Talk:Orthokeratology

Neutrality disputed

Some editors seem to have a vested interest in pushing specific companies as the sole or dominant suppliers of such lenses. The most recent edit to demonstrate that is this one. Algae 16:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Note the new edits reduce the amount of corporate peddling - not increase it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.22.213.85 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 7 January 2006

Incorrect. The latest edit (linked above) does reduce greatly reduce the alleged role played by Contex Incorporated. However, it actively pushes Euclid Systems Corporation, too. Go back a few months, there were a lot fewer company names in the article. – I am not saying that many company names in an article are bad. What I am saying is that this article has precious little useful content and editors indulge in turf wars rather than improving the article. I am increasingly tempted to fix this article with a chain saw. Algae 09:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that Euclid Systems Corporation was the first to apply for and begin an FDA study for ortho-k, and the second to receive aqpproval. This is noteworthy even without the other contributions made by that company. It is a blatant advertising ploy to heavily promote Contex or any other company peddling lenses based on other peoples hard work and approvals. Bausch & Lomb consistently supports Orthokeratology as a modality both financially, and technically, and the CRT is the only other lens to be approved. I would agree that other corproate references should be minimized - perhaps another page or section that lists manufacturers or suppliers so they can all link to their home pages and price lists... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.242.39.115 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 9 January 2006

No, WP is neither a web directory nor a sales brochure. – As for your other statements: That may well be. I wouldn't know. The only reason I got involved here is that it is obvious even to a layman like me that the editors in this article have vested interests in their respective POVs. It would help if we had some sources (published studies, FDA reports, etc.). And, of course more information about lenses rather than manufacturers. The mechanism section is very short. You could add some diagrams showing how fast (or slow) the shaping goes back to normal over the length of one or more days (if no lenses are worn). Even the about.com article has more information than this article. There's plenty of interesting stuff to cover. Algae 22:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I see significant edits about a month after this discussion, and the current version appears to be substantially NPOV. Removed tag. -- Taral 10:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The neutrality is rightly questioned here. This reads like a promotion Jackhammer111 (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Article Improvement Drive

Contact lens is currently nominated to be improved on Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive. Please support the article with your vote. --Fenice 10:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Long lasting effect?

I havent found out from the article how long the correction effects last. If my sight got better by wearing them, then it is permanent? How long do i have to wear them to correct x dioptries? 62.68.161.93 (talk) 01:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

To me, the article seems to claim a permanent correction, which I do not believe is the case. Without something in there to say how long the corrective effect can be expected to last, I think this article will continue to be misleading.Cameron McCormack (talk) 12:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Orthokeratology isn't curative. The idea of the overnight lenses is that you can go about your business the next day without the need for spectacles or contacts. The corneal changes are not permanent; the cornea will revert to its original shape following a decay curve, which will differ according to health, age and other factors. The corrective effect can last anything from a few hours to a couple of days. Continued use of the lenses will take advantage of the decay curve, improving the benefit up to a personal maximum. (Inferred from [1]) 78.149.24.211 (talk) 09:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Cost

Lens prices range from $800 to $1500. How does that make economical sense when corrective surgery costs $1500 here in Canada.

• "Economical sense" is not the only factor to consider when evaluating the various options for treating or managing refractive errors. -AED 14:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

corrective surgery carries several risks (including potentially untreatable blindness, or other significant vision defects (halo, glare, contrast problems, etc), monovision, dry eye, over/under treatment -- you might still require additional correction after surgery) that not all patients are prepared to accept. And surgery is, of course, "permanent". By contrast orthok is considered largely reversible (simply desist wearing the lens and the eye will gradually return to its original shape. This makes it an attractive alternative to some patients. Additionally, not all patients are suitable candidates for corrective surgery for various reasons.

Prices may vary by the amount of care provided and the sophistication of the provider's equipment, experience and abilities. Nonsurgical vision correction like orthokeratology is completely reversible unlike LASIK. Wikiod 17:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Myopia only

I notice that the approvals are for negative diopters. Is this for myopia only? -- Taral 10:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, it is. Not for hyperopia.-- 陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 10:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Does this actually work? I've been on Ortho-K for 5 years and my eyesight has actually gotten worse. I wear my contacts during the day, however (not at night).

you're supposed to wear the lenses at night. i've been using ortho-k for over a year, and it's worked out fine. i don't think ortho-k is supposed to improve your vision (it possibly could); my optometrist said that it will help prevent my eyesight from getting worse (and it's done a good job at that).

Not supposed to improve your vision? The Ortho-K lenses I got from Paragon Vision Sciences (Paragon CRT) works perfectly and I saw a significant improvement (from -4.0 to almost 0.0) in a couple of days and perfect vision in about a month. =] Maybe it's different for everyone. And yes, the lenses are supposed to be worn at night. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.16.45 (talk) 04:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You may have had pseudo myopia, in which case it could have worked. Myopia is generally permanent and cannot be reversed, unless in the case of children, where growth may result in return to normal shape (although it usually worsens not improves). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.24.74.210 (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Myopia, Hyperopia and astigmatism correction are all possible to correct. Most eye doctors only correct myopia since that is the only FDA approved procedure. Hyperopia is also known as farsightedness. Correcting hyperopia or other specialized orthokeratology correction is considered "off-label."Wikiod 17:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Side effects

As a note, I tried these lenses and they did work well. However, my optometrist found that they were actually tearing a thin layer of skin off my eyes as I removed them in the AM. I know of 1 other person who experienced this problem. Although I was able to see during the day without glasses or contacts, I discontinued use due to the discomfort. Callalee 02:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC) the problem you had can occur if you try to remove the lens to soon after waking, usually this can be resolved with wetting drops or simply waiting and removing when the lens hs loosened off , usually after 10 minutes or so. Simon Rose London

Dream Lens

Can someone create a redirect page to here from "Dream Lens"? 220.76.15.253 (talk) 17:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Mechanism

The claim that "Properly designed lenses do not touch the user's cornea" sounds impossible to me. Can anyone confirm?Cameron McCormack (talk) 12:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)