TLC surgeon Eric Donnenfeld loses $2.5 million lawsuit
Brent Hanson
marketing lasik to non-candidates:
"Tell every patient that you perform LASIK. Tell patients who would
never be candidates themselves, including cataract patients and
patients with chronic or intractable eye disease. Every single patient
you see can be a referral source, and may be your best referral
source."
http://www.revophth.com/1999/july_articles/799%20lasik.htm
One nurse who had cataract surgery with Dr. Donnenfeld, is not likely
to provide a postive referral for Dr. Donnenfeld's lasik services:
_____________________________
From the New York Law Journal
_____________________________
VERDICT: $2.5 million
Frances Kavanagh v. Eric Donnenfield, MD., 30138/96
Nassau Supreme
JUSTICE: Thomas P. Phelan
ATTORNEYS: David M. SHearer of Shearer & Essner, L.L. P., Manhattan,
for plaintiff;
Angela Fabiano of the Law Offices of Mitchell J. Angel PLLC, Mineola,
for Dr. Eric Donnenfeld.
FACTS: On April 12, 1995, Frances Kavanagh, a 68-year-old retired
nurse, underwent a cataract extraction by Dr. Eric Donnenfeld at the
Mercy Medical Center in Rockville Centre. Ms. Kavanagh claimed that
during the administration of anesthesia the doctor injured her left
eye. She also claimed that the doctor failed to timely diagnose the
injury despite the presence of a vitreous hemorrhage post-operatively.
Ms. Kavanagh further claimed that Dr. Donnenfeld failed to properly
treat the post-operative bleeding, resulting in the formation of a
macular hole.
Dr. Donnenfeld contended that the post-operative bleeding and the
formation of the macular hole were caused by vitreous traction, which
was caused by a vitreous wick that resulted from the disruption to the
zonules during the cataract extraction. The doctor further claimed
that the vitreous traction caused a retinal tear, causing bleeding and
the macular hole.
Ms. Kavanagh claimed that she now suffers permanent "finder count"
vision in her left eye, and that she is virtually blind in that eye.
DISBURSEMENT: $2.5 million. Breakdown: $11.5 million for past pain
and suffering; $1 million for future pain and suffering.
Gary
What's the point? Are you trying to say that because this doctor "screwed
up" this particular cataract case he is unqualified to ever be a LASIK
surgeon? Perhaps but I don't believe that the proof is conclusive.
D Heath
news:29a4a131.02040...@posting.google.com...
> TLC surgeon Eric Donnenfeld, along with several other doctors suggests
> marketing lasik to non-candidates:
>
> "Tell every patient that you perform LASIK. Tell patients who would
> never be candidates themselves, including cataract patients and
> patients with chronic or intractable eye disease. Every single patient
> you see can be a referral source, and may be your best referral
> source."
Do you enjoy flaunting your ignorance? (rhetorical question; the answer
is already obvious)
It is clear that the surgeon is NOT suggesting marketing lasik to
non-candidates in order to have this surgery themselves. He is simply
pointing out that "every single patient ... can be a referral source", which
is to say that even those who are not deemed candidates MAY refer their
friends, based on the competent care given them, even if that care included
telling them they are not good candidates. There is nothing wrong with this
line of reasoning at all.
Whether you like this persons business practices or not, you only prove
your bias and ignorance when you twist the facts as you did in this post
(AND all the other times you have posted the same information.)
Go soak your head until it all comes clear in your mind.
--
Off to ride the mountains, Dale Heath
To reply, poke out my eye.
lifesabirch
Mr. Heath - Although, I agree with you concerning the interpretation
of this quote from the provided link, I don't see the reason to become
angered. Brent is allowed to have his opinion and see things his way.
You would be a tad biased too if you had your life ruined by this
company.
Brent cannot hurt people - he only has opinion. The surgeons who
follow those 20 things can. They actually cut and burn. I am not
saying don't question Brent's statement, but be civil and have a
little understanding. Present your case without personally attacking.
Just a suggestion.
Speaking of that list in the link- it makes me sick. I think that you
should be much more concerned with the link and those following it.
Just my opinion. You can have a different one.
D Heath
news:103a5b9.02040...@posting.google.com...
I'm sorry but I don't agree. Opinions tossed around can and DO hurt
people, in lots of ways. I don't even need to defend that statement. Brent
does what he does because he wants to push his own agenda, something
everyone has the right to do within proper limits. His trouble is he doesn't
practice integrity in his efforts; he twists and distorts things,
intentionally withholding some of the facts to make things appear different
than they are. (I would think you might be bothered by that scenario, huh?)
