rascal@verdix.UUCP (10/07/83)
Advertisment from the (Portland) Oregonian:
THE SURGERY PEOPLE CAN'T WAIT TO HAVE
Doctors call it "radial keratotomy" and it corrects nearsightedness. Those in
Portland who have had it call it one of the best things that has ever happened
to them in their lives. Radial keratotomy is a safe and painless procedure for active people. After having it, some no longer need glasses or contacts. Others
use them less. For the first time in their lives, they can drive, ski, play
tennis, watch movies and work without glasses or contacts.
----------
What's the story here? Is it worth looking into?
Steve Scalpone
Verdix Corporation, Western Operations
{allegra,tektronix}!ogcvax!verdix!rascalchris@umcp-cs.UUCP (10/09/83)
Well, like all new techniques, it needs time to prove itself. I've read
that some opthamologists are worried that it may weaken the cornea. (What
a horrible idea.)
--
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci
UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!chris
CSNet: chris@umcp-cs ARPA: chris.umcp-cs@UDel-Relaysmb@ulysses.UUCP (10/09/83)
The operation is somewhat controversial; I wasn't aware that it was available yet in this country. (I believe it was pioneered in the USSR.) As I understand it, it does work, though it isn't as safe as that ad would indicate; infection has been a problem. My understanding is that the prevailing opinion in this country is that for most people, the risks just aren't worth the potential gain; glasses and (especially) contact lenses work well enough, at much lower risk and cost. (Most of this information comes from an article in "Science News"; the last issues in June and December of each year contain indices, which should make it easy to track down the article. I suspect I saw it about three years ago, but I could easily be wrong about that.)
majka@ubc-visi (10/10/83)
From: Marc Majka <majka@ubc-vision.UUCP> I am NO EXPERT in opthalmology, but I recently heard a discussion about Radial Keratotomy at a Opthalmological convention. The main points I remember are: 1. It is a surgical procedure which involves extensive changes to the eye. It should therefore, like any surgury, should not be undertaken without careful consideration. 2. It does not seem to be permanent. The lens slowly recovers its old shape. 3. It does not ALWAYS work perfectly. (pay your money and take your chances) 4. It is expensive, and there are some "slashers" in the business. The best information and advice you can get is from a DOCTOR!
gek@ihuxa.UUCP (Glenn Kapetansky) (10/11/83)
this is concerning the operation, radial keratotomy, which was advertised in a portland paper as a treatment for nearsightedness. BEWARE! it was originally developed in russia, and touted as a cure for myopia (near- sightedness). it involves making radial incisions in the cornea, and as they heal the scar tissue pulls the cornea into a new shape which acts like a corrective lense. one problem is that the correction was (and to the best of my knowledge, still is) variable; someone with 20-800 vision may end up with 20-40, yet someone with 20-200 may only improve to 20-100. still worth it, you say?? another problem is that the scar tissue in the cornea is not completely clear. when light strikes the scar tissue it is refracted in a flash across the entire cornea (unnerving to downright dangerous if you're driving at night and an oncoming car's headlights blind you completely). well, perhaps it is still worth it just to be able to SEE (i know; i'm 20-800 myself). but here's the clincher: dr. fred kapetansky reported to me that at least some of the earliest operations are now reverting back to the original corneal shape (we're talking on the order of 7-10 years)! so these poor trusting suckers now have their old (poor) eyesight back PLUS their scarred corneas. still want to try it? -glenn kapetansky (ihnp4!gek)
twh@mb2c.UUCP (Tim Hitchcock) (10/12/83)
Michigan State University is now doing a study to determine the usefulness/safety of Radial Keratonomy. They selected 60 volunteers to undergo the surgery. I applied but was not accepted because my vision is greater than -8.0 diopters. However I have a friend who was. The deal was that the surgery was done for FREE, one eye per year. He has elected NOT to have the second eye done. He was a -3.0 diopters before and now has 20/20 vision in that eye. BUT, he has extreme difficulty seeing at night due to interference from headlights, street lights. The scar tissue from the cuts around the cornea causes glare. I am glade I did not get it done, my friend doesn't regret having the one eye done. The tool being used now is a special knife. I would wait until a more high tech tool for cutting the cornea is developed (laser, electron beam ?). There also is no way to tell what your vision will be after the surgery. The faster you heal the less gain you will get. Timothy Hitchcock Michigan Bell (313) 424-1027 sb1!mb2c!twh
antics@druak.UUCP (GeigerL) (10/18/85)
<bugs> "After about a year of follow-up [of radial keratotomy or pinwheel surgery for near-sightedness], results of this operation gave grounds for guarded optimism, with about 80% of patients achieving nearly normal vision without glasses. But as we stressed then, what really counts is the long-term benefit of such surgery. Last June, the results of a 4-year follow-up appeared in the Archives of Ophthalmology, and they shift our position toward guarded pessimism. Between 1 and 4 years after the operation, only 6% of the treated eyes retained the correction achieved by the operation. About 20% had shifted back toward nearsightedness, and over 70% had tended to become more farsighted. The drift away from normal vision was regarded as significant (enough to require correction with lenses) in about one-third of the patients. Surgical techniques have changed since this group of operations was performed. Carbon-steel blades have been replaced by diamond blades, and other aspects of diagnosis and treatment have presumably been improved. Even so, the basic message of the current study is an important one: good results after one year won't necessarily last a lifetime. Until we have hard facts about the long-term results of these newer techniques, there is no reason to assume that they will automatically be better." Reprinted without special permission form "The Harvard Medical School Health Letter", October 1985.
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (10/22/85)
Heard on Radio Moscow World Service shortwave this weekend: the Soviets have a new computer-controlled cutting device they use for RK surgery, which makes the cuts much more precisely and uniformly. (Don't know if such devices are in use here or not, so this may be an advance over Western techniques or maybe not... The Soviets did originate RK surgery, right?)