BotScout writes "British experts claim that a new laser treatment could save the sight of millions of people. The process is said to stop the onset of age-related macular degeneration, one of the most common forms of blindness, which leaves victims unable to read, drive or live independently. The technique rejuvenates the Bruch's membrane — a thin layer that lies behind the retina. The process takes just ten to 15 minutes and could be done by any ophthalmologist. While it does not cure sight loss, its inventor, Professor John Marshall, says it could prevent a generation from having to put up with declining vision in old age."
Over 40 years ago, my grandmother was the first successful retina reattachment patient. She wasn't the first to get the surgery (probably the Scleral Buckle surgery described in the Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org]), but she was the first one for whom it actually worked.
Now, repair of a detatched retina is routine, laser eye surgery is advertised on TV and radio like something you'd have done at a kiosk in the mall, and formerly incurable degenerative diseases like macular degeneration are now being treated.
My grandmother is 90 now. If I'm lucky enough to make it to that age (I'm almost halfway there), I wonder if I'll even have my original ocular equipment? I'd love to be able to see me some UV and IR.
Speaking as someone who is about to marry an optometrist: I, too, hope you have a long life, but that your eyesight makes a long, slow decline which requires lots of treatment;^)
Really, though, just kidding. I have a small collection of eye problems that are easily manageable because of modern medicine. Macular degeneration is pretty devastating for people, especially those people who are dealing with other diabetes-related problems (that said: kids, put down the sugar drinks-- diabetes is a horrible
As someone who worked with a diabetes research group, I assure the Cowardon is right. everyone in that group always did one thing. Lost weight. If you are a quite a bit above the BMI the chance of type 2 diabetes goes up massively (like about 40x IIRC).
Actually it's pretty darn good. You've got enough money to enjoy it, and you're no longer the complete idiot you were in your twenties. (if you're still in your twenties you'll have to just trust me on this one, but you are an idiot.)
and you're no longer the complete idiot you were in your twenties.
Speaking from the perspective of someone in their fifties, I have found that the experience and knowledge I have gathered over the years has made me a far more complete idiot than I was in my twenties.
By the way: A cure is something that makes it go away and not come back. That is why this fails too.
And don't say it is because of old age. That is never a cause. There are only two causes: 1. Genetic ones. 3. Environmental effects. (Including food, other people doing and saying things, air, etc.)
Every other "cause" else your doctor tells you, is a lie.:)
Umm... so let's assume it's genetic. Do we have "cures" for genetic problems now that are safe, well-tested, and cheap? Let's give science a break, people are working on cures all the time, but we only discovered DNA 50 years ago, we've got a lot of learning left to do before genetic causes can be "cured".
You have your facts wrong. A detached retina can NOT be cured by a laser. If a laser was used, your grandmother's retina was torn, not detached. I know; my retina detached last year after several tears and laser repairs and I underwent a vitrectomy [slashdot.org]
Repair of a detached retina is NOT routine, although repair of a torn retina is. If a torn retina isn't repaired, it will detach and you will either get needles stuck in your eye and your vitreous fluid replaced with nitrogen, or a rubber band wrapped around your
You have your facts wrong. A detached retina can NOT be cured by a laser. If a laser was used, your grandmother's retina was torn, not detached...
It was the late '60s. If a laser was used, it would have been more like a sci-fi movie than a therapeutic method.
(The confusion is understandable... I wasn't talking about the current advances being used in her case, but instead reminiscing about our family's contribution to medical advancement. Also, all the comments so far had been stupid, so I figured I shoul
by Anonymous Coward
on Monday July 06, @05:49PM (#28600947)
Dated 2007, this article [blogspot.com] appears to discuss the mechanism by which the treatment works. (Presumably today's press release has something to do with a successful clinical trial?)
What I don't get -- if the laser isn't actually being used for thermal properties -- is how the light actually "fixes" the problem. If it's just the light that's "stimulating" the cells to "clean up their mess", why not dump 532nm light from an LED? They're just as monochromatic and oughta be bright enough to shine through the relevant tissues.
Obviously, that doesn't work if a high power density is required for some reason other than localized heating, but I'm failing to see why (since the article goes into repeated detail about how little thermal damage is done to photoreceptors) the laser's required.
The only thing that makes sense would be that the amount of waste heat/light dumped into the eyeball by a suitably-bright LED would damage cells in the rest of the retina (i.e. the 99% of the retina that has nothing to do with the macula), and that the laser's only used because it's the only thing that can deposit the required power in the region of the macula without dumping gazillions of green photons everywhere else? (that is, staring into a low-power green LED wouldn't do anything, and staring into a high-power one would be just as damaging as staring into the sun.)
