Did any of you know about orthokeratology prior to getting lasik?

Orthokeratology as some of you dont know is based on contact lenses.
However the special thing is you insert them in just before going to
sleep then remove them when you wake. You then experience clear vision
anywhere from 8 hours to a whole week, lower corrections last longer
before regressing. Just insert the orthoK retainer lenses on another
night to keep your vision clear. Low prescriptions only have to do that
as little as once a week! I know someone who was -1.5 that only needed
to sleep with orthoK retainer lenses every third night, the effects
lasted 3 days! OrthoK has minimal hassle and takes as little time as
brushing teeth. Cant tolerate contacts during the day?

No problem, the beauty of orthoK is to bypass the discomfort of daily
wear contacts drying and irritating your eyes. I know a few people who
couldnt tolerate daily contacts but had *no* problems with orthoK!
OrthoK costs a third of lasik, has less than a tenth the risks and is
reversable! The only thing better about lasik is you could be free of
all correction other than reading glasses if presbyopic. Convinent when
you travel alot and dont have to bring your orthoK and cleaning kit and
backup glasses.

I understand orthoK is not for everyone, but for most, it is an
appealing alternative thats cheaper and much safer and reversable. For
those of you with less than -3 myopia and less than -1 astigmatism, you
are likley to end up 20/20 and if not, at least 20/40 resulting in an
elimination or at least a very, very great reduction in dependency of
glasses. For those of you at -4, the chances of 20/20 is lower, but
still very good chance of 20/40. If you must have 20/20 vision, frankly
you wont be a good candidate for orthoK nor lasik as you must have
relistic expectations.

The beauty of orthoK is that its reversable if you arent satisfied for
any reason. You could get orthoK for the time being and wait for lasik
technology to improve or other alternatives to be invented. OrthoK is
also great for those in their 30s because they can discountine orthoK
or get a reduction in correction when they approach 40 and presbyopia
rears its ugly head. I know a lady who was a high myope who chose
orthoK because it would not correct her fully, nor did she want a full
correction. She reduced her dependency on distance glasses *and* still
stayed out of reading glasses! Lasik has the risk of overcorrection,
resulting in bifocals and seeing blurry at *all* distances, much more
so from near.

Many people are afraid or squirmish of lasik for one reason or another.
Some people say the risks of lasik is very low, well orthoK is far
safer. Also the squirmish dread the idea of a surgeon playing around
with their eyes. I have thought about lasik but dont like its risks and
permanence if something goes awry. With orthoK as a better and safer
alternative, it is silly not to make that your first choice(for some,
lasik isnt even an option anyway) I am getting soft contact lens orthoK
a few weeks after my atropine on Friday. I will let everyone know how
well orthoK works for me. If it doesnt work out, no problem its
reversable and im back to glasses.

Dear AceMan,

Subject: Atropine versus Ortho-K -- for you.

Since you are about -4 diopters, why not try Ortho-K, before
"atropine".

It may cost about $1,600, but it might enable you to meet
your vision-clearing goal.

I truly hate having my eyes "frozen" with a drug. Better to
go for Ortho-K right now, or at least get an assessment
from the people who supply Ortho-K, about your
prospects.

Why not?

