CRT vs. "orthokeratology"

[en_trance002]

Hello, I am back with a quick question. (I was the one who is suffering from severe monocular diplopia from 6.5 yrs of a misguided orthokeratology treatment). I know that the FDA did not approve "orthok" methods until around 2002, which was after I was given orthok lenses. Nowadays, I usually hear about Paragon CRT technology. Is there really any difference between "Paragon CRT" and "orthokeratology"? I thought CRT was a form of orthok, and it might've been that the 'orthok' involved non-approved, outdated technology. But even so, I don't think I would even qualify anymore for such corneal therapies, as I have high degrees of regular/irregular astigmatism. I doubt I'd ever want to put anything like that in my eyes again. Just curious about the "distinction" if any. I heard Paragon's material was more oxygen permeable or something. My original orthok lenses were probably not made of such material. I am mostly worried that the off-center seal-off incidences in the past few years did some irreparable damage to my cornea (corneal thinning or damage due to corneal hypoxia overnight???...although--visits to MD ophthamologists did not show any medical problems with my eye, besides the purely refractive problems of course.) Thanks.

[John C Hagan III, MD, FACS]

Since Ophthalmologists uniformly do not do Ortho-K and most optometrists don't either I cannot tell you the difference between Ortho-K and Paragon CRT.

JCH III MD