> The surgeons who
> follow those 20 things can. They actually cut and burn. I am not
> saying don't question Brent's statement, but be civil and have a
> little understanding. Present your case without personally attacking.
If you consider that a personal attack, so be it. Brent opened himself
to this when he twisted the facts (and has posted this same twist before; I
got fed up with it and answered it.) It only lessens any effectiveness he
might otherwise have. If he has worthwhile information that he can present
with integrity, that will help him achieve his objectives. That is why I
responded as I did.
I could also use your words and say, it's just my opinion anyway, and it
"cannot hurt anyone?" In fact, it can hurt, can it not? The knife cuts both
ways.
> Just a suggestion.
> Speaking of that list in the link- it makes me sick. I think that you
> should be much more concerned with the link and those following it.
> Just my opinion. You can have a different one.
As I do. I have read those 20 things, and don't find them surprising,
and don't disagree with most of them, though I might choose some different
wording on some, and don't agree entirely on a few of them. That's life.
Number09
> of this quote from the provided link, I don't see the reason to become
> angered. Brent is allowed to have his opinion and see things his way.
> You would be a tad biased too if you had your life ruined by this
> company.
> Brent cannot hurt people - he only has opinion. The surgeons who
> follow those 20 things can. They actually cut and burn. I am not
> saying don't question Brent's statement, but be civil and have a
> little understanding. Present your case without personally attacking.
> Just a suggestion.
> Speaking of that list in the link- it makes me sick. I think that you
> should be much more concerned with the link and those following it.
> Just my opinion. You can have a different one.
As I understand the history of this, there are at least two misstatements in
your response. First, Brent's initial surgery WAS NOT DONE by TLC or a TLC
physician. It was done by another physician, who was not picked up by TLC
when TLC acquired the practice he as associated with. Brent surgeon-shopped
until he found one willing to operate on his eyes, after being told NO by
several other surgeons. So exactly how was Brent's life destroyed by this
company? It seems to me that he was a more than willing participant in his
problem, and TLC was not.
Brent cannot hurt people? His continuing suply of misinformation about TLC
in specific and LASIK in general is intended to mislead people. You
continue this by implying that he was harmed by TLC. He has apparently
admitted it is his intent to blackmail TLC. He has become irrationally
fixated on TLC when they told him they could not help him with current
technology. Most who have come into even peripheral contact with Brent
believe he is several sandwiches short of a picnic - just my opinion.
Personally, I have had the surgery and I am pleased with the result. But
I'm ready to drop my admittedly small participation in the newsgroup because
it has been taken over by trolls whose agenda is not helping people decide
about lasik or understand the healing process involved. Glenn seems to be
the only current poster any more willing to help. Sorry Glenn, you are now
on your own. I wish you well.
lifesabirch
hurt
> people, in lots of ways. I don't even need to defend that statement. Brent
> does what he does because he wants to push his own agenda, something
> everyone has the right to do within proper limits. His trouble is he doesn't
> practice integrity in his efforts; he twists and distorts things,
> intentionally withholding some of the facts to make things appear different
> than they are. (I would think you might be bothered by that scenario, huh?)
I only am bothered when that scenario is done by people actually doing
surgery. Brent does not perform surgery, so he can twist as much as he
wants. His opinion is one person - and doesn't seem do be doing any
harm to these docs. They are still making $$$.
> > The surgeons who
> > follow those 20 things can. They actually cut and burn. I am not
> > saying don't question Brent's statement, but be civil and have a
> > little understanding. Present your case without personally attacking.
>
> If you consider that a personal attack, so be it. Brent opened himself
> to this when he twisted the facts (and has posted this same twist before; I
> got fed up with it and answered it.) It only lessens any effectiveness he
> might otherwise have. If he has worthwhile information that he can present
> with integrity, that will help him achieve his objectives. That is why I
> responded as I did.
> I could also use your words and say, it's just my opinion anyway, and it
> "cannot hurt anyone?" In fact, it can hurt, can it not? The knife cuts both
> ways.
Brent opened himself up to people to call him on it with a civil
rebuttal - which you just stated here, not to "flaunt your ignorance
or go soak your head". But that is my opinion. He could probably care
less. You're right, it is just your opinion. And in this case, doesn't
hurt anyone. I was just making a suggestion.
> > Just a suggestion.
> > Speaking of that list in the link- it makes me sick. I think that you
> > should be much more concerned with the link and those following it.
> > Just my opinion. You can have a different one.
>
> As I do. I have read those 20 things, and don't find them surprising,
> and don't disagree with most of them, though I might choose some different
> wording on some, and don't agree entirely on a few of them. That's life.
Yes, yes, I know you have a different opinion of that list since you
can see clearly. It's all in the perspective.
LASIKdisaster
LASIK? Okay, you caught us. We get paid $1000 for each patient we
scare away. Our LASIK un-co-management fee.
Hardly. Those of us who've been hurt just want the rest of the human
race to know how miserable a bad result can be, because it can be bad
enough to cause you to want to end your life. We aren't trying to
talk you into risking your vision so we can make a profit off of you.
Whether or not you have LASIK isn't going to change the amount of
money in our wallets.
D Heath
"LASIKdisaster" <lasikd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:b854ce72.02040...@posting.google.com...
Having more money in one's wallet is not the ONLY agenda that matters
(as you so often imply.) There are plenty of agendas carried out by people
every day that are not admirable. As to yours and others, we can only guess.
I surmise that yours is at least motivated by good intentions, as I believe
is true of some others you may THINK Number09 was referring to as trolls
(but how are you really sure exactly who he meant?)
On the other hand, Brent's motivation has never struck me in any way as
admirable or well intended, but of course that is my opinion. I cannot
really be sure WHY he posts such nonsense, but it is too bad he can't find a
better way to get what he wants. The method he has chosen so far sure does
look like a self-defeating practice. It won't win him any hearing with
anyone for very long. They will shortly tire of his obvious ploys and write
him off as not worth their time. I have not seen any of his posts that made
much sense or showed any thought.
D Heath
> hurt
> > people, in lots of ways. I don't even need to defend that statement.
Brent
> > does what he does because he wants to push his own agenda, something
> > everyone has the right to do within proper limits. His trouble is he
doesn't
> > practice integrity in his efforts; he twists and distorts things,
> > intentionally withholding some of the facts to make things appear
different
> > than they are. (I would think you might be bothered by that scenario,
huh?)
>
> I only am bothered when that scenario is done by people actually doing
> surgery. Brent does not perform surgery, so he can twist as much as he
> wants. His opinion is one person - and doesn't seem do be doing any
> harm to these docs. They are still making $$$.
Oh, I forgot, it must be okay as long as the doctors are still making
money. Of course, there are no OTHERS to consider on this newsgroup, right?
I mean, twisting the facts is COMPLETELY OKAY on one side of the fence, but
not on the other! It doesn't matter if people who might be GOOD candidates
for lasik, and who (even to _your_ standards) might have legitimate reasons
to have the surgery, in the end get frightened away by FALSE and TWISTED
statements about the surgery and those who perform it. This seems to be okay
in YOUR agenda, since it seems more and more that you really only want to
stop EVERYONE from having this surgery. Maybe I'm wrong, and I know you have
sometimes said otherwise, but it looks that way more and more when I see
what you consider to be acceptable. You defend one who you admit is TWISTING
the facts, but you consider TWISTING the facts by the lasik industry to be
wrong.
How disappointing that you think this way.
> > > The surgeons who
> > > follow those 20 things can. They actually cut and burn. I am not
> > > saying don't question Brent's statement, but be civil and have a
> > > little understanding. Present your case without personally attacking.
> > If you consider that a personal attack, so be it. Brent opened
himself
> > to this when he twisted the facts (and has posted this same twist
before; I
> > got fed up with it and answered it.) It only lessens any effectiveness
he
> > might otherwise have. If he has worthwhile information that he can
present
> > with integrity, that will help him achieve his objectives. That is why I
> > responded as I did.
> > I could also use your words and say, it's just my opinion anyway,
and it
> > "cannot hurt anyone?" In fact, it can hurt, can it not? The knife cuts
both
> > ways.
>
> Brent opened himself up to people to call him on it with a civil
> rebuttal - which you just stated here, not to "flaunt your ignorance
> or go soak your head". But that is my opinion. He could probably care
> less. You're right, it is just your opinion. And in this case, doesn't
> hurt anyone. I was just making a suggestion.
I'm sorry. I didn't realize that "go soak your head" was such an uncivil
thing to say. Is this a cultural thing or what? I thought it was a rather
tame way of saying, "give us a break." (Methinks you doth protest too much.
It was a light jab, IMO.)
> > > Just a suggestion.
> > > Speaking of that list in the link- it makes me sick. I think that you
> > > should be much more concerned with the link and those following it.
