Re: Preventing myopia in children with OrthoK? Proven or nonsense?


Dear Eye too Am Darma,

Subject: Ortho-K -- good and bad?

A man with only a hammer -- will see every problem as a "nail".

There is no doubt that you can change the refractive STATE
of the eye by 2 diopters with an Orth-K lens. Pilots will
use it (sleep in it) to pass the 20/20 line for the FAA
exam.

But they know the risks, and choose naked-eye 20/20 as
a professional requirement.

But young children? The long-term effects of a the
use of Otho-K as simply not known.

To "promote" it is excessive, unless the parents and
child are informed of the potential risks of doing it -- long
term.

It is also rather expensive, about $1,400. Further
it does not "last". If you quit wearing the "retainers", you
go right back down to you previous refractive STATE.

Like all things "medical" -- the parents should be informed
of the risks of doing Ortho-K for a young child.

Just my second-opinion.

Otis


On Sep 27, 7:04 pm, Eye <eyetooamdama...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
There is a comanaging OD who practices in my town. He talked a long-
time patient into having LASIK and it ruined her vision and comfort.
He has attempted to fit damaged LASIK patients with hard lenses and
failed. Still he comanages. He had an amateur boxer ready to have
LASIK - until I had a chat with the young man and explained he'd have
his flaps knocked off in no time if he went through with the LASIK
surgery. Definitely not for people who are involved in contact sports.

That's the background. Here is the issue...

This doctor saw the son of some friends of mine. Like his parents, the
10 year old boy is myopic. The doctor volunteered that while the boy
is 'too young for LASIK' (vulgar that he'd even suggest the surgery
that has ruined eyes and lives of other patients in his practice) his
myopia may be slowed and ultimately reduced in magnitude if he were to
wear OrthoK lenses now. He claimed that OrthoK lenses were like 'eye
braces' that prevent the development of further myopia, and that the
child's endpoint of myopia would be reduced with this therapy. He went
on to claim that there is literature to support the efficacy of this
therapy in preventing the progression of myopia in children.

I think this is utter horse ***. I would like to find Dr. Ken Minarik
and others on this board who have information in this area and get to
the bottom of this question!

It woudl be good to know if this doctor is as sleazy as a LASIK
surgeon.


.

Quantcast