31–40 of 57 posts
What are the moral and legal implications of such a surgery? An eye for a tooth, a tooth for an eye?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apparently the title was edited since I posted it—it was originally about the same as the article.
You did nothing wrong! it's a fine submission, and the site guidelines ( https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html ) call for using the original title "unless it misleading or linkbait". The linkbaity effect of the original wasn't obvious until we started seeing it in the comments. Once that happens, though, we've learned that replacing the title with more neutral wording is the #1 thing to do to get a thread…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The title "For the 1st time in Canada, surgeons put teeth in patients' eyes to restore sight" is much clearer than "Surgery aims to restore sight by implanting a telescopic lens in a tooth". First, the tooth is put into the eye — used as biocompatible material to hold the lens. Second, the surgery is 60 years old and has something like a 94% success rate after 27 years, so it's hardly fair to say "surgery _aims_ to r…
Those are good points. dcminter suggested a different wording, which might have a less agitating effect, so we can try that for a while. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43208774
This is the first I'd heard of this, and I did some poking around, and came to the conclusion that this surgery is ~mostly obsolete --- which is an answer (for me) to the question of "don't they have a better substance to use as a lens substrate than tooth?"
Why is it obsolete?
I wonder how this surgery was originally 1) invented 2) proposed to colleagues. "Hey peeps, I've been bouncing around this idea lately. So you know how Mrs Smith in room 230 has no eyesight left? Well one of her teeth came off when she fell last night, and I started thinking.."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is it obsolete?
They still do it, obviously, but we have better artificial corneas now.
Not that i’m doubting you. Just that i also did some poking around and found this statement published in 2013: “The Falcinelli OOKP (MOOKP), where adequately performed, is now recognised internationally as giving the best, long-term visual and retention results among all keratoprostheses, especially in a dry eye.” [1]
Curious if the difference between what you found and what i found is time (perhaps what was in 2013 the best threatment has been superseeded by better ones since), or differences in opinions among practicioners. Especially because the “where adequately performed” sentence part makes my spider sense tingle about the one i found.
How fitting that the material usually comes from eyeteeth!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They still do it, obviously, but we have better artificial corneas now.
Could you share the source you found please? Not that i’m doubting you. Just that i also did some poking around and found this statement published in 2013: “The Falcinelli OOKP (MOOKP), where adequately performed, is now recognised internationally as giving the best, long-term visual and retention results among all keratoprostheses, especially in a dry eye.” [1] Curious if the difference between what you found and wh…
Oh great, now I have to brush my eyes before I go to bed too.