Thanks for your interest. I have spoken with Dr. Artsybashev and his answers were the following:

1. Is there any collected data of many patient that could give the mean
outcome for VA improvements?

All of the operations have resulted in an improvement in visual acuity. There is an ongoing collection of data and the results will be presented at a conference in the near future.

2. Is there any data about what patients thought about reduction in
ghosting halos and other problems that are hard to measure with a simple
eye chart but still causes alot of problems?

In general these problems have been reduced. This is based on feedback from patients.

3. I am curious about the program to follow postop, did he tell about that?

The program is designed to limit the amount of stress on the eyes during the early recovery period. It is during this time that the incisions are healing. Certain activities such as weight lifting or strenuous exercise should be avoided.

4.  Are other surgeons picking up interest in this technique? Are the risks
high? I mean if the incisions are placed a slight bit wrong the pressure
and reshaping could be totally wrong?

It requires a lot of focus and skill to operate on a keratoconus patient with this method. The cornea is thinner and weaker. There is not much room for error. Perforations must be avoided as they can lead to serious complications. The difficulty of the procedure typically increases with the stage of the keratoconus. A surgeon wanting to learn this procedure would need a significant amount of training.

5. Im just curious to know if the pressure is released somewhat in the eye
and the flattening of the cone is as a result of that, how would we be
assure that the new shape would remain in place.

The incisions are made in a special way so that during the recovery process they strengthen the cornea as they heal. The incisions also target the areas most affected by the disease. There is data showing numerous years of follow-up with stable results.


6. Secondly, Im very much aware that many doctors have apprehensions
differing techiniques in treating certain illness/diseases, but in this
of procedure that offeres so much apparent benefit, why is it not as
popular as other procedures that appear to be vastly mose invassive.

The results of this procedure have not been available until recently.



Regards,

Peter

Hi Henrik,

The climber you mentioned is Beck Weathers. He survived the 1996 Everest disaster. From what I understand he had radial keratotomy surgery in America approximately one week before flying to Kathmandu for the Everest expedition. He did not inform his doctor about his plans.

There are major differences between Dr. Artsybashev's technique and the RK surgeries that were performed in America. The first video demonstrates the type of surgery that Beck Weathers underwent. I recommend starting at 5:30 in order to see the two perforations at 5:47 and 7:50. The surgeon mentions that the first one was a microperforation. However, this was clearly a macroperforation and a serious complication. Those areas of the cornea remain structurally weaker.

In the second video you can watch Dr. Artsybashev's technique. The surgery is quick, delicate, and without perforations. There is much less trauma on the cornea. With proper care during the recovery period a strong adhesion is formed that allows for stable results.

Video 1: The American Technique



Video 2: The  Artsybashev Technique

It is not a problem to operate after CXL. Unlike Intacs, CXL does not increase the difficulty of the operation.

Compared with the first video, Dr. Artsybashev uses a different technique with specialized calibrations and calculations to avoid perforations.

The first step for me is to become an ophthalmologist. I am now in the final year of medical school. To learn this procedure would take years of training, but if I am fortunate enough to earn a spot in ophthalmology it is something I would consider.

Regards,

Peter