have eyedrops with me. I could be in a jam >unless I take eyedrops with me at all times. Also id have to remove the >RGP in a jiffy and that can be hard when my eye feels like something >scratching it and its all teary and half shut. My mom and a couple >friends said RGPs arent all cracked up to be. I have a friend who would >rather suffer with RGPs than wear glasses. He told me several times a >week he gets dust in his eyes, lots of pain and must remove the RGP. I >think glasses are less trouble than that and orthoK the least trouble >of all
serebel wrote: > Here you go Rags, a retard's lecture on the virtues of ortho-k vs > RGP, oh yeah, no experience with either one. Must be retard genius.
Doesnt matter, I know about it from the internet and from people I know. Good enough for ya?
Ragnar said:
"The inner cornea is made up of laminated layers of clear collagen fibers that have the tensile strength of steel. Those ces are fixed and do not regenerate. The epithelium is a layer of protection for the eye and not at all stable and screwing with it is only going to cause problems."
If orthoK can thin the epithelium without damaging the eye, so can other methods. The epithelium is 48 microns on average, we are talking 24 microns of thinning in extreme cases, more like 12-16 microns typically. The cornea can be thinned a little without problems, so can the epithelium. There is a safe minimum thickness for each. If my epithelium is 48 microns or average thickness, I can have it thinned a little to correct about a diopter and a half of my myopia. Will make a big difference based on my estimate that my cycloplegic refraction is gonna be a -3 to -3.5(20/400 vision) and reducing it to below -2 is gonna improve me all the way to 20/100! This will reduce my glasses dependancy by like 80%
|