What I don't get -- if the laser isn't actually being used for thermal properties -- is how the light actually "fixes" the problem. If it's just the light that's "stimulating" the cells to "clean up their mess", why not dump 532nm light from an LED? They're just as monochromatic and oughta be bright enough to shine through the relevant tissues.
Monochrome light isn't the only useful characteristic of a laser. Accuracy is another - the beam doesn't spread out over any appreciable distance because of the coherent nature of the beam.
That said, it makes a very clean instrument; nothing quite as sterile as something that doesn't touch you at all.
IANAO but a very happy recovered patient of a good one. Although my sight was restored with ultrasound and acrylic as much as lasers. With lens replacement surgery lasers are sometimes required to burn away the back of the lens capsule. Strangely, I found the whole process rather fun and entertaining, rather than frightening, but I'm a geek (and no, there were no drugs involved).
Of course that doesn't matter, if there's the prospect of having your sight restored after nearly a year without it, you'd crawl through broken glass if that's what it took.
What do you think those drops that dialated your eyes were, rainwater? Of course drugs were involved! And before those drops they put pain relieving drugs in your eyes because without them, the dialation drugs burn like hell.
This has been disgracefully overhyped by all the news media that I've seen that have picked it up, often in very similar words, suggesting that the ultimate blame lies with the original press release.
The fact is that the technique hasn't even been *tried* yet on Macular Degeneration, much less been shown to actually work.
All that's been done is some studies on a quite different disease for which quite effective treatments already exist.
The history of efforts to treat Macular Degeneration is full of false hopes, and it is desperately cruel to grieving patients and relatives to put out seriously premature press releases like this. I am an eye surgeon specialising in these conditions and I had to deal with some very upset people because of this only today.
Prof Marshall is a very eminent figure in the development of laser treatments for eye disease, but if he had much to do with the way this has been presented to the media he should do some hard thinking about his responsibilities.
There's a brief press release about this on the website of the Royal College of Ophthalmologists (British eye surgeons' professional organisation)
http://www.rcophth.ac.uk/about/press/ [rcophth.ac.uk]
Don't believe the fluff. Vision declines for several reasons. First, you'll have general focal point problems. Either myopia, hyperopia, or astigmatism (both at the same time - yes two focal points) those can happen at any age. But around 40, your crystalline lens in your eye begins to stiffen. This is presbyopia. The lens cannot bend and this is a lack of "accommodation". Then this lens as a result of UV exposure degrades and you get cataracts. Then you need lens replacement surgery. This is all before we even get to the back of the eye. Floaters in the various humors. Glaucoma (too much humor pressure distorts and damages the optic nerve) , Then, we can start worrying about the retina and things below...
Obviously this is not going to help those with an eye-related illness other than macular degeneration. The conditions you mentioned are treatable with other methods (eyeglasses or lasik for dysopias, medication for glaucoma, etc). This is simply a new way of handling a specific ocular disorder.
Uh, not around age 40. Early 30s, actually. Most people don't need to treat it with glasses until their early 40s, but I can quite clearly notice that I have presbyopia at age 34 - and have seen it for a year or more. It's just that it's only apparent when things get closer than 4 inches from my face.
I'm a severe myopic - got my first glasses at age 6, first contacts at 8, currently running a -11 diopter - so I'm really, really used to being able to see things UP CLOSE. Furthermore, young myopics have a
Well LASIK treatment is out for you, but you can still have PRK. Healing time is a week, and you won't ever have as good vision as a LASIK candidate, but it might improve your vision to be more useful in uncorrected situations. Not to mention making glasses and contacts easier to find/wear.
Well, at 32, I do notice a slightly longer accommodation time in some circumstances, over just 4 years ago, but my vision is still excellent.
You are correct, but all those conditions are now not only treatable, but curable. The CrystaLens cures the myopia, presbyopia, astigmatisn, and cataracts (I had one implanted [slashdot.org] in 2006). That eye now also has no floaters, because I had to undergo a vitrectomy [slashdot.org] last year for a detached retina.
I wore glasses all my life, now I don't need them. I see better than most 20 year olds, both distance and close up, and I'm 57. I'm looking forward to gettin the other eye fixed some day.
Ah yes. There are many new advancements in interocular lenses. There are the classic single-focal (which medicare covers), multifocal, toric and so many new ones. They even have some that can accommodate (be focused by your eye).
