I am new to this board and 10 days post op.

I searched your posts for information on these type of drops. Glenn touched on them in a rescent post but only breifly. Does anyone have more infomation on these type of drops? I am considering using them in the future. Will I be making a mistake?

Al

Those drops will be fine. My Doc recommended either Refresh tears or Genteal.
Heather

The theory is that the preservative neutralizes upon contact with the eye. Of course, this process takes a little time and everyone will react a bit differently. The very best is to use preservative-free eye drops that come in small single-use vials. They are rather expensive, but when you have spent thousands of dollars for surgery, why quibble about tens of dollars on something that can make a big difference in comfort and healing?

Glenn Hagele
http://www.USAEyes.org

I am not a doctor.

Why would anyone NOT use a most advanced custom wavefront;
Why risk inferior eye correction?
According to September 2005 Sky & Telescope magazine, a vertical cut is "superior" to a horizontal cut? Why don't doctors talk more about these risks? A doctor pointed out to me the article stated "may" cause problems, as if that "may" word was some ground to discredit the entire claim? What is the truth? What do studies show? That doctor claims allegretto is the most advanced and best, is that true? He also said a single one time eye drop test will show dryness damage and a history of dryness damage? Is that true?
Again, why would anyone risk these older procedures that do not map and test every known factor? It just shows me how weak the judicial system is to be such a mild threat to opportunists: who appear to me to be getting "their"/its claws into victims for a lifetime of problems and alleged (leading to more alleged cures) cures and expenses, deliberately.

There are many legitimate reasons to not use wavefront-guided ablation. Here are a few:

All aberrometers that create treatment patterns require the ability to see through the cornea, crystalline lens, and fluids inside the eye. If there are any opacities or similar irregularities, a complete wavefront may not be able to be attained.

The manifest refraction (which is better, one or two?) provides the best subjective evaluation of a person’s vision. Wavefront provides an objective evaluation of a person’s refractive error. Sometimes these two do not match. In this situation, it is the subjective (patient’s opinion) evaluation that is more important and the treatment plan needs to be based upon the patient’s evaluation, not the wavefront data.

Wavefront-guided ablations require the removal of more tissue than conventional ablations. For patients with corneas on the thin side, wavefront may not be appropriate.

Wavefront-guided ablations are limited in the size of the treatment zone. If the patient has high refractive error and large pupils, a larger – albeit conventional – ablation may be better for the patient.

Wavefront-guided ablations cost more. They cost more for the doctor to provide and that cost is normally passed along to the patient in the form of a higher fee. Sometimes patients are not willing to pay the extra amount.

Although wavefront-guided ablations tend to provide better outcomes, conventional ablations do a very good job too. For some people a wavefront-guided ablation may be like smashing an ant with a sledge hammer.

Your other comments about what is "superior" or not simply point out that every doctor has his or her own preferred methods. So long as that doctor is able to provide good results, then the tools and techniques are much less important. Let's face it, if a doctor could consistently and reliably get good results with a 24-volt battery and a butter knife, should you be upset? Which is more important, the technology and techniques, or the outcome?

Glenn Hagele
http://www.USAEyes.org

I am not a doctor.