In 2003, i underwent bilateral lasik using the visx customvue platform following the screening by and recommendation of a dr of eye center. I was informed that i was an excellent candidate for the procedure and inquiries as to whether pupil size and/or size of correction were potential adverse considerations in the determination of my candidacy, such concerns were very cursorily and flippantly dismissed and the customvue technology was purported to eliminate the adverse consequences experienced by some, prior lasik procedures - with advertisements showing pictures of rep visual outcomes with and without customvue technology. The result of the procedure was the immediate inducement of visual smearing - far worse than anything ever seen in even the poor outcome representations that customvue was to render obsolete - upon expansion of pupils in indoor, dim lighting and nighttime settings, a directional smearing and loss of contrast sensitivity due to the cumulative effects of such smearing. In inquiries immediately following the surgery, dr alleged that the visual smearing - very precisely and accurately described by me - could potentially be the result of brain / optic nerve issues that would necessitate visiting a neuroophthalmologist that could potentially be extremely serious - and, of course, of no relation to lasik. I visited a neuroophthalmologist who concluded the results to be caused by lasik and that i had extremely dry-eyes. Dr would later cite psychological problems and the need to seek therapy-. The cause of the induced problems were very clear and obvious to those with even a casual understanding of the subject - and even the tiniest degree of honesty, integrity or compassion for human beings-: the ablations were systematically decentered superiorally which, when coupled with inadequacy of optic zone for size of pupils (note: pupils were noted at "16. 0mm" with lights off by pre-qualifying examiner - dr of another place- despite being extremely large even to the casual observer - registering at 8. 0mm by physicians in subsequent visitations; as such, qualifying/referring practitioner likely set the pupil size equal to the size of the treatment zone so as to conclude one to be a good candidate, not because it is actually the size of my pupils and amount of tissue removed, accounted for all of the visual problems experienced. This is very clearly evidenced by all topographies; this was not the product a biomechanical instability of the flap manifesting itself as an undesirable healing pattern but by an incorrect alignment as achieved by the laser platform and the practicing physician, which is supported by artemis scans and the immediacy of symptomatic descriptions. The flagrant lies following the procedure caused tremendous mental/psychological distress - i am not a complete idiot, so i had a sense that i was being lied to by first dr and assorted referring physicians concerning the cause and prognoses of the devastating and life-altering results - due to the fact that i soon realized i could not obtain the truth concerning my current condition from anyone in the industry - i visited many throughout the country - due to their interests in protecting their colleagues and their profession. What i encountered during my efforts to work with the medical community - the willingness to do and perpetuate harm at any cost for - albeit tremendous - personal gain; greed manifested by a desire to perpetuate a practice at any cost and any level of dishonesty and obfuscation in the midst of those literally crying for help or at least acknowledgement of problems induced if help was not possible - beyond any description - was something i will never forget. I obtained confirmation of the truth of what was done to me only upon traveling overseas - to london, england - a tremendously painful and difficult trip given the dry-eye and visual disruptions - apparently severing the code of silence on my travel across the pond. Perhaps even more importantly, the lies perpetuated by the lasik community during my inquiries immediately following the surgery very likely caused a further life-long devastating condition: dry-eye. First dr prescribed alphagan p approx 10 days post-op - without the disclosure of its potentially devastating dry-eye effects if applied to recently ablated eyes during a crucial time/window when corneal nerve regeneration is of utmost importance - due to the devastating visual effects - and election not to disclose the reason for the directional smearing and consequent ineffectiveness and inadvisability of pupil-constricting medication as a post-op, long-term solution given the cause-; he then prescribed c-pilocarpine due to lack of efficacy. Dr holzman then prescribed - within approx 2 months of the surgery - corneal gas permeable lenses; the practitioner to whom he referred me had no experience fitting such lenses in post-lasik cases. The pain of lens wear was truly excruciating. All of these courses of actions prescribed likely retarded corneal nerve regeneration during the time period in which such regeneration is crucial, resulting in the -extreme, irreversible- symptomatic onset of dry-eye pain, which progressively worsened to a constant and debilitating state.