Combined with laser treatments surgery (of the lens) including Wavefront(tm) you can have vision better than you probably ever could. Some laser treatments are resulting in 80/20 which is about the same visual acuity as a fox.
It seems that our tech is not just replacing, but augment
...that most UK residents won't get the treatment for years while their sight degenerates as they sit on the waiting list. Unless they get it done in the United States...oh, that's right - they won't be able to once Obama is done with health care.
Lasers saved my vision several times; my retina tore, and Dr. Odin welded it back together with a laser. However, eventually the retina detached, and he had to stick needles in my eye [slashdot.org]. I bet you never thought sticking needles in your eye could cure blindness, either.
You are at risk of a torn or detached retina if you are extremely nearsighted, more so if you were extremely nearsighted and had your focusing lens replaced [slashdot.org].
There are different types of laser surgery for different conditions. LASIC is for myopia or presbyoopia (near/far sightedness) and your vision can be corrected to better than 20/20. Baseball players with normal vision have this procedure to give them superhuman vision; before you can hit a 90 ph fast ball you have to be able to see it. Cheating? Probably, but it's legal.
A torn retina can be repaird by a laser, and if your retina is torn get to your eye doctor IMMEDIATELY or you will suffer a detached retina
Medicare covers cataract surgery, and that's a pretty expensive procedure (about $6000 per eyeball). I'm sure when this treatment is proven (see a comment by a retina specialist further up) it will be covered by insurance and Medicare.
Too late! (Score:4, Funny)
Now get off my lawn! I can hear you there!
Good news everyone! (Score:2)
Hubert J. Farnsworth will be pleased by this news.
Where have you found that number? (Score:2)
I've RTFed the story couple of times, without finding any mention of 2 million dollars price tag.
Could it be that you have confused it with an overpriced toy? [slashdot.org]
Retina reattachment, 40+ years ago (Score:5, Interesting)
Over 40 years ago, my grandmother was the first successful retina reattachment patient. She wasn't the first to get the surgery (probably the Scleral Buckle surgery described in the Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org]), but she was the first one for whom it actually worked.
Now, repair of a detatched retina is routine, laser eye surgery is advertised on TV and radio like something you'd have done at a kiosk in the mall, and formerly incurable degenerative diseases like macular degeneration are now being treated.
My grandmother is 90 now. If I'm lucky enough to make it to that age (I'm almost halfway there), I wonder if I'll even have my original ocular equipment? I'd love to be able to see me some UV and IR.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Really, though, just kidding. I have a small collection of eye problems that are easily manageable because of modern medicine. Macular degeneration is pretty devastating for people, especially those people who are dealing with other diabetes-related problems (that said: kids, put down the sugar drinks-- diabetes is a horrible
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
My grandmother is 90 now. If I'm lucky enough to make it to that age (I'm almost halfway there),
Life after 50 is over rated.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually it's pretty darn good. You've got enough money to enjoy it, and you're no longer the complete idiot you were in your twenties. (if you're still in your twenties you'll have to just trust me on this one, but you are an idiot.)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Speaking from the perspective of someone in their fifties, I have found that the experience and knowledge I have gathered over the years has made me a far more complete idiot than I was in my twenties.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you were alsways an idiot, but now you're smart enough to realize it.
Re: (Score:2)
No longer the complete idiot? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My grandmother is 90 now. If I'm lucky enough to make it to that age (I'm almost halfway there),
Life after 50 is over rated.
But it beats the alternative.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No it isn't. I'm 57 and have more fun than I ever did before.
Of course, I'm not married any more, that has a lot to do with it.
Re: (Score:2)
No it isn't. I'm 57 and have more fun than I ever did before. Of course, I'm not married any more, that has a lot to do with it.
Being 26 and recently married, I see your point ;) I kid! I kid!
Re: (Score:2)
Two pieces of advice:
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
People who get their lens replaced can see into the near UV. Apparently the new material doesn't filter out some frequencies.
Re: (Score:2)
If there was a way to see the IR that bounces through bathing suits and light cotton...
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, nobody found a cure for it!
All they do is fix things that went kaputt. Nobody wants to find out why it happened in the first place.
Why? because there is not so much money in it. Simple as that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
By the way: A cure is something that makes it go away and not come back. That is why this fails too.