Best,

Otis


(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> Orthokeratology as some of you dont know is based on contact lenses.
> However the special thing is you insert them in just before going to
> sleep then remove them when you wake. You then experience clear vision
> anywhere from 8 hours to a whole week, lower corrections last longer
> before regressing. Just insert the orthoK retainer lenses on another
> night to keep your vision clear. Low prescriptions only have to do that
> as little as once a week! I know someone who was -1.5 that only needed
> to sleep with orthoK retainer lenses every third night, the effects
> lasted 3 days! OrthoK has minimal hassle and takes as little time as
> brushing teeth. Cant tolerate contacts during the day?
>
> No problem, the beauty of orthoK is to bypass the discomfort of daily
> wear contacts drying and irritating your eyes. I know a few people who
> couldnt tolerate daily contacts but had *no* problems with orthoK!
> OrthoK costs a third of lasik, has less than a tenth the risks and is
> reversable! The only thing better about lasik is you could be free of
> all correction other than reading glasses if presbyopic. Convinent when
> you travel alot and dont have to bring your orthoK and cleaning kit and
> backup glasses.
>
> I understand orthoK is not for everyone, but for most, it is an
> appealing alternative thats cheaper and much safer and reversable. For
> those of you with less than -3 myopia and less than -1 astigmatism, you
> are likley to end up 20/20 and if not, at least 20/40 resulting in an
> elimination or at least a very, very great reduction in dependency of
> glasses. For those of you at -4, the chances of 20/20 is lower, but
> still very good chance of 20/40. If you must have 20/20 vision, frankly
> you wont be a good candidate for orthoK nor lasik as you must have
> relistic expectations.
>
> The beauty of orthoK is that its reversable if you arent satisfied for
> any reason. You could get orthoK for the time being and wait for lasik
> technology to improve or other alternatives to be invented. OrthoK is
> also great for those in their 30s because they can discountine orthoK
> or get a reduction in correction when they approach 40 and presbyopia
> rears its ugly head. I know a lady who was a high myope who chose
> orthoK because it would not correct her fully, nor did she want a full
> correction. She reduced her dependency on distance glasses *and* still
> stayed out of reading glasses! Lasik has the risk of overcorrection,
> resulting in bifocals and seeing blurry at *all* distances, much more
> so from near.
>
> Many people are afraid or squirmish of lasik for one reason or another.
> Some people say the risks of lasik is very low, well orthoK is far
> safer. Also the squirmish dread the idea of a surgeon playing around
> with their eyes. I have thought about lasik but dont like its risks and
> permanence if something goes awry. With orthoK as a better and safer
> alternative, it is silly not to make that your first choice(for some,
> lasik isnt even an option anyway) I am getting soft contact lens orthoK
> a few weeks after my atropine on Friday. I will let everyone know how
> well orthoK works for me. If it doesnt work out, no problem its
> reversable and im back to glasses.

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> Dear AceMan,
>
> Subject: Atropine versus Ortho-K -- for you.
>
> Since you are about -4 diopters, why not try Ortho-K, before
> "atropine".
>
> It may cost about $1,600, but it might enable you to meet
> your vision-clearing goal.
>
> I truly hate having my eyes "frozen" with a drug. Better to
> go for Ortho-K right now, or at least get an assessment
> from the people who supply Ortho-K, about your
> prospects.
>
> Why not?
>
> Best,
>
> Otis


I may not need orthoK in the first place if my cycloplegic refraction
is near plano. This would mean my myopia is not real and just
accomodative stress due to the wretched minus lens. I will then begin
plus lens to clear my vision. Likley, my cycloplegic is going to be
around -3 like the optometrists here think. OrthoK then will get me
down to -1.5 where I will see good enough not to need glasses 90% of
the time

Mike Tyner wrote:
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
>
> > I truly hate having my eyes "frozen" with a drug.
>
> How much accommodation do you have?
>
> -MT


With one eye at a time and wearing my manifest refraction glasses,
things start to blur at about a foot and a half. Binoculary, it
increases my field of depth and 18 inches is comfortable, I can zoom
down to 8-10 inches but cant keep it there for long, too much strain as
I max out my accomodation. Either I have presbyopia or my cycloplegic
refraction is alot less than my -5 manifest in the worse eye. I have
very little problem seeing clear from near with my -3.25 computer
glasses.

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

> Since you are about -4 diopters, why not try Ortho-K, before
> "atropine".
>
> It may cost about $1,600, but it might enable you to meet
> your vision-clearing goal.
>
> I truly hate having my eyes "frozen" with a drug. Better to
> go for Ortho-K right now,
> Why not?

because its a stupid approach. but what else would we expect from you?

orthoK really is not straight-forward. i know quite a few patients who
can't tolerate the lenses. i think there are as many failures as there
are successes. ace wouldn't know because he has only read web sites.
you wouldn't know because you don't understand the physiology of the
eye and your information base is circa 1950's.

atropine is not hazardous if used in the hands of a professional .
sure you can find horror statements about the adverse effects of
atropine toxicity, but you can also find negativees to using plus
lenses as you propose too-- and of course we know that you just ignor
that! who cares if somebody gets diplopia trying a disproven approach
to myopia preventionl right?

