The return of orthoK and some questions and answers
Ace
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
"Ace" <acem...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1152603212....@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
How much does it cost?
Ace
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
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.
I didn't get any e-mails but I'll send one now
Ragnar
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.
Ragnar
with his -10 nonsense.
Forget Ortho K. it's like burning $1200
Tom Lucas
"Ragnar" <ragna...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:uqe7b2pkiuptaeh5d...@4ax.com...
> 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.
Ace
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.
serebel
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.
Ace
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
office.. why not take a nice WALK to his office and not email him?
Ragnar
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.
Ragnar
Ace obviously knows nothing about orthoK, or knows somwthing but is
trying to fool other people
Ace
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
Ragnar
justify in your own mind that you don't want LASIK anyway. You could
get your lasik done for free.
Sandy
Ragnar 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.
serebel
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.
Ragnar
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.
Ace
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
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.
serebel
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.
Ace
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
Ace wrote:
>
>
> 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.
Ragnar
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.
Ace
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%
Sandy
Ace, I have had much better luck with RGPs of 10, 11 or 12 mm. The
larger they are, the less chance of any debris getting under them.
They're also better if you have large pupils. Another option are the
SynergEyes lenses, which are rigid in the center, but have a soft
skirt. They are extremely comfortable and I haven't had anything get
under them in the 4-5 months I've been wearing them. I swim in them
everyday, which is something I did as a teen with RGPs, but I was
constantly diving to the bottom of the pool to find them. They are
not as durable as an RGP, and so far, I've had two of them tear at the
juncture between the rigid and soft zones.
Ace
Ive looked into SynergEyes. Would I be able to tolerate those with my
eyes open and without needing frequent eyedrops if every brand of soft
contact ive tried has dried and irritated my eyes? Even the acuvue
oasys started making my eyes ache after a couple hours wear. When I
removed them off, the contacts were nearly dry and sticky. My eyes felt
much better the moment I removed the contacts. Ive been told using
eyedrops frequently would alleivate this. Id rather stick with glasses
than be dependant on eyedrops and irritating contacts and not see well
from near. Also swimming or showering in contacts induces bacteria and
I can lose a contact. OrthoK gets around those problems. Ive been told
I wont feel a thing when sleeping and they wont dry when closed. When I
wake up, out go the orthoK lenses and I have clear, natural,
UNCORRECTED vision for one to three days. This is something people
should consider rather than lasik as orthoK is much safer and also
reversable :)
serebel
Ace wrote:
>
>
> Doesnt matter, I know about it from the internet and from people I
> know. Good enough for ya?
>
>
No retard, the internet and people you claim you know is not
education. Although, you and Keller seem to be on the same wavelength.
Ragnar
>
>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?
NO! That is not good enough. And you don't "know" these people.