Jack Holladay, MD: That's a loaded question, isn't it? Let me just rank what I think they are. In terms of repeatability, I think that the Humphrey Atlas is an excellent unit. It gives you good points. The ISIS 2000 is a good unit, and ISIS is back in business, as you probably know. Joe Wakiel bought it back, so they have units. You can repair your old ISIS. The Tomey unit that Steve worked on for so many years is very repeatable and also does a very good job. The Technomed made by Cscan in Germany is also a very good unit. The only one with which I have a little problem with the Placido aspect is the Orbscan. The height data are very good from the slit, but I think the Placido data from the Orbscan is poor, and I think they would agree with that. You take two Orbscans in a row and the Placido picture is never the same, but the slit data are very good. So, those are the four that I would say were pretty close. I have a question for the panel, those that presented the results for today. The studies I have seenshow that the tolerance on our predictability with the laser today is about plus or minus, at best, 0.4 diopters. My question is, what do you think the order of magnitude of these higher order aberrations is, and do you think it is greater than or less than this 0.4 diopter that we can do with the laser today?
展开▼
机译：杰克·霍拉迪，MD：这是一个加载的问题，不是吗？让我排名自己的想法。在重复性方面，我认为Humphrey地图集是一个很好的单位。它给了你好点。 ISIS 2000是一个很好的单位，而ISIS又回到了业务，如您所知。 Joe Wakiel回购了，所以他们有单位。你可以修复你的旧isis。史蒂夫为这么多年工作的Tomey单位是非常可重复的，并且也做得非常好。 CSCan在德国制造的技术也是一个非常好的单位。我唯一一个与placido方面有点问题的唯一一个是orbscan。高度数据从狭缝非常好，但我认为来自Orbscan的Placido数据很差，我认为他们会同意这一点。您连续两个模板，并且Placido图片永远不一样，但狭缝数据非常好。所以，那些是我所说的四个是非常接近的。我有一个关于小组的问题，那些呈现今天结果的人。我对今天的激光进行了预测性的研究，我已经看到了我们的可预测性，最佳，最佳，0.4屈光度。我的问题是，你认为这些高阶像差的数量级是什么，你认为它是否大于或低于今天的0.4屈光度，我们今天可以用激光做的？
展开▼
