Oklahoma optometrists doing LASIK

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Nothing I've said is the un-truth. Nothing I've said is impolite. Coming into an ophthalmology residency with advanced surgical skills and having many many procedures under my belt should, in a perfect world void of egos, be exactly what one would want in an ophthalmology residency. We all seek knowledge and push ourselves to be the most comprehensive eye doctor possible to serve our patients. Advanced skills, and learning those advanced skills as a Doctor of Optometry should not be considered detrimental in a candidate applying for an ophthalmology residency. To disacknowledge, the surgical eye skills I've acquired over the years reeks of pettiness. The reality is whether you chose to acknowledge it or not many of us as OD's have these surgical skills from our experience. I wouldn't say that hurts anyone's chances for a residency. My step score will speak for itself.

As a candidate for ophthalmology residency people will not question your drive or interest with a history of optometry under your belt. But they will not care one iota about prior acquired knowledge or skills. You're the one with the ego, assuming people will put you on a pedestal with arguably the largest red flag on an application when applying to residency .... and please stop with denying the red flag. I'm not petty or being a jerk, im just telling you the harsh realities or red flags on your application with IMG from the Caribbean being one of the bigger ones. I say this from a place of honesty having fought tooth and nail for my spot in ophthalmology with my own deficiencies on my application. The worst thing you can do is pretend that you don't have one. Sometimes step 1 can't even save you.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Nothing I've said is the un-truth. Nothing I've said is impolite. Coming into an ophthalmology residency with advanced surgical skills and having many many procedures under my belt should, in a perfect world void of egos, be exactly what one would want in an ophthalmology residency. We all seek knowledge and push ourselves to be the most comprehensive eye doctor possible to serve our patients. Advanced skills, and learning those advanced skills as a Doctor of Optometry should not be considered detrimental in a candidate applying for an ophthalmology residency. To disacknowledge, the surgical eye skills I've acquired over the years reeks of pettiness. The reality is whether you chose to acknowledge it or not many of us as OD's have these surgical skills from our experience. I wouldn't say that hurts anyone's chances for a residency. My step score will speak for itself.

Well for starters, you've just stated something in that post that is not true. Program directors don't care about applicants coming in with previous experience with microsurgical procedures unless you've finished an ophthalmology residency. In fact, it can hurt you because when you are a resident, you have to learn from scratch and break old habits of how your attendings want you do things. If you disobey and go rogue because of your experience in the past, that is a sure way to get banned from doing any procedure or surgery. What program directors and teaching attendings care about are a hard work ethic, a thinking mindset, a humble personality, and the ability to learn quickly or to find time to become proficient. No one is a born microsurgeon, and the whole reason to have residency is so that our trainees can learn surgery...the RIGHT way. As a fellow I had to relearn some of the retina skills I learned as a resident, and I'm glad I was not stubborn about it because it helps your growth as a surgeon.

Speaking of reality, here are some things you need to get a grip on so you don't get enamored with your "alternate facts". You're at a Caribbean medical school and if you graduate, and you're going to be on the wrong side of 50. It also looks like you have little in terms of research in any way. This may sound offensive, but really I don't care; I sure as hell don't want to train a resident twice my age that has a brash ego, an unwillingness to learn differently and follow orders, and may not be able to physically withstand the demands of taking call and working 30+ hours in a row, with the potential to be diagnosed with an essential tremor later in life. Even then, it would be unethical to rising medical students, and arguably our country and its citizens, to graduate an ophthalmologist who may only be able to work 10-15 years before retiring.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
why don't we open a cornea retinal surgical clinic. You can do all the retinal surgery and I'll handle all the corneal PRK and SLT surgery.

:laugh: aww that's cute. You actually think knowing PRK and SLT makes you a cornea specialist.

All kidding aside that is a major problem with optometrists. They think they know all if they can do just one simple thing. Just buy a fancy OCT and HVF? Yay I'm a glaucona expert now! Everybody's a glaucoma suspect!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
I"m probably more trained in on PRK than you are right now and a better candidate than you ever were for an ophthalmology residency. Think twice before you speak once.

Moderator/s: at this point the above named poster has made many inflammatory remarks and has started inflammatory conversations in a forum not even designed for his profession. He should be banned from making further posts and these threads should be closed. Please make this happen and make this poster go away. These threads are not in keeping with the benefits of SDN.

Thank you
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Moderator/s: at this point the above named poster has made many inflammatory remarks and has started inflammatory conversations in a forum not even designed for his profession. He should be banned from making further posts and these threads should be closed. Please make this happen and make this poster go away. These threads are not in keeping with the benefits of SDN.

Thank you
Moderator/s: at this point the above named poster has made many inflammatory remarks and has started inflammatory conversations in a forum not even designed for his profession. He should be banned from making further posts and these threads should be closed. Please make this happen and make this poster go away. These threads are not in keeping with the benefits of SDN.

Thank you
 
Moderator/s: at this point the above named poster has made many inflammatory remarks and has started inflammatory conversations in a forum not even designed for his profession. He should be banned from making further posts and these threads should be closed. Please make this happen and make this poster go away. These threads are not in keeping with the benefits of SDN.

Thank you
Moderator/s: at this point the above named poster has made many inflammatory remarks and has started inflammatory conversations in a forum not even designed for his profession. He should be banned from making further posts and these threads should be closed. Please make this happen and make this poster go away. These threads are not in keeping with the benefits of SDN.

Thank you
To clarify, I am a medical student AND a Doctor of Optometry, so this forum is most certainly designed for me. As far as I know you and I are either pursuing the same degree a Doctor of Medicine, or you currently have a Doctor of Medicine. Thus, your statement is found to be false, "in a forum not even designed for his profession."

Second, I have many more surgical PRK cases and SLT cases under my belt than someone fresh out of an ophthalmology residency. This is a purely a statistical fact that comes from having a head start in performing more surgical procedures. This scenario would hold true in the reverse fashion if when I did my first PRK and SLT laser eye surgeries one of my esteemed ophthalmology counterparts had many PRK and SLT procedures under their belt from being in the profession longer than me. Again, from either vantage point this is non-inflammatory, simply the statistical norm of experience in performing the procedure. While you may feel upset at this truth, it is nevertheless the truth. In trying to get my medical counterparts and colleagues to understand the nature of our training, our surgical volume, and our experience you should never ever try to manipulate pure statistical truths with the accusation of "inflammatory comments." Presenting our high experience and safety record over 25 years now in performing these procedures will hopefully get ophthalmology to stop saying disingenuous and downright dishonest statements to the general public. I think the common goal is to get you to look at this issue from all sides so that in the future you can stop screaming "inflammatory " when an argument backed by statistics does not agree with your personal opinion and sentiment. To try and stifle and muffle the truth isn't really encouraging the free flow of the truth. I am truly sorry you find this to be inflammatory, but via surgical volume and experience, I have more PRK & SLT cases than a first, second or third year resident. And thats important for you to get a grip thats its non inflamatory so that you can professionally respect Doctors of Optometry better in the public spaces. Do you understand what I am trying to say?

We are trying very hard as a profession to overcome simply outright malicious lies on this topic. And as I progress through medical school for the search for the universal truth, I do not appreciate you trying to create a one-sided conversation. IN 2016 the JAMA published what is widely recognized both in ophthalmology and in optometry as a politically motivated study. In that article, it was claimed that because ophthalmology does fewer SLT procedures that they are somehow performing them safer and better than optometry. As we learned in our Epidemiology class, this is a classic case of correlation does NOT equal causation. Meaning, because Doctors of Optometry tend to treat 180 degrees of the Trabecular Meshwork at a time and then wait and evaluate for IOP lowering (in an attempt to deliver less thermal energy to the eye, which in turn prevents less post-operative pressure rise), optometry may need to perform a second round of treatments on the other 180 degrees. The JAMA 2016 article made it sound like because of competence we are having to retreat the same area over again versus treating the other 180 degrees. In contrast, Ophthalmology has fewer procedures because of treating the whole 360 degrees first (which also leads to a higher chance of post-operative IOP spikes). Yet, over the past 6 weeks ophthalmology has rigorously quote that "inflammatory" study and article to imply their performance of SLT's is better than optometry. So, if you really want to talk about statements that are "inflammatory", well that would be a fairly good example. Its pure and simple manipulating medicare data in a clear case of correlation doesn't equal causation. Optometry does not have a history of adverse outcomes in performing these procedures over a 25 year period. Volume wise I believe Medicare has us tracked as performing over 25,000 procedures in this time span. I say this with all due respect to you. While I might be traveling the medical school route right now, I do not look the other way from the truth nor saying the truth, as this is the mission of this forum.
 
Last edited:
And here was optometry's counter-reply in the JAMA right after that article came out. Again, not inflammatory but the factual information you need to make a better more informed decision. It would be nice to get to the point that as professions we are freely discussing SLT and PRK cases rather than verbally sparring over who has the right to do the cases. I do not often see anesthesiologists and nurse anesthetists acting in the same manner, nor Dentists who are oral facial maxillary surgeons and cosmetic surgeons going back and forth like this, even though both are delivering the same services/ product. I would hope that the goal is to move forward to the point that we can discuss these cases in a peer to peer manner without having to discredit the other person or having to justify training and experience on said procedure. Wishful thinking at this point...
 

Attachments

  • SLT optometry positional paper.pdf
    149.6 KB · Views: 75
The fact that you list SLT and PRK over and over again together shows how little you know about "laser surgery".