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
The cause of the induced problems were very clear and obvious to those with even a casual understanding of the subject
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfMAUDE/Detail.CFM?MDRFOI__ID=1037659
In 2003, i underwent bilateral lasik using the visx customvue platform following the screening by and recommendation of a dr of eye center. I was informed that i was an excellent candidate for the procedure and inquiries as to whether pupil size and/or size of correction were potential adverse considerations in the determination of my candidacy, such concerns were very cursorily and flippantly dismissed and the customvue technology was purported to eliminate the adverse consequences experienced by some, prior lasik procedures - with advertisements showing pictures of rep visual outcomes with and without customvue technology. The result of the procedure was the immediate inducement of visual smearing - far worse than anything ever seen in even the poor outcome representations that customvue was to render obsolete - upon expansion of pupils in indoor, dim lighting and nighttime settings, a directional smearing and loss of contrast sensitivity due to the cumulative effects of such smearing. In inquiries immediately following the surgery, dr alleged that the visual smearing - very precisely and accurately described by me - could potentially be the result of brain / optic nerve issues that would necessitate visiting a neuroophthalmologist that could potentially be extremely serious - and, of course, of no relation to lasik. I visited a neuroophthalmologist who concluded the results to be caused by lasik and that i had extremely dry-eyes. Dr would later cite psychological problems and the need to seek therapy-. The cause of the induced problems were very clear and obvious to those with even a casual understanding of the subject - and even the tiniest degree of honesty, integrity or compassion for human beings-: the ablations were systematically decentered superiorally which, when coupled with inadequacy of optic zone for size of pupils (note: pupils were noted at "16. 0mm" with lights off by pre-qualifying examiner - dr of another place- despite being extremely large even to the casual observer - registering at 8. 0mm by physicians in subsequent visitations; as such, qualifying/referring practitioner likely set the pupil size equal to the size of the treatment zone so as to conclude one to be a good candidate, not because it is actually the size of my pupils and amount of tissue removed, accounted for all of the visual problems experienced. This is very clearly evidenced by all topographies; this was not the product a biomechanical instability of the flap manifesting itself as an undesirable healing pattern but by an incorrect alignment as achieved by the laser platform and the practicing physician, which is supported by artemis scans and the immediacy of symptomatic descriptions. The flagrant lies following the procedure caused tremendous mental/psychological distress - i am not a complete idiot, so i had a sense that i was being lied to by first dr and assorted referring physicians concerning the cause and prognoses of the devastating and life-altering results - due to the fact that i soon realized i could not obtain the truth concerning my current condition from anyone in the industry - i visited many throughout the country - due to their interests in protecting their colleagues and their profession. What i encountered during my efforts to work with the medical community - the willingness to do and perpetuate harm at any cost for - albeit tremendous - personal gain; greed manifested by a desire to perpetuate a practice at any cost and any level of dishonesty and obfuscation in the midst of those literally crying for help or at least acknowledgement of problems induced if help was not possible - beyond any description - was something i will never forget. I obtained confirmation of the truth of what was done to me only upon traveling overseas - to london, england - a tremendously painful and difficult trip given the dry-eye and visual disruptions - apparently severing the code of silence on my travel across the pond. Perhaps even more importantly, the lies perpetuated by the lasik community during my inquiries immediately following the surgery very likely caused a further life-long devastating condition: dry-eye. First dr prescribed alphagan p approx 10 days post-op - without the disclosure of its potentially devastating dry-eye effects if applied to recently ablated eyes during a crucial time/window when corneal nerve regeneration is of utmost importance - due to the devastating visual effects - and election not to disclose the reason for the directional smearing and consequent ineffectiveness and inadvisability of pupil-constricting medication as a post-op, long-term solution given the cause-; he then prescribed c-pilocarpine due to lack of efficacy. Dr holzman then prescribed - within approx 2 months of the surgery - corneal gas permeable lenses; the practitioner to whom he referred me had no experience fitting such lenses in post-lasik cases. The pain of lens wear was truly excruciating. All of these courses of actions prescribed likely retarded corneal nerve regeneration during the time period in which such regeneration is crucial, resulting in the -extreme, irreversible- symptomatic onset of dry-eye pain, which progressively worsened to a constant and debilitating state.
