Talk:Limbal relaxing incisions

Complicatoins/Risks

This article may be a work-in-progress, but I believe it should include the potential complications and risks associated with LRI. There are complicaitons with RK, AK, and LASIK. Some that result immediately after surgery -- such as less-than-expected results, dry-eye, halos, astigmatism and associated blurred or doubled vision, night blindness, etc. In the case of RK and AK, some that show up years later (separation of the old incision sights, infections entering the incession sights, etc.). In addition, they article may better serve if it shows the percentage of achieving 20/20, elimiation of astigmatism, for patients under different baselines (i.e., those with minor near-sightedness versus moderate or severe) ... or for the case of LRI, those with astigmatism of less than 1.0 Dop versus greater, etc. Tesseract501 (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Article needs major editing for accurate pov

    The article in its current form appears to contain only the advertising available at LASIK waiting-room pamphlets.  The following opinion statements contained in the article need to be rewritten to eliminate the industry pov alone:
    "They are simpler ...".
    "Good results do not require the location and length of the incisions to be highly precise."
    "And the incisions can easily be extended later..."

    The term "simpler" may be misleading, especially in a surgery-related article.  Knowing four individuals who have had the surgery, and speaking with different eye surgeons ... this us a subjective statement written as fact.  It is all a matter of physician expetience and patient scenario.  In making specific inquiries with eye surgeons, I received different opinions ... some were definitely more comfortable using laser versus the incision-bases LRI procedure.
    "Good results" is an ambiguous phrase.  Please indicate the specifics (crucial in surgery-related articles.  Instead of i"good", indicate the percentages of astigmatism before and post-op.  Let the numbers speak as to whether the results were "good", "fair", "poor", or "abysmal".
    Same concerns with the word "easily", only more so.  Again, how much the supporting data would be need to support a pov of "easily"?
    Of the four folks I know, one has expressed an astigmatism reduction with the first LRI surgery.  A second had incision-related complications (the site did not close seamless).  The third saw double letters on front-lit street signs only at night; post-op they now see doulbe letters both day and night.  The fourth had LASIK which caused astigmatism, then LRI which actually made the astigmatism worse.
    Granted these experiences are from my little world.  Nevertheless, or possibly moreso, this may mean they are not isolated or flukes.  All the more reason to ensure a surgery-related article is as precise and thorough as possible.  Potential patients need a source that goes beyond the industry-promoted brochures.  The elective eye-surgery practice is highly litigious for the same type of ambiguous and promising claims made through such imprecise communications.
    In addition to adding supporting data numbers instead of generalized phrases, please reconsider adding the information about data percentages for side-effects and results for the diffetent patient profiles irequester in August 2014).  Or, at least reply as to the reasoning against such.  If the data is not transparent and readily available, this too may reinforce my request to incorporate more than just the indust-positive copy
    If no one is maintaining the article, or the complete data is not available, the article might need to reference this fact or be flagged as incomplete. Tesseract501 (talk) 05:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Limbal relaxing incisions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090201073737/http://www.stlukeseye.com/professionals/lri_nomogram.htm to http://www.stlukeseye.com/professionals/lri_nomogram.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)