LASIK article in the NY Times

[Pati]

I just read this article today and thought many of you would enjoy reading it. It is titled:

Lasik Surgery: When the Fine Print Applies to You

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/13/fa...rssnyt&emc=rss

Enjoy!

[Rojzen]

great article; thank you

Thank you for this link, Pati! I posted on the NYT comment site for this piece instantly. . .The article was surprisingly frank, even naming the doc who performed the writer's bad-outcome LASIK. I was wishing there were some way to contact the writer directly, to ask her to join us here, in case she has not tried out some of our strategies. . I suppose she knows of us, though, as she referenced 5 des web sites, in her piece. . .

Anyway, this publication is good news all around. . .Awakenings are happening. . .

[dianat]

Go NYT!!!!!

[lilahp]

Lasik article - followup

I, too, would like to talk with the author. Quite a good story. Perhaps we could request a chat? I know the Washington Post does that sometimes with their articles.

I'd like to find out what lenses to moisten the eye the optometrist recommended. Sclerals, perhaps?

[bostonlover]

It seems a lot of the comments are quite unsympathetic as it was an elected procedure she chose to do..... This is the response that keeps me from venting to friends about my outcome.

[steadystrain]

what do you say?

Sitting in the hair salon, I overheard a 40 plus year old lady telling her friend how she is taking Restasis because she going to have lasik. Her doctor prescribed the medicine prior to surgery to get her eyes "prepared". She said she could no longer get comfortable in her contacts.

When she mentioned my Lasik doctor's name I almost fell out of my chair.... I fought the urge to "warn" her but now I wonder if I really should have said something. Wish The NY Times article was sitting right there on the coffee table !

Really...what do you say?

[dianat]

I feel it is my duty to say something. Most of the time, I opt for something short and mild, so as not to look like a radical. If these people truly care, they'll be interested and ask you for more.

[Raginator]

In the NYT article, Dr. Belmont is quoted “In 18 years of practice, I’ve never had a patient whose symptoms don’t go away. Most patients take three to six months to heal.”
I'd like to know: In Dr. Belmont's practice, what's the longest time period that a patient took to heal? What's the longest healing period that Dr. Belmont has observed?

[Rebecca Petris]

What went away, the symptom or the patient?

In the NYT article, Dr. Belmont is quoted “In 18 years of practice, I’ve never had a patient whose symptoms don’t go away. Most patients take three to six months to heal.”
I'd like to know: In Dr. Belmont's practice, what's the longest time period that a patient took to heal? What's the longest healing period that Dr. Belmont has observed?

What I'D like to know:

What is the percentage of follow-up on patients beyond the six month mark, and what symptoms were measured.

A 0% incidence of long-term dry eye post LASIK is simply not credible in the context of the medical literature, manufacturer statistics, or any other objective source of post LASIK dry eye statistical data. End of story.

[kurt]

A 0% incidence of long-term dry eye post LASIK is simply not credible in the context of the medical literature, manufacturer statistics, or any other objective source of post LASIK dry eye statistical data. End of story.

I agree. Dr. Grimmett, the corneal specialist in Palm Beach Gardens, FL, who is (or was) a consultant to the FDA, told me that the incidence of dry eye after LASIK is one in four. The doctor who posts on this website said it can take up to five years to know the extent of dry eye recover following LASIK. You have to really wonder about the truthfulness of someone who says he has not had a patient with permanent dry eye problems. Personally, I don't believe him at all.

[shells]

I think that part of the problem is that many of us with serious long term problems stop seeing our surgeons due to lack of acceptable care. I was also told by my surgeon that he never had a patient not get back to baseline as far as dry eye was concerned. He had done over 10,000 surgeries. I stopped seeing him at 8 months post-op and he has no idea that I never "got better", so he probably continues to tell patients he has a perfect track record. I'm sure there are others like me in his past, and if he treated them the same he treated me, I'm sure they were out the door before 1 year post-op as well.

Last summer one of the big lasik chains did a presentation at my work place and signed people up for free consultations. I was so disgusted and raised my concerns with the health unit (who was putting on the presentation). My concerns were pretty much ignored. I went to the presentation and someone asked the question "What is the worst case scenario?" The surgeon stood there in front of 200+ people and said that he had never had a patient that could not be corrected by further surgery.

It frustrates me because comments like "I've never had a patient with a longterm bad outcome" are the types of things that make prospective lasik candidates sign the informed consent and figure they are in great hands. Most lasik centers do not do an adequate job of explaining to patients what could go wrong, and how it can alter their life. I was handed my informed consent with the words, "Read this, but don't worry, this stuff never happens."

Steady Strain - I also feel the need to speak up when I hear someone talking about lasik. I usually keep it short and simple but at the same time try to stress words like "pain". If I just say I have severe dry eye, their usual response is, "well you can see OK, right?" People don't really understand severe dry eye. There are people that I have shared my story with that still went along with having the surgery. I don't think you can fully understand a bad outcome until you are living it. My general short speech ends with yes, complications are rare, but they DO happen more than your surgeon is probably telling you, they CAN happen to you even if you are told you are a good candidate, and they CAN be debilitating. If they are contact lens intolerant I usually take it a step further since I know they are at a higher risk for dry eye.

[NYer]

Since I'm not a LASIK survivor, I don't have a valid point to make about the subject matter here but I do recommend that you email the author of the article, Abby Ellin. I found her email address: abby@abbyellin.com
Why don't you invite her to DEZ?

[Raginator]

A 0% incidence of long-term dry eye post LASIK is simply not credible in the context of the medical literature, manufacturer statistics, or any other objective source of post LASIK dry eye statistical data. End of story.

I'm just saying, that if I was on the scene, I'd ask Dr. Belmont, what's the longest recovery period she's seen.

I'm playing Columbo, here.
And Columbo always catches the bad guys in a lie.

[Raginator]

I think that part of the problem is that many of us with serious long term problems stop seeing our surgeons due to lack of acceptable care.

I agree.

During my 6 month follow up, my surgeon insisted, "You have a good tear film and a good tear break up time" as he shushed me out the door. 9 months later, another doctor confirmed that, yes, my eyes were still a bit dry and the lipid layer was the culprit.

So, Mr. Surgeon, I have a good tear film, eh!?!?
Yeah, right!