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
 
To clarify, I am a medical student AND a Doctor of Optometry, so this forum is most certainly designed for me. As far as I know you and I are either pursuing the same degree a Doctor of Medicine, or you currently have a Doctor of Medicine. Thus, your statement is found to be false, "in a forum not even designed for his profession."

Second, I have many more surgical PRK cases and SLT cases under my belt than someone fresh out of an ophthalmology residency. This is a purely a statistical fact that comes from having a head start in performing more surgical procedures. This scenario would hold true in the reverse fashion if when I did my first PRK and SLT laser eye surgeries one of my esteemed ophthalmology counterparts had many PRK and SLT procedures under their belt from being in the profession longer than me. Again, from either vantage point this is non-inflammatory, simply the statistical norm of experience in performing the procedure. While you may feel upset at this truth, it is nevertheless the truth. In trying to get my medical counterparts and colleagues to understand the nature of our training, our surgical volume, and our experience you should never ever try to manipulate pure statistical truths with the accusation of "inflammatory comments." Presenting our high experience and safety record over 25 years now in performing these procedures will hopefully get ophthalmology to stop saying disingenuous and downright dishonest statements to the general public. I think the common goal is to get you to look at this issue from all sides so that in the future you can stop screaming "inflammatory " when an argument backed by statistics does not agree with your personal opinion and sentiment. To try and stifle and muffle the truth isn't really encouraging the free flow of the truth. I am truly sorry you find this to be inflammatory, but via surgical volume and experience, I have more PRK & SLT cases than a first, second or third year resident. And thats important for you to get a grip thats its non inflamatory so that you can professionally respect Doctors of Optometry better in the public spaces. Do you understand what I am trying to say?

We are trying very hard as a profession to overcome simply outright malicious lies on this topic. And as I progress through medical school for the search for the universal truth, I do not appreciate you trying to create a one-sided conversation. IN 2016 the JAMA published what is widely recognized both in ophthalmology and in optometry as a politically motivated study. In that article, it was claimed that because ophthalmology does fewer SLT procedures that they are somehow performing them safer and better than optometry. As we learned in our Epidemiology class, this is a classic case of correlation does NOT equal causation. Meaning, because Doctors of Optometry tend to treat 180 degrees of the Trabecular Meshwork at a time and then wait and evaluate for IOP lowering (in an attempt to deliver less thermal energy to the eye, which in turn prevents less post-operative pressure rise), optometry may need to perform a second round of treatments on the other 180 degrees. The JAMA 2016 article made it sound like because of competence we are having to retreat the same area over again versus treating the other 180 degrees. In contrast, Ophthalmology has fewer procedures because of treating the whole 360 degrees first (which also leads to a higher chance of post-operative IOP spikes). Yet, over the past 6 weeks ophthalmology has rigorously quote that "inflammatory" study and article to imply their performance of SLT's is better than optometry. So, if you really want to talk about statements that are "inflammatory", well that would be a fairly good example. Its pure and simple manipulating medicare data in a clear case of correlation doesn't equal causation. Optometry does not have a history of adverse outcomes in performing these procedures over a 25 year period. Volume wise I believe Medicare has us tracked as performing over 25,000 procedures in this time span. I say this with all due respect to you. While I might be traveling the medical school route right now, I do not look the other way from the truth nor saying the truth, as this is the mission of this forum.

Doesn't matter how many laser procedures you've done if you're not doing them right or for the wrong reasons. Even then, the issue in question is not performing the procedure, but the proper indications for them and when to consider other options. A fact you have failed to grasp despite the discussions about this in previous threads.

And here was optometry's counter-reply in the JAMA right after that article came out. Again, not inflammatory but the factual information you need to make a better more informed decision. It would be nice to get to the point that as professions we are freely discussing SLT and PRK cases rather than verbally sparring over who has the right to do the cases. I do not often see anesthesiologists and nurse anesthetists acting in the same manner, nor Dentists who are oral facial maxillary surgeons and cosmetic surgeons going back and forth like this, even though both are delivering the same services/ product. I would hope that the goal is to move forward to the point that we can discuss these cases in a peer to peer manner without having to discredit the other person or having to justify training and experience on said procedure. Wishful thinking at this point...

Hahaha the funny thing that is implied with that response is that it suggests the quality of the initial procedures performed by optometrists was suboptimal, thus the higher rates!
 
OD/MS1IMG: The fact that you resurrected a thread that had been inactive since 2009 to start arguing again shows that you are actively looking for conflict. If someone presented to the ED endlessly repeating themselves like you have been throughout your posts, I would consider a psych consult. You are bringing zero value or new information to this discussion at this point, and if anything, you are solidifying the view that some optometrists don't know what they don't know. Reading your posts, and honestly even taking the effort to type this response, is a massive waste of time. Good luck in Med school, I hope you find a specialty that you enjoy outside of ophthalmology.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Yikes! I've seen this applicant before! Ultimately went back to optometry after unsuccessful match attempt. Although he was a nicer guy.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
 
Top