And don't say it is because of old age. That is never a cause. There are only two causes:
1. Genetic ones.
3. Environmental effects. (Including food, other people doing and saying things, air, etc.)
Every other "cause" else your doctor tells you, is a lie. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Umm ... so let's assume it's genetic. Do we have "cures" for genetic problems now that are safe, well-tested, and cheap? Let's give science a break, people are working on cures all the time, but we only discovered DNA 50 years ago, we've got a lot of learning left to do before genetic causes can be "cured".
You'll die with a brand new set of ghola eyes (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You have your facts wrong. A detached retina can NOT be cured by a laser. If a laser was used, your grandmother's retina was torn, not detached. I know; my retina detached last year after several tears and laser repairs and I underwent a vitrectomy [slashdot.org]
Repair of a detached retina is NOT routine, although repair of a torn retina is. If a torn retina isn't repaired, it will detach and you will either get needles stuck in your eye and your vitreous fluid replaced with nitrogen, or a rubber band wrapped around your
Re: (Score:2)
You have your facts wrong. A detached retina can NOT be cured by a laser. If a laser was used, your grandmother's retina was torn, not detached...
It was the late '60s. If a laser was used, it would have been more like a sci-fi movie than a therapeutic method.
(The confusion is understandable... I wasn't talking about the current advances being used in her case, but instead reminiscing about our family's contribution to medical advancement. Also, all the comments so far had been stupid, so I figured I shoul
I'm missing something... why the laser? (Score:5, Interesting)
What I don't get -- if the laser isn't actually being used for thermal properties -- is how the light actually "fixes" the problem. If it's just the light that's "stimulating" the cells to "clean up their mess", why not dump 532nm light from an LED? They're just as monochromatic and oughta be bright enough to shine through the relevant tissues.
Obviously, that doesn't work if a high power density is required for some reason other than localized heating, but I'm failing to see why (since the article goes into repeated detail about how little thermal damage is done to photoreceptors) the laser's required.
The only thing that makes sense would be that the amount of waste heat/light dumped into the eyeball by a suitably-bright LED would damage cells in the rest of the retina (i.e. the 99% of the retina that has nothing to do with the macula), and that the laser's only used because it's the only thing that can deposit the required power in the region of the macula without dumping gazillions of green photons everywhere else? (that is, staring into a low-power green LED wouldn't do anything, and staring into a high-power one would be just as damaging as staring into the sun.)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Which advertisement sounds cooler?
"Using a bright green flashlight, we make your macular degeneration go away in ten minutes."
or
"Using a high-tech laser systems designed by a team of professors, we blast your macular degeneration away -- in just minutes!"
Lasers make anything cooler.
Re:I'm missing something... why the laser? (Score:4, Interesting)
What I don't get -- if the laser isn't actually being used for thermal properties -- is how the light actually "fixes" the problem. If it's just the light that's "stimulating" the cells to "clean up their mess", why not dump 532nm light from an LED? They're just as monochromatic and oughta be bright enough to shine through the relevant tissues.
Monochrome light isn't the only useful characteristic of a laser. Accuracy is another - the beam doesn't spread out over any appreciable distance because of the coherent nature of the beam.
That said, it makes a very clean instrument; nothing quite as sterile as something that doesn't touch you at all.
IANAO but a very happy recovered patient of a good one. Although my sight was restored with ultrasound and acrylic as much as lasers. With lens replacement surgery lasers are sometimes required to burn away the back of the lens capsule. Strangely, I found the whole process rather fun and entertaining, rather than frightening, but I'm a geek (and no, there were no drugs involved).
Of course that doesn't matter, if there's the prospect of having your sight restored after nearly a year without it, you'd crawl through broken glass if that's what it took.
Thank you Fred Hollows, wherever you are.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Dead [hollows.org.au], unfortunately.
Re: (Score:2)
and no, there were no drugs involved
What do you think those drops that dialated your eyes were, rainwater? Of course drugs were involved! And before those drops they put pain relieving drugs in your eyes because without them, the dialation drugs burn like hell.
Re: (Score:2)
The 3 nanosecond pulses may be a factor. I don't think you can pulse a normal LED that fast. I think they also do need very precise aiming.
Great !!! (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
"Now I can go blind again..... if I don't stop doing "that"!"
I thought the problem was if you kept doing "that".
excellent progress! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now all they need to do is train the sharks not to eat the old people during the procedure.
That must be where the idea of that surgery costs an "arm and a leg" started. Tim S.
Very misleading media reporting (Score:5, Informative)
The fact is that the technique hasn't even been *tried* yet on Macular Degeneration, much less been shown to actually work.
All that's been done is some studies on a quite different disease for which quite effective treatments already exist.