> > > Just my opinion. You can have a different one.
> >
> > As I do. I have read those 20 things, and don't find them
surprising,
> > and don't disagree with most of them, though I might choose some
different
> > wording on some, and don't agree entirely on a few of them. That's life.
>
> Yes, yes, I know you have a different opinion of that list since you
> can see clearly. It's all in the perspective.
Sure it is. And as I have said, I am sorry you cannot see clearly
through those eyes.
lifesabirch
> your response. First, Brent's initial surgery WAS NOT DONE by TLC or a TLC
> physician. It was done by another physician, who was not picked up by TLC
> when TLC acquired the practice he as associated with. Brent surgeon-shopped
> until he found one willing to operate on his eyes, after being told NO by
> several other surgeons. So exactly how was Brent's life destroyed by this
> company? It seems to me that he was a more than willing participant in his
> problem, and TLC was not.
>
Sorry, I guess I was under the wrong impression then.
> Brent cannot hurt people? His continuing suply of misinformation about TLC
> in specific and LASIK in general is intended to mislead people.
How are people being hurt by not having Lasik - even if they are
mislead? Having to wear glasses or contacts? Heaven forbid. (Mr. Heath
- don't jump in - I know your opinion and argument to this.)
You
> continue this by implying that he was harmed by TLC. He has apparently
> admitted it is his intent to blackmail TLC. He has become irrationally
> fixated on TLC when they told him they could not help him with current
> technology. Most who have come into even peripheral contact with Brent
> believe he is several sandwiches short of a picnic - just my opinion.
lol - you said it, I didn't.
>
> Personally, I have had the surgery and I am pleased with the result. But
> I'm ready to drop my admittedly small participation in the newsgroup because
> it has been taken over by trolls whose agenda is not helping people decide
> about lasik or understand the healing process involved. Glenn seems to be
> the only current poster any more willing to help. Sorry Glenn, you are now
> on your own. I wish you well.
lol - Glenn is the only poster willing to help? good one. I've seen
many casualties being rational and reasonable, telling of all the
risks (Glenn doesn't do this) - this is NOT trolling - we have nothing
to gain. I've also seen many casualties try to help calm people with
their healing process (Glenn does this), providing support and vital
information to their specific case.
I wish you well, as well...
Robert Redelmeier
: What is the agenda of the trolls? To profit by talking you out of
Noble sentiments. But the shrill tone of some anti-LASIK posters
makes me think revenge is sometimes a motive.
Some people are dissatisfied with the results of their surgeries.
Some may wish ill upon their surgeons or the industry. One direct
outlet is by dissuading patients.
People are quite willing to suffer [lose money] just to punish
someone they perceive as unfair. See "The Economics of Fair
Play", Sigmund, Fehr & Nowak, Jan2002 p83ff. Not on WWW.
How would you suggest separating those antiLASIK posters with
noble sentiments of informing patients of risks from those
with ignoble motives of revenge? I only have shrill tone.
-- Robert
D Heath
misstatements in
> > your response. First, Brent's initial surgery WAS NOT DONE by TLC or a
TLC
> > physician. It was done by another physician, who was not picked up by
TLC
> > when TLC acquired the practice he as associated with. Brent
surgeon-shopped
> > until he found one willing to operate on his eyes, after being told NO
by
> > several other surgeons. So exactly how was Brent's life destroyed by
this
> > company? It seems to me that he was a more than willing participant in
his
> > problem, and TLC was not.
> >
>
> Sorry, I guess I was under the wrong impression then.
>
> > Brent cannot hurt people? His continuing suply of misinformation about
TLC
> > in specific and LASIK in general is intended to mislead people.
>
> How are people being hurt by not having Lasik - even if they are
> mislead? Having to wear glasses or contacts? Heaven forbid. (Mr. Heath
> - don't jump in - I know your opinion and argument to this.)
Sorry, but you FORCED me! So you're implying you don't ever jump in
again when WE already know YOUR opinion on something? Hmmmmmmmm.
You are so convinced that not having lasik "only means less convenience"
for a person, therefore they have really not lost anything. This is simply
not the case at all.
Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
wrote:
>
>Personally, I have had the surgery and I am pleased with the result. But
>I'm ready to drop my admittedly small participation in the newsgroup because
>it has been taken over by trolls whose agenda is not helping people decide
>about lasik or understand the healing process involved. Glenn seems to be
>the only current poster any more willing to help. Sorry Glenn, you are now
>on your own. I wish you well.
>
Sorry to disagree with a compliment (and thank you BTW), but everyone
here helps inform people in their own way.