In 2003, i underwent bilateral lasik using the visx customvue platform following the screening by and recommendation of a dr of eye center. I was informed that i was an excellent candidate for the procedure and inquiries as to whether pupil size and/or size of correction were potential adverse considerations in the determination of my candidacy, such concerns were very cursorily and flippantly dismissed and the customvue technology was purported to eliminate the adverse consequences experienced by some, prior lasik procedures - with advertisements showing pictures of rep visual outcomes with and without customvue technology. The result of the procedure was the immediate inducement of visual smearing - far worse than anything ever seen in even the poor outcome representations that customvue was to render obsolete - upon expansion of pupils in indoor, dim lighting and nighttime settings, a directional smearing and loss of contrast sensitivity due to the cumulative effects of such smearing. In inquiries immediately following the surgery, dr alleged that the visual smearing - very precisely and accurately described by me - could potentially be the result of brain / optic nerve issues that would necessitate visiting a neuroophthalmologist that could potentially be extremely serious - and, of course, of no relation to lasik. I visited a neuroophthalmologist who concluded the results to be caused by lasik and that i had extremely dry-eyes. Dr would later cite psychological problems and the need to seek therapy-. The cause of the induced problems were very clear and obvious to those with even a casual understanding of the subject - and even the tiniest degree of honesty, integrity or compassion for human beings-: the ablations were systematically decentered superiorally which, when coupled with inadequacy of optic zone for size of pupils (note: pupils were noted at "16. 0mm" with lights off by pre-qualifying examiner - dr of another place- despite being extremely large even to the casual observer - registering at 8. 0mm by physicians in subsequent visitations; as such, qualifying/referring practitioner likely set the pupil size equal to the size of the treatment zone so as to conclude one to be a good candidate, not because it is actually the size of my pupils and amount of tissue removed, accounted for all of the visual problems experienced. This is very clearly evidenced by all topographies; this was not the product a biomechanical instability of the flap manifesting itself as an undesirable healing pattern but by an incorrect alignment as achieved by the laser platform and the practicing physician, which is supported by artemis scans and the immediacy of symptomatic descriptions. The flagrant lies following the procedure caused tremendous mental/psychological distress - i am not a complete idiot, so i had a sense that i was being lied to by first dr and assorted referring physicians concerning the cause and prognoses of the devastating and life-altering results - due to the fact that i soon realized i could not obtain the truth concerning my current condition from anyone in the industry - i visited many throughout the country - due to their interests in protecting their colleagues and their profession. What i encountered during my efforts to work with the medical community - the willingness to do and perpetuate harm at any cost for - albeit tremendous - personal gain; greed manifested by a desire to perpetuate a practice at any cost and any level of dishonesty and obfuscation in the midst of those literally crying for help or at least acknowledgement of problems induced if help was not possible - beyond any description - was something i will never forget. I obtained confirmation of the truth of what was done to me only upon traveling overseas - to london, england - a tremendously painful and difficult trip given the dry-eye and visual disruptions - apparently severing the code of silence on my travel across the pond. Perhaps even more importantly, the lies perpetuated by the lasik community during my inquiries immediately following the surgery very likely caused a further life-long devastating condition: dry-eye. First dr prescribed alphagan p approx 10 days post-op - without the disclosure of its potentially devastating dry-eye effects if applied to recently ablated eyes during a crucial time/window when corneal nerve regeneration is of utmost importance - due to the devastating visual effects - and election not to disclose the reason for the directional smearing and consequent ineffectiveness and inadvisability of pupil-constricting medication as a post-op, long-term solution given the cause-; he then prescribed c-pilocarpine due to lack of efficacy. Dr holzman then prescribed - within approx 2 months of the surgery - corneal gas permeable lenses; the practitioner to whom he referred me had no experience fitting such lenses in post-lasik cases. The pain of lens wear was truly excruciating. All of these courses of actions prescribed likely retarded corneal nerve regeneration during the time period in which such regeneration is crucial, resulting in the -extreme, irreversible- symptomatic onset of dry-eye pain, which progressively worsened to a constant and debilitating state.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment