Page 1 of 2

One intac ring better than two?

Posted: Thu 06 Sep 2007 10:41 pm
by Lynn White
Just came across this interesting snippet...

http://www.osnsupersite.com/view.asp?rID=23456

Re: One intac ring better than two?

Posted: Fri 07 Sep 2007 5:45 am
by Karl R
Interesting.

Could be a way forward in the treatment of KC, but needs further study with a larger patient sample, a closer mean age between the two groups and over a longer period of time.

Re: One intac ring better than two?

Posted: Fri 07 Sep 2007 9:38 am
by Andrew MacLean
I was going to post that self same link!

Lynne, what do you make of this?

Andrew

Re: One intac ring better than two?

Posted: Fri 07 Sep 2007 10:44 am
by Eddie S
I suppose it would cut waiting lists, only having to one 'part' rather than two :D

Re: One intac ring better than two?

Posted: Fri 07 Sep 2007 12:16 pm
by Ali Akay
Thanks for this interesting post Lynne. I think there's some merit in it, and I guess the concept is not dissimilar to the controversial mini ARK procedure (ARK= assymmetric radial keratectomy where partial thickness radial cuts are made in the steeper sections of the cornea to cause flattening). Unless the cone was central which is rare, cornea is almost always much steeper inferiorly than superiorly, hence probably not much point inserting an intac superiorly anyway. I remember the analogy of a "sagging boob" has been used on this site before to describe a cone, and if we take this one step further, perhaps an intac inferiorly would be like an underwired bra!!

Re: One intac ring better than two?

Posted: Sat 08 Sep 2007 5:59 am
by Lynn White
OKay Ali - you have done it now! I won't be able to think of this now without visions of underwired bras!

Andrew... what I think is that possibly the one intac ring inferiorly is helping to reduce higher order aberrations. other words, where the cone is steeper inferiorly (which is the majority of cones, as Ali says) then the regularizing effect of the ring may help to reduce distortion inferiorly. One would have to look at the aberrations before and after on an aberrometer.

The guys reporting on Intacs at the conference pointed out that the major improvement from their point of view was the reduction in coma (the aberration that makes everything doubly and streaky) so perhaps this is why. I'll try and contact the Dr and find out!

Re: One intac ring better than two?

Posted: Sat 08 Sep 2007 8:31 am
by Andrew MacLean
:D

As you know, I have always been an admirer of a well placed metaphor. However, not even I would ever have thought of calling INTACS a kind of eye-bra.

That, however is what this procedure will forevr be; thank you Ali. Seriously, this has to be of interest to us all. Thanks Lynne.

Andrew

Re: One intac ring better than two?

Posted: Sun 09 Sep 2007 2:37 am
by Sajeev
Is the use of the under-wire to create flattening? not so, me thinks...

Re: One intac ring better than two?

Posted: Mon 10 Sep 2007 7:20 am
by Lynn White
While we are on the subject of visual imagery... I have an admission....

I'm really sorry Ali... but your country icon reminds me of a fried egg with a bit of garnish. Every time I see it I think "Oh, there's the egg and bacon brekky so its must be Ali"....

Not heard anything back yet but will keep you posted..

Re: One intac ring better than two?

Posted: Mon 10 Sep 2007 7:49 am
by Karl R
Ali Akay wrote: I remember the analogy of a "sagging boob" has been used on this site before to describe a cone, and if we take this one step further, perhaps an intac inferiorly would be like an underwired bra!!


ImageImage

Picks himself up off the floor.

Are INTACS now to be measured in cup size????? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: