Yeah, well despite loving the IOLs I totally agree. Which makes me incredibly
worried for the endo cell loss. I mean, if they've already folded up their tent
and gone home and then that starts to happen.....

>>> "poasid3412" <poasid3412@...> 06/06/08 3:09 AM >>>

Man, this is really putting a burr in my saddle about this technology.
I get that there are risks, and I'm willing to cross my fingers on the
whole retinal detachment, cataracts, endo cell loss, etc., since I know
they are rare . . . . but geez, isn't the sizing of the ICL optic in
relation to the Iris diameter (under night conditions) kind of a simple
thing to measure and predict the likelihood of halos? Seems like people
are getting an unpleasant surprise about something that shouldn't be so
surprising.

Or is there some other halo-inducing optical phenomena going on that we
don't know of (and Staar & partner physicians haven't figured out) yet?

I really don't want to think the worst of people, but the history of
business ethics abuses can't help fueling the imagination with the
obvious conspiracy theory: what if Staar knew of the problem, but went
ahead with widespread product introduction anyway, under the
philosophy "Well, let's count the quantity (and audible volume) of
complaints before we either (a) fold up our tent and go home or (b) beg
the VCs for R&D funding to create ICL 2.0 (with bigger lens diameters)"?



--- In piolusers@yahoogroups.com, "nannyboo99" <nannyboo@...> wrote:
> . . . .
> My biggest problem, as I know many of you who've had it have
> experienced, is the halos. Prior to surgery, I only had them when
> driving at night, and they weren't really full halos--more
> wedge-shaped around each light. Were minor enough that it didn't
> bother me. Now they are much worse, enough that I don't feel safe
> driving at night and they suck all the fun out of going to the movies.
> . . . .
> Nannyboo
>