For AceMan,

The Majority-opinion on Ortho-K

Ret> orthoK really is not straight-forward. i know quite a few
patients who
can't tolerate the lenses. i think there are as many failures as there

are successes.

Ret> ace wouldn't know because he has only read web sites.
you wouldn't know because you don't understand the physiology of the
eye and your information base is circa 1950's.

So there you have it. Ortho-K is a bad idea, accorting to Retinula.

The second-opinion maintains that Ortho-K is wonderful.

Otis






retinula wrote:
> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>
> > Since you are about -4 diopters, why not try Ortho-K, before
> > "atropine".
> >
> > It may cost about $1,600, but it might enable you to meet
> > your vision-clearing goal.
> >
> > I truly hate having my eyes "frozen" with a drug. Better to
> > go for Ortho-K right now,
> > Why not?
>
> because its a stupid approach. but what else would we expect from you?
>
> orthoK really is not straight-forward. i know quite a few patients who
> can't tolerate the lenses. i think there are as many failures as there
> are successes. ace wouldn't know because he has only read web sites.
> you wouldn't know because you don't understand the physiology of the
> eye and your information base is circa 1950's.
>
> atropine is not hazardous if used in the hands of a professional .
> sure you can find horror statements about the adverse effects of
> atropine toxicity, but you can also find negativees to using plus
> lenses as you propose too-- and of course we know that you just ignor
> that! who cares if somebody gets diplopia trying a disproven approach
> to myopia preventionl right?

Dear AceMan,

Subject: "Picky People" who complain about being emmetropic. (You
know who)

If I had 20/20 in one eye, and 20/30 in the other eye -- as passed the
DMV with
flying colors -- I think that would be wonderful.

I am, however very sympathetic with the ODs who deal with "picky"
people with that type of vision. Everyone wants that 20/15 vision --
and the secondary consequences never appear on the radar screen.

You can hardly blame the M.O. ODs for "filling" or "servicing" that
type of person with a strong minus -- either them, or their children.
This is the exact statement of Dr. Rapahelson.

But by now I thnk you know the consequence of doing something like
that. The blind leading the blind I suppose. Everything is immediate
"quick-fix" and the devil take the hindmost.

Gool luck on your atropine measurement. I think it will show the same
value as your "subjective" measurement shows. But let us know.

