Talk:Keratoconus

what is this nonsense in the third paragraph: " Keratoconus sufferers cannot have normal laser surgery or wear spectacles, so don't ask them! Their confidence can be delicate as they struggle to get by every day " ??

Archived to do list: Talk:Keratoconus/to do

New Image

I added the image to the right to the article, at the signs section, please feel free to move it or remove it in order to keep the featured status, but please notify me at my talk page, thank you Maen. K. A. (talk) 21:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a good image, but lens is misspelled. Since it's an SVG image, it should be easy to correct and reload over the orginal. —BillC ^talk 23:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I've seen this image before, and wondered: isn't the stroma getting thinner in keratoconus? As I remember, it does; then this image might give a false impression of it getting thicker. Best regards, --CopperKettle 06:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I corrected both issues hope its good now??, and thank you both :-) Maen. K. A. (talk) 10:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Really appreciate your contribution! --CopperKettle 14:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you too :-) MaenK.A._Talk 16:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

All round, Good Work guys, a big pat on the back is in order - RH

A dystrophy or not?

• Hi. I've created a page for Corneal dystrophy (human) and included keratoconus, but I'm not sure whether it belongs "officially" to the group of corneal dystrophies. Best regards, --CopperKettle 10:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
• P.S. Uploaded new, hi-resolution, image of hydrops, with kind permission from a woman with the condition. You may crop the hydrops for closer view. Best regards, --CopperKettle 12:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Coma and keratoconus

• Coma - Keratoconic (KC) eyes have large amounts of vertical coma, found in the recent news. Something about creating a better-fitting lenses. Best regards. --CopperKettle 12:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Epithelial thickness profiling as a possible way to rule out keratoconus - from the news. --CopperKettle 02:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Arrived at PubMed: Reinstein DZ, Archer TJ, Gobbe M (July 2009). "Corneal epithelial thickness profile in the diagnosis of keratoconus". J Refract Surg 25 (7): 604–10. PMID 19662917.  --CopperKettle 15:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Rizzuti phenomenon

Found a mention of such phenomenon: "Sharply focused beam of light near the nasal limbus ,produced by lateral illumination of the cornea in patients with advanced keratoconus" --CopperKettle 16:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Partial PRK

Who put this in to the article? : "In some cases, crosslinking may also be successfully combined with other treatment methods such as partial PRK"

How do you know ? and how do you know the results ? and out of the blue with out a build up of research ? also I keep getting blocked by various people (but it might be one person using different names) what is their problem ? as its for no reason but because they can't discuss anything with me here !! I think this is getting done higher up by the wiki command structure as I have never heard of these peoples names before !! Why for the cloak and dagger stuff ? why not keep[ it fair and clean ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.49.29 (talk) 14:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It was added in early September by an anonymous editor and no-one seemed to have noticed. I have removed the claim from the article. With regard to the blocks you say you have been receiving, there are none currently registered against your IP address above. These may have been against other IP addresses instead. It is is possible that, as an anonymous user, you were experiencing someone else's block due to a revolving IP address. An easy way to prevent this is to register for an account, which is quickly done. If you can provide a link to an IP address that was blocked, we can look into the reason why for you. —BillC ^talk 21:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You see it was everytime I wanted to write something or when I did, it was removed and then I was blocked, the Ip was the same as I have now. Basically if it was me who added about the partial PRK, it would have been removed quickly and my IP address talked about and then it blocked for months. What is wrong with a discussion I don't know, but it seems to be that "they" feel they will not be able to win any discussion, and so use their under hand tatics to manipulate things. Its just a complete joke ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.56.10 (talk) 10:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This is just silly on the article (please read on), its been there for a very very very long time and no ones got the interest or even care to say anything - mini ARK it is an ELECTIVE surgery, just like Laser surgery is for "normal" people is (and why Laser is not offered in the National Health Service of the UK and pretty much EVERYWHERE ! this is the silly line from the article on Mini ark "This technique has yet to go through the official experimentation and follow-up period which is generally required by the Italian National Health Service to accept a new surgery technique before it can be offered to patients." Come on guys wake up ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.56.9 (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you are saying here? Thanks, —BillC ^talk 13:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Its in plain English —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.56.12 (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is some info on Partial PRK - http://www.journalofrefractivesurgery.com/showAbst.asp?thing=43745 - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.123.162.2 (talk) 01:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow one ! very short term too ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.56.12 (talk) 01:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Approval status

European approval is only for the ultraviolet light machine, it does not address epithelium status which is up to the treating ophthalmologist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.11.160 (talk) 4:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The reference used for that sentence only mentions the procedure with the epithelium removed. If you have a reliable sources that go into greater detail about the European approval status, feel free to add them to the article, and perhaps that particular sentence needs to be reworded to distinguish the European and US statuses. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)