People like Brent make us a bit cynical. Cynicism is good, as long as
it does not get in the way of making one's own decision.
Those who jump on every opportunity to tell of their personal horror
show how bad things can seem for some people. This is a good warning
for those who cannot tolerate anything less than perfection.
Telling every poster of every possible problem that can occur when
long-term problem outcomes are around 3% does not make sense either,
but anyone considering refractive surgery should consider the downside
no matter how remote it may seem.
Everyone will make his or her own decision influenced by the
information here, elsewhere, and/or by ignorance. I prefer more
information and less ignorance.
If you are seeking balance, you won't find it here or anywhere else
for that matter. Ultimately, balance must be found by the individual
considering refractive surgery and every person will have his or her
own scale of acceptance or rejection.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
http://www.usaeyes.org
glenn....@usaeyes.org
I am not a doctor.
lifesabirch
lol - ok, you can jump in if you'd like. sorry. I just would not like
to get into another conversation with you personally because we think
differently and have been down that road already.
Brent Hanson
> > As I understand the history of this, there are at least two misstatements in
> > your response. First, Brent's initial surgery WAS NOT DONE by TLC or a TLC
> > physician. It was done by another physician, who was not picked up by TLC
> > when TLC acquired the practice he as associated with. Brent surgeon-shopped
> > until he found one willing to operate on his eyes, after being told NO by
> > several other surgeons. So exactly how was Brent's life destroyed by this
> > company? It seems to me that he was a more than willing participant in his
> > problem, and TLC was not.
> >
>
> Sorry, I guess I was under the wrong impression then.
>
TLC likes to publish put out propaganda stating that I was not a TLC
patient.
Surgeon shopping? To the contrary, TLC purchased the assets and legal
liabilities of Beacon. This is well documented in SEC filings. TLC
executive Elias Vamvakas admitted this when he sent me the following
letter:
----------------------------------------------
Dear Beacon Patient:
It is a pleasure to welcome you to TLC The Laser Center's Alumni
Program - TLC has acquired Beacon Eye so all Beacon Eye Centers are
now TLC centers. Since you are a former Beacon patient, we want to
share with you the benefits you now have as a Beacon/TLC alumnus.
The Beacon Lifetime Vision Improvement Program is replaced with the
TLC Lifetime Commitment Program. All former Beacon patients who were
eligible for Beacon's program are automatically eligible for the TLC
Lifetime Commitment Program.
The TLC Lifetime Commitment Program is your assurance that in the
event a retreatment for nearsightedness is needed at any time in your
life, you will receive the surgery itself at no charge provided you
maintain your eligibility for the program. Although retreatments are
infrequent after the first 24-month postoperative period, should you
become more nearsighted over time and your TLC eye doctor determines a
retreatment is likely to improve your vision, the surgery itself will
be provided at no charge to you.
Annual Eye Exams Are Important
Regardless of how long ago you had laser vision correction, having an
annual eye examination is an essential part of maintaining the health
of your eyes. To maintain your eligibility for the TLC Lifetime
Commitment Program, you must have an annual eye exam with a TLC
affiliate doctor and document that visit. Charges for annual eye exams
are determined by the individual doctor.
Please read carefully the enclosed Membership Record booklet. It
describes the program guidelines, eligibility, and limitations, and is
used to document your annual visits. If you have had your annual eye
exam this year, you may fill in the Membership Record 1998
verification page yourself.
There are over 6,500 TLC affiliate eye doctors in North America,
including many former Beacon doctors. You may call your local
TLC/Beacon center to verify that your current eye doctor is a TLC
affiliate, or to obtain the name and phone number of a TLC doctor near
you. We have enclosed a Directory of TLC centers for your convenience.
Although we expect most former Beacon eye doctors to become TLC
affiliate doctors, if your eye doctor is not yet a TLC affiliate, you
may want to suggest that he or she call the nearest TLC laser center
for details on becoming one.
TLC's dramatic growth over the past two years is primarily the result
of referrals to us from happy patients like you. Hundreds of thousands
of people will be having laser vision correction this year and we want
you to know that the fine care you received at Beacon is now available
at TLC centers across the country. Please share your enthusiasm for
laser vision correction with your friends and family, and we hope you
ask them to call TLC. We are also now offering laser treatment for
hyperopia (farsightedness).
As the newest part of TLC, the former Beacon centers join the largest
provider of laser vision correction services in the world. In fact, in
the five years since TLC was founded, the company has grown to 45
laser centers in North America. As a publicly traded company, TLC is
listed on both the NASDAQ (LZRCF) and Toronto (LZR) stock exchanges.
