> kpatter9[at]hotmail.com (lasik advocate with flap melt) wrote in message news:<b0866067.0308251732.72bd2690[at]posting.google.com> ...
> > Here's some much more recent studies.
> > > Why don't you criticise the methodology of these studies if you don't
> > like the truth instead of posting no useful information here? Is 2002
> > and 2003 recent enough? You need to talk to someone who had it
> > yesterday? Sheesh.
> > > This small ablation zone keeps coming up. Think looking at the wrong
> > light during LASIK might mean the size of the zone that gets ablated
> > could be smaller than if done correctly?
> It sounds like the flap itself is as big of an issue as the ablation
> zone. It sounds like this > 6 mm includes whatever blending zone there
> was in addition to the optical zone, although it doesn't sound like
> they used a blending zone at all. If I am not mistaken, <6 mm AZs
> aren't used anymore, are they? How much of a difference does a larger
> BZ make if the OZ is still 6 mm?
> Also, the study excluded anyone with > 0.25 D astigmatism, doesn't a
> higher astigmatism diopter, make the zone more oval? How narrow can
> the oval be?
> So if > 6 mm AZs are always used, then the flap itself remains the big
> issue. Are there any of these studies around with an InraLASIK
> procedure vs. LASIK? They mention that the larger microkeratome
> reduced the risk, but I wonder how the intralase flap compares.
> I imagine that looking at the wrong light could cause problems. It
> depends on how close the lights are to each other and how far away the
> eye is from the lights. If the angle is off by too much, then I would
> guess there would be a problem. Of course, how much is too much? Did
> you look at the wrong light?
> > Guess what irregular astigmatism can cause? Dipliopia.
> > > "The most common major complication of LASIK is corneal irregular
> > astigmatism. "
> > http://www.crstoday.com/03_archive/1...1_1001_12.html
> > > "Surgically induced astigmatism was more likely". . . "and in ablation
> > zones less than 6mm".
> > http://jrs.slackinc.com/vol183/sha.pdf

> Here's some much more recent studies.
> Why don't you criticise the methodology of these studies if you don't
> like the truth instead of posting no useful information here? Is 2002
> and 2003 recent enough? You need to talk to someone who had it
> yesterday? Sheesh.
> This small ablation zone keeps coming up. Think looking at the wrong
> light during LASIK might mean the size of the zone that gets ablated
> could be smaller than if done correctly?

> Guess what irregular astigmatism can cause? Dipliopia.
> "The most common major complication of LASIK is corneal irregular
> astigmatism. "
> http://www.crstoday.com/03_archive/1...1_1001_12.html
> "Surgically induced astigmatism was more likely". . . "and in ablation
> zones less than 6mm".
> http://jrs.slackinc.com/vol183/sha.pdf