All of us Vs Keratoconus


Members Login
Chatbox
Please log in to join the chat!
Post Info TOPIC: Perceived negatives of Mini-ARK


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 122
Date: Sat Nov 12 6:38 AM, 2005
Perceived negatives of Mini-ARK
Permalink   
 


Hi,


 


I realise that mini ARK is considered an absolute no go by some in the medical establishment. From the comments that I saw on other sites it seemed to be condemned as a very dangerous procedure, but with no actual reasons given. What I fail to understand is exactly what the perceived problem is with this method of surgery:


 


Is the initial quality of visual acuity achieved in the short period after the operation in doubt, rephrased, is it thought that if someone was to have the operation then they would actually have decreased vision?


 


Is it thought that while one achieves initial good results at some point something either drastic happens that causes the vision to deteriorate to a point worse than pre operation or a process of slow gradual damage, caused by the operation, takes place that results in eventual decrease in vision?


 


The detractors seem to be of the mind set that mini ARK precludes one from a corneal transplant although, as I have read on this site, this does not seem to be a warranted. If they are working on the assumption that mini ARK does nothing to abate the pathology of keratoconus and perhaps even expediates the disease process, is the crux of concern preclusion from other surgical treatment methods, if needed?



__________________


Executive

Status: Offline
Posts: 397
Date: Sat Nov 12 8:42 AM, 2005
Permalink   
 

Hi Chris,
Its great to hear your questions... Sometimes its a bit isolating having had mini ark as the majority of ark patients are either German or Italian.

Is the initial quality of visual acuity achieved in the short period after the operation in doubt, rephrased, is it thought that if someone was to have the operation then they would actually have decreased vision?

I think the main problem with Mini Arks perception by the medical world is the knee jerk reaction that is had to the very mention of its name. Firstly, the majority of comments we hear do not relate to the actual mini ark operation: Mostly they regard Radial keratotomy (RK) and that it is/was considered a contridiction to KC... end of story.
No one has taken into account the advancements and structural science behind Prof. Lombardi's technique... its like comparing the stewardess service on the wright brothers aeroplane to that of a modern jumbo jet
I can only speak for myself, and relate to the mini arker's that I have spoken too but I know of no case where the operation has created decreased vision. I have heard of a couple of cases where as the patient was not entirely happy with their results... but certainly not to a level where the visual outcome of the majority of cases is in question.

Is it thought that while one achieves initial good results at some point something either drastic happens that causes the vision to deteriorate to a point worse than pre operation or a process of slow gradual damage, caused by the operation, takes place that results in eventual decrease in vision?

I have heard this too from many of the doctors I questioned before I went ahead with mini ark... Again you have to ask... WHERE do they get their data? If no one has studied Mini Ark then how can they tell a KC sufferer that Mini Ark will cause 'Slow gradual damage...etc??? I'm not sure what this 'Drastic' skeleton in the closet thing is... but again, I know of nothing remotely like this ever happening post ark.
In fact the basis of mini arks science proports that the influx of fresh 'Fibrin' during scar tissue formation is what gives ARK its support (Increased Corneal thickness has been recorded in ARK patients).

If they are working on the assumption that mini ARK does nothing to abate the pathology of keratoconus and perhaps even expediates the disease process, is the crux of concern preclusion from other surgical treatment methods, if needed?

I have asked the question above to a great many people/ doctors... The intiall answer was YES ark does proclude future graft, but as I inquired further in many cases the infatic NO became a less than certain MAYBE. In some cases doctors even made a complete about turn and NO, that if the information that I am telling them is true then they see no reason why mini ark cannot be considered pre graft.
This raises the question as to why 'I' had to tell them this information and they couldnt research it for themselves? And further if they agree that ark dosnt contridict graft (As has even been documented from leading Italian eye surgeons) them why arnt they offering it to those kcers waiting on graft lists?

At the end of the day it comes down to education, that of both Kcer's and the doctors who treat us... my biggest concern is that we are not fully informed.
The thing is that if what these doctors is saying is true and mini ark is damaging our eyes then why arnt they leaping to our rescue? Why arnt they stepping up to the plate and debunking Prof Lombardis invention?
I feel the reason is a mix of ignorance and politics... Im sure if you stepped into the majority of eye clinics that many would have very little knowledge of ark-mini-ark and further more very few would be prepared to learn what is a essentially a skilled surgical technique. You would have to be very dedicated to specialize in a surgery that can only aid a relatively small % of the ocular disease population (Far easier to take the LASIK laser short course).

But at the end of the day Chris... All I would suggest is that you dig deeper and really press answers from your doctors. This is not a case of convincing you that ARK is the right path to take its one of making sure you options are clearly defined.

All the best,
Hari

http://www.miniarkdatabase.com/

__________________
Anonymous

Date: Sat Nov 12 10:01 AM, 2005
Permalink   
 

Good questions Chris,


You see the story first started with a forum which closed down recently with out notice (CFK) their sheer contempt for kcers was seen then, by closing with out warning or with-out an explaination! (after running off with a suit-case full of money! kcers donated money!) and it was the same when mini-ark went to that board, minds after money had to think again!


The interest group behind that money making business/scam (cfk) looked stupid when mini-ark was discussed there and so they just "bad mouthed" as their blunt small minds could only do that, with-out using sound reasoning, which we was better at, and because mini-ark had a stronger argument than the arguments put forward by transplant pushers.


Dr Lombardi will not be around forever and we did not want this technique just to disappear with-out a serious look at it by those who could use this method to help patients as another option. Well now with presentations with mini-ark on it, you could say that we have put mini-ark on the map!


All the best



-- Edited by QuintriX at 10:10, 2005-11-12

__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us

www.kcfreedom.org

Knowledge Works