We encourage you to visit the TLC website at: www.lzr.com. As one of
the most detailed websites on laser vision correction, it will keep
you up to date on developments in laser procedures and TLC.
If you have any questions about the Lifetime Commitment program, or
any aspect of laser vision correction, please contact your local
TLC/Beacon center. Or, call 1-888-CALL-TLC. Again, welcome to TLC.
Sincerely,
Elias Vamvakas
President and CEO
TLC The Laser Center
Bill in Colorado
for all those interested. The rest of us can stay here.
Brent Hanson
> On Mon, 08 Apr 2002 16:45:22 GMT, "Number09" <numb...@swbell.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Telling every poster of every possible problem that can occur when
> long-term problem outcomes are around 3% does not make sense either,
> but anyone considering refractive surgery should consider the downside
> no matter how remote it may seem.
The true rate of complications is not 3%, and Glenn Hagele knows it.
FDA documents filed by laser manufacturers show that up to 1/3 of
patients will experience impaired night vision. Independent studies
show that up to 1/2 of patients will experience impaired night vision.
Here is an example of one study:
-------------------------
Most Patients seem Happy after LASIK But They Still May be Having
Vision
problems, German Study Suggests
By John F. Henahan
REGENSBURG-""Although most patients who undergo myopic LASIK appear to
be
quite happy with the vision they achieve after surgery, they may, in
fact,
have measurable and sometimes significant problems with glare, halos
and
contrast sensitivity, according to Chris Lohmann, MD, University Eye
Clinic, Regensburg, Germany.
In a study which included 50 patients who underwent LASIK to correct
myopia ranging from -6 to -12 D, all were quite happy with the outcome
six
months later and they all had post-operative refractions within 1 D of
emmetropia. In addition, while a few noted that they did experience
glare
and halos, they ill remained quite pleased with their visual outcome.
However, when they were examined with a variety of objective measuring
instruments, their vision was not really as good as they thought, Dr.
Lohmann told a symposium on LASIK Complications at the autumn ESCRS
Congress in Brussels.
He and his associates found that 7.3% of the eyes had lost one line of
best-corrected visual acuity. That compares with a one line BCVA
reduction
seen in various studies of 4.5% to 24.9% and was not statistically
significant. However, 2.3% lost 2 lines, which when compared with a
2-line
loss ranging from 0.9 to 6.2% did reach statistical significance, he
said.
Low Contrast and Glare Problems
When the Regensburg investigators used objective measurements to
determine
contrast sensitivity, they found that 24% had worse vision after
surgery
than they did before. That level of contrast sensitivity corresponds
to
dim-light conditions on a late autumn afternoon, and the difference
was
statistically significant. In addition, at 5% contrast, which
simulates to
night-time vision, 54% had problems, Dr. Lohmann pointed out.
"To measure glare problems, the patients were examined with the stray
light test by Lohmann and Fitzke, which measures glare caused by the
light
scattering effects of debris at the epithelial interface and
irregularities of the corneal surface, almost all of the 50 patients
were
found to have some degree of glare. However, 53.8% had significant
problems with this test, which could be considered serious enough
reduced
their vision to the extent that it would interfere with their ability
to
drive a car," he said, continuing:
"In another computerised test designed to measure halos objectively,
60%
were found to have some level of halos, although only 32% of the
patients
had subjective complaints of halos. For example, one patient who
underwent
LASIK for myopia of -7 D, was absolutely happy with his visual
outcome,
even though the test showed that huge halos were in fact occurring.
"Therefore, even when our BCVA Snellen measurements tell us that the
patient is seeing quite well, these objective measurements tell us
that
they may be having problems especially at night. What this suggests is
that even though patients don't come back very often after they
undergo
LASIK and are apparently happy, they may be having problems.
"But if they do come back and you question them carefully, you may
find
that they are no longer driving cars any more or their vision is
somewhat
disturbed in the evenings. For that reason, I think it would be useful
to
alert the patients that these kinds of phenomena can occur and that
they
should be aware of them."
10/4/2001 http://www.escrs.ie/eurotimes/May2001/mostpatients.asp
Brent Hanson
> Maybe we need to start a new newsgroup called sci.med.visionmessedup.TLC
> for all those interested. The rest of us can stay here.
I don't think the Usenet newsgroup servers have sufficient data
storage capacity and bandwidth to satisfy the demand for such a
newsgroup.