The history of efforts to treat Macular Degeneration is full of false hopes, and it is desperately cruel to grieving patients and relatives to put out seriously premature press releases like this. I am an eye surgeon specialising in these conditions and I had to deal with some very upset people because of this only today.
Prof Marshall is a very eminent figure in the development of laser treatments for eye disease, but if he had much to do with the way this has been presented to the media he should do some hard thinking about his responsibilities.
There's a brief press release about this on the website of the Royal College of Ophthalmologists (British eye surgeons' professional organisation)
http://www.rcophth.ac.uk/about/press/ [rcophth.ac.uk]
Declining vision (Score:4, Informative)
Don't believe the fluff. Vision declines for several reasons. First, you'll have general focal point problems. Either myopia, hyperopia, or astigmatism (both at the same time - yes two focal points) those can happen at any age. But around 40, your crystalline lens in your eye begins to stiffen. This is presbyopia. The lens cannot bend and this is a lack of "accommodation". Then this lens as a result of UV exposure degrades and you get cataracts. Then you need lens replacement surgery. This is all before we even get to the back of the eye. Floaters in the various humors. Glaucoma (too much humor pressure distorts and damages the optic nerve) , Then, we can start worrying about the retina and things below...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a severe myopic - got my first glasses at age 6, first contacts at 8, currently running a -11 diopter - so I'm really, really used to being able to see things UP CLOSE. Furthermore, young myopics have a
Re: (Score:2)
Well LASIK treatment is out for you, but you can still have PRK. Healing time is a week, and you won't ever have as good vision as a LASIK candidate, but it might improve your vision to be more useful in uncorrected situations. Not to mention making glasses and contacts easier to find/wear.
Well, at 32, I do notice a slightly longer accommodation time in some circumstances, over just 4 years ago, but my vision is still excellent.
Re: (Score:2)
You are correct, but all those conditions are now not only treatable, but curable. The CrystaLens cures the myopia, presbyopia, astigmatisn, and cataracts (I had one implanted [slashdot.org] in 2006). That eye now also has no floaters, because I had to undergo a vitrectomy [slashdot.org] last year for a detached retina.
I wore glasses all my life, now I don't need them. I see better than most 20 year olds, both distance and close up, and I'm 57. I'm looking forward to gettin the other eye fixed some day.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes. There are many new advancements in interocular lenses. There are the classic single-focal (which medicare covers), multifocal, toric and so many new ones. They even have some that can accommodate (be focused by your eye).
Combined with laser treatments surgery (of the lens) including Wavefront(tm) you can have vision better than you probably ever could. Some laser treatments are resulting in 80/20 which is about the same visual acuity as a fox.
It seems that our tech is not just replacing, but augment
Oblig. Simpsons Quote (Score:2)
I never should have had that trendy laser surgery. It was great at first but, you know, at the ten-year mark your eyes fall out. [snpp.com]
Pity... (Score:2)
...that most UK residents won't get the treatment for years while their sight degenerates as they sit on the waiting list. Unless they get it done in the United States...oh, that's right - they won't be able to once Obama is done with health care.
Re: (Score:2)
Lasers saved my vision several times; my retina tore, and Dr. Odin welded it back together with a laser. However, eventually the retina detached, and he had to stick needles in my eye [slashdot.org]. I bet you never thought sticking needles in your eye could cure blindness, either.
You are at risk of a torn or detached retina if you are extremely nearsighted, more so if you were extremely nearsighted and had your focusing lens replaced [slashdot.org].
I wouldn't wish a vitrectomy on my worst enemy.
Re: (Score:2)
There are different types of laser surgery for different conditions. LASIC is for myopia or presbyoopia (near/far sightedness) and your vision can be corrected to better than 20/20. Baseball players with normal vision have this procedure to give them superhuman vision; before you can hit a 90 ph fast ball you have to be able to see it. Cheating? Probably, but it's legal.
A torn retina can be repaird by a laser, and if your retina is torn get to your eye doctor IMMEDIATELY or you will suffer a detached retina
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, I just got here. Comments galore!
Re: (Score:2)
That's what Viagra is for. You try getting it up for a fat old wrinkled bitch without drugs!
Re: (Score:2)
Medicare covers cataract surgery, and that's a pretty expensive procedure (about $6000 per eyeball). I'm sure when this treatment is proven (see a comment by a retina specialist further up) it will be covered by insurance and Medicare.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt that is correct; a retina specialist would do that surgery, not the guy who checks your eyes for new glasses.