Anyone know any updates AOS versus AOA and

[Visionary]

You missed the point.

Seems a common theme in your conversations with Shnurek.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Jibslider]

I agree with Jason on Ortho-k (also known as CRT). I dabbled in it back in 2003. Had to buy a fitting set for $3,000 and I fit 3 'patients'-- two employees and my daughter. Ranging from - 1.00 sph to -4.00 sph. Actually ALL 3 were 20/20 within two days!

Awesome. I was very impressed (must use a corneal topographer). But even for free, two chose to go back to soft lenses and one opted for Lasik. Upon questioning, they stated if they are going to have to wear contact lenses, they might as well wear them during the day (as opposed to every night as in Ortho-K). (For those that don't know, they are basically like "braces" for the eyes--they flatten the cornea temporarily but return to normal if not worn at least every other night--usally every night--for ever.)

The 'killing' factor is usually the fitting fee and cost of lenses-- around $1,500. Most candidates will just opt for the one time (slightly higher) fee for Lasik.

The biggest market I suppose would be kids too young for refractive surgery. But with daily disposible soft lenses, I didn't get many kids parents that were interested in Ortho-K. Ultimately I sent the fitting set back for a refund before my 90 trail period ended.

So in summary: Ortho-K works. But most prefer other alternatives. And, once again, as with Vision Therapy and Low Vision, it's not that mosty ODs haven't tried to make money doing it. They have. Most probably have at some point or another. It's just that it's very difficult to do when insurance doesn't pay for any of them.

We have an ortho-k service at my office, specifically with the Paragon CRT lens, and are quite successful with our service. As with everything else (including glasses, SCL's, and LASIK), it depends on how you offer the option to your patients.

Maybe we are just good salesmen, but the big selling point with CRT vs LASIK is the non-permanence of CRT. It sounds silly, but there are some patients out there that want to have LASIK, but don't like the idea of the permanence of refractive surgery for whatever reason. If there is any regression of their myopia during CRT, you change the parameters of the lens, and fix it, where as if there is any regression after LASIK, the flap must be lifted and more stromal bed removed (if there is enough left).

Another selling point is the ability to continuously change monovision correction for those that are making the trip down the presbyopia brick road.

My largest growing CRT patients are children who are increasing in myopia every year, and probably the most exciting/promising selling point of our CRT service is for myopia control. We've read the studies, and now have some clinical data that supports that CRT may halt or at the least slow myopia progression.

Sorry to derail the thread, but I wanted to post my 2 cents.

 

[coloradosky]

check out this blog: http://anonymousoptometrist.com/