|Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Radial keratotomy.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Radial keratotomy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|no archives yet (create)|
RK was very popular once,now it called as barberic prosedure.still in india becose of financial problems and unavailability of Eximer machines many surgeons use it as treatment of choice in low myopia,even it is noticed that some very famouse surgeon had practised RK in minor aged myopes which is quite contraindicated in refractive surgery.lots of cases also reported done RK in high myopia like say -10 to -15 diopters...!!!!!but now sinario is changing in india also with all sophisticated new machines.
An eye surgeon commented on the precision that must be made during the surgery as such; "Imagine a layer of ten wet paper tissues. That's the depth of the cornea. Now, cut through nine of those layers without scratching the last one." Edwardian 06:16, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Other sources cite surgeries leaving 20 to 50 micrometres of corneal tissue unincised (roughly equivalent to 90% of corneal depth based on thickness norms). This formulation requires revising. The statement "20 to 50 micrometres of corneal tissue unincised is roughly equivalent to 90% of corneal depth based on thickness norms" is terribly confusing. Besides, the referenced source doesn't seem to be one of the "other sources" mentioned in the beginning of the sentence, so at least one other reference is required for the "20 to 50 micrometres".
Tendency toward progressive hyperopia may be favorable
I'll refer to a personal anecdote here when saying that some people who suffer from ever worsening myopia might benefit from the possible side effect of radial keratotomy mentioned in the article: ever increasing hyperopia. My nearsightedness was much more debilitating than the farsightedness that resulted from from the surgery. The farsightedness hasn't been difficult to compensate for with reading glasses, while the nearsightedness was very problematic and produced an ongoing feeling of vulnerability. Joseph Meisenhelder (talk) 14:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't agree. First, RK and MARK differ quite substantially in the execution (length of incisions, depth of incisions, angular span of the cornea involved, different keratometry and pachymetry required, different corneal markers), in the same way that Circular Keratotomy (CK) and Arcuate Keratotomy (AK) are not RK at all. Secondly, MARK is used as procedure for keratoconus, while RK is now an almost obsolete procedure to correct low and non-pathological myopia. For conceptual clarity and medical accuracy, I really think they should remain two separate pages, as they are two very different procedures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 01:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Cite error: The named reference
Emedicinewas invoked but never defined (see the help page).