Best,

Otis



(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> Dear AceMan,
>
> Subject: Atropine versus Ortho-K -- for you.
>
> Since you are about -4 diopters, why not try Ortho-K, before
> "atropine".
>
> It may cost about $1,600, but it might enable you to meet
> your vision-clearing goal.
>
> I truly hate having my eyes "frozen" with a drug. Better to
> go for Ortho-K right now, or at least get an assessment
> from the people who supply Ortho-K, about your
> prospects.
>
> Why not?
>
> Best,
>
> Otis
>
>
> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> > Orthokeratology as some of you dont know is based on contact lenses.
> > However the special thing is you insert them in just before going to
> > sleep then remove them when you wake. You then experience clear vision
> > anywhere from 8 hours to a whole week, lower corrections last longer
> > before regressing. Just insert the orthoK retainer lenses on another
> > night to keep your vision clear. Low prescriptions only have to do that
> > as little as once a week! I know someone who was -1.5 that only needed
> > to sleep with orthoK retainer lenses every third night, the effects
> > lasted 3 days! OrthoK has minimal hassle and takes as little time as
> > brushing teeth. Cant tolerate contacts during the day?
> >
> > No problem, the beauty of orthoK is to bypass the discomfort of daily
> > wear contacts drying and irritating your eyes. I know a few people who
> > couldnt tolerate daily contacts but had *no* problems with orthoK!
> > OrthoK costs a third of lasik, has less than a tenth the risks and is
> > reversable! The only thing better about lasik is you could be free of
> > all correction other than reading glasses if presbyopic. Convinent when
> > you travel alot and dont have to bring your orthoK and cleaning kit and
> > backup glasses.
> >
> > I understand orthoK is not for everyone, but for most, it is an
> > appealing alternative thats cheaper and much safer and reversable. For
> > those of you with less than -3 myopia and less than -1 astigmatism, you
> > are likley to end up 20/20 and if not, at least 20/40 resulting in an
> > elimination or at least a very, very great reduction in dependency of
> > glasses. For those of you at -4, the chances of 20/20 is lower, but
> > still very good chance of 20/40. If you must have 20/20 vision, frankly
> > you wont be a good candidate for orthoK nor lasik as you must have
> > relistic expectations.
> >
> > The beauty of orthoK is that its reversable if you arent satisfied for
> > any reason. You could get orthoK for the time being and wait for lasik
> > technology to improve or other alternatives to be invented. OrthoK is
> > also great for those in their 30s because they can discountine orthoK
> > or get a reduction in correction when they approach 40 and presbyopia
> > rears its ugly head. I know a lady who was a high myope who chose
> > orthoK because it would not correct her fully, nor did she want a full
> > correction. She reduced her dependency on distance glasses *and* still
> > stayed out of reading glasses! Lasik has the risk of overcorrection,
> > resulting in bifocals and seeing blurry at *all* distances, much more
> > so from near.
> >
> > Many people are afraid or squirmish of lasik for one reason or another.
> > Some people say the risks of lasik is very low, well orthoK is far
> > safer. Also the squirmish dread the idea of a surgeon playing around
> > with their eyes. I have thought about lasik but dont like its risks and
> > permanence if something goes awry. With orthoK as a better and safer
> > alternative, it is silly not to make that your first choice(for some,
> > lasik isnt even an option anyway) I am getting soft contact lens orthoK
> > a few weeks after my atropine on Friday. I will let everyone know how
> > well orthoK works for me. If it doesnt work out, no problem its
> > reversable and im back to glasses.

otis blurted out the following:
"The second-opinion maintains that Ortho-K is wonderful. "

do you speak for the "second opinion"?

exactly who IS the second opinion? from what I can tell, its you, some
guy named Steve Leung who has a cheesy website and lives in Hong Kong,
and some old retired and deceased optometrists.

tell us what you think is good about orthoK compared to "the wretched
minus".

===========

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> For AceMan,
>
> The Majority-opinion on Ortho-K
>
> Ret> orthoK really is not straight-forward. i know quite a few
> patients who
> can't tolerate the lenses. i think there are as many failures as there
>
> are successes.
>
> Ret> ace wouldn't know because he has only read web sites.
> you wouldn't know because you don't understand the physiology of the
> eye and your information base is circa 1950's.
>
> So there you have it. Ortho-K is a bad idea, accorting to Retinula.
>
> The second-opinion maintains that Ortho-K is wonderful.
>
> Otis
>
>
>
>
>
>
> retinula wrote:
> > (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> >
> > > Since you are about -4 diopters, why not try Ortho-K, before
> > > "atropine".
> > >
> > > It may cost about $1,600, but it might enable you to meet
> > > your vision-clearing goal.
> > >
> > > I truly hate having my eyes "frozen" with a drug. Better to
> > > go for Ortho-K right now,
> > > Why not?
> >
> > because its a stupid approach. but what else would we expect from you?
> >
> > orthoK really is not straight-forward. i know quite a few patients who
> > can't tolerate the lenses. i think there are as many failures as there
> > are successes. ace wouldn't know because he has only read web sites.
> > you wouldn't know because you don't understand the physiology of the
> > eye and your information base is circa 1950's.
> >
> > atropine is not hazardous if used in the hands of a professional .
> > sure you can find horror statements about the adverse effects of
> > atropine toxicity, but you can also find negativees to using plus
> > lenses as you propose too-- and of course we know that you just ignor
> > that! who cares if somebody gets diplopia trying a disproven approach
> > to myopia preventionl right?

Now THAT was really funny! Perfect!

Mike Tyner wrote:

><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
>
>
>
>>I truly hate having my eyes "frozen" with a drug.
>>
>>
>
>How much accommodation do you have?
>
>-MT
>
>
>
>

Tomorrow morning I get atropine, how long will it take before I
experience mydrisis? Ciliary muscle paralysis? How long before complete
cycloplegia is achieved?