Jump to content

Talk:Photorefractive keratectomy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Clarify BCVA?

[edit]

The article currently includes the statement:

In 1 to 3% of cases, loss of best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) can result, due to decentered ablative zones or other surgical complications. PRK results in improved BCVA about twice as often as it causes loss.

The second sentence in particular is unclear to me. Does "improved BCVA" refer only to cases where patients still need glasses or contact lenses, or is it supposed to refer to all cases where vision improves? A specific citation would also help. 67.61.141.180 (talk) 20:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forget that question, both sentences seem to interfere with each other? How can you have an improved BCVA 2/3rds of the time, and loss 1/3rd of the time, but this only occur in 1 to 3% of cases? Either they conflict or I'm a statistical idiot, either way, this needs to be clarified. 69.119.13.218 (talk) 06:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If most cases have NO CHANGE in BCVA (as I've read quite often in the last few days as I consider getting LVC), then yes, it makes sense that you can have BCVA reduction in only 1% to 3% of cases, and an increase in only ~2% to 6% of cases ("no change" are often the majority of cases). Still, I've seen the BCVA numbers vary from one study to the next with both Lasik and surface-ablations, so I agree with the O.P. that a citation WOULD help (actually, citations --plural-- since % with a BCVA increase/decrease can vary, but unfortunately I wasn't really thinking about collecting citations as I've surfed the net in the last few days :-( What I can say is ---EDIT: I just remembered, those who were good candidates for Wavefront, and got Wavefront, had the BIG odds of gaining BCVA that were mostly what made me write this next part---> that 1% to 3% and 2% to 6% seems awfully low, relative to the number where there was "no change" to post-op BCVA). To answer the O.P.'s question, from what I've read BCVA should refer to all cases, but I'm certainly no expert. (and when you say the alternative to "all cases" is "cases where patients still need glasses or contact lenses," it seems unclear to me what you mean? e.g. For driving, in most states in the USA, anything worse than 20/40 means you "still need glasses or contacts," but for pilots it's often 20/20, and for seeing the alarm clock at night or my computer monitor, 20/80 means I "still don't need glasses or contact lenses," so if a study did refer "only to cases where patients still need glasses or contact lenses," I hope they (objectively with actual numbers, not subjectively) defined what it means to "still need glasses or contact lenses". :-)
Therefore, I think clarification on what BCVA is shouldn't need to be in this article, it should be in an BCVA or Best corrected visual acuity article, if it's not there already.24.155.22.160 (talk) 10:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Separate LASEK as a seperate procedure

[edit]

This article is about PRK but LASEK is a newer form of refractive surgery and should be separtated from this article into a new one. There is enough scientific data and will to write a special page about LASEK and epi-LASEK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Emill William Chynn (talk • contribs) 14:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LASEK and LASIK should be clearly differentiated (if they are in fact different). It is unclear to me, a non-doctor but nevertheless well educated and conversant individual, whether they *are* distinct procedures. Rodent of Unusual Size (talk) 07:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Photorefractive keratectomy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Photorefractive keratectomy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Photorefractive_keratectomy&oldid=1204671476"