Slashdot Mirror
Experiences with Laser Eye Surgery?
GodLessOne asks: "I am about to get my hands on a reasonable lump of cash and I am working on my list of ways to make it an ex-lump of cash. All of the normal geek things appear on the list, but one item that I keep considering is corrective laser eye surgery. Would anyone care to share their real world experiences? I worry that the people selling it are the only ones saying how wonderful it is, and what percentage of people show a marked improvement afterward. Are there any stories out there relating how bad it can be if it goes wrong?"
I found a ton of info on Google...first hand encounters. Lasik experiences.
Yes. Do a google search on "lasik dangers" and you'll find that when it goes wrong, it can go horribly wrong, up to and including blindness.
I, personally, wouldn't do it unless my vision was so bad I needed coke-bottle bottoms to see.
Avoid frauds and unrealistic expectations.
Understand the risks, ans assume much worse odds than you are told. If you're still up for it, go on. If you aren't sure, wait. It keeps getting better and safer, you know.
Good luck!
everything in moderation
The FDA offers this article: Laser Eye Surgery: Is It Worth Looking Into?
If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would it? ~ Albert Einstein
Had both eyes done at once (Lasik) and mine were bad but with minor astigmatism. I thik they were like 20/200+ each before.
After a VERY simple procedure (apart from the razor cutting a flap in your cornea), the recovery process was about 2 days long and now, after 1 year, I have absolutely no ill effects (apart from temp night halos for a bit but they went away after about 6 months).
Vision now 20/20 left eye, 20/15 right eye.
You don't list if you currently wear contacts or glasses. A word of warning if you wear Hard or Gas Permeable contacts (rigid type). Since they ARE rigid they reshape your eye. After you've used them for a while your eye starts to reshape a bit. Which is great. Right up until you decide it's time to STOP wearing them. It takes a while for your eye to gradually reshape -- up to a year depending on the doctor you talk to (and since it's your eyes I'd assume you'd want to be cautious...). So if you get the surgery done before your eye has totally relaxed the surgery will be a waste.
Another warning -- always get a second opinion (from a competent opthamologist) as to whether the thickness of your cornea is great enough to successfully do the surgery. In a story a while ago (cnn?) one of the major problems was that a doctor would attempt to do the surgery with a cornea that was too thin to work with.
Invalid Checksum. Retrying.
A few thoughts:
1) This isn't like buying toothpaste (to borrow a quote). This is surgery. It is worth it to pay the extra money for someone good, rather than skimp and regret it later.
2) If your correction is still changing year-to-year, don't do it. It's only really worth it if your vision has stabilized for a few years.
3) Be prepared for side effects. Personally, my eyes are much drier than they were before, and small, point light sources have little halos around them...especially visible at night.
4) They may say that you can function normally the next day...don't even bother trying. Personally, the day after I could look out my window and watch the building across the way shift into and out of focus as my eyes dealt with their new shape. It was like tripping, only without the mood to go along with it. Kinda freaky, actually, now that I think about it.
With all that said, I would do it again in a heartbeat. I was about -6 or -6.5 diopter, and about a -3 or 4 astigmatism. That's well beyond the range measureable by the 20/20 scale. I don't need glasses now, for anything. I spent a good deal more than the average person, but it was absolutely worth it.
I would never do it again. Among other things it has completely decimated my night vision. Being an amatuer astronomer (among myriad other things) I could always take relief in that my relatively rotten eyesight was not really a hindrance when peering at points of light through a telescope. Now virtually any lighting above ambient in a low-light environment creates tons of hazy starbursts which blast my acuity all to hell. The surgery hasn't helped my vision when I'm the least bit fatigued either. I can't find any satisfactory explanation for this, so it may be an effect of my overall displeasure with the result of the sugery. Be Forewarned. According to my research I am far from being in the minority with respect to most of my complaints. Best of Luck, there are those who have done it and are pleased as punch, but I'd say it's at best a crapshoot.
Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our minds. Robert Nesta Marley
My perscription lenses were -3.75 in one eye and -4.50 in the other. I had LASIK 2 years ago, and tested at 20/20 last week. For me not having to worry about glasses or hassle with contacts, even extend wear contacts, were well worth the price and minor discomfort of LASIK.
Yes, there can be complications, but that's true of any surgery. My advice: under no circumstances should you buy LASIK on price. (Would you shop around for the cheapest heart surgeon?) Skip anybody who advertises AT ALL and find yourself a good opthamologist. He or she is going to cost more than the "$299 per eye" guys, but you will get personal care and will generally not be subject to the "LASIK mill" approach. Ask your friends, family and your regular doctor, (if you have one) for referrals.
You could also go to one of the independent laser centers (eg, TLC) and ask which private opthamologists use them, then go interview a couple of those doctors.
Most of the complications with LASIK happen when the surgeon cuts the flap badly then proceeds with the laser anyway. The flap doesn't fit back on the cornea correctly and the halos etc. happen. If the surgeon merely replaces a badly cut flap, then waits a few weeks to try that eye again the results are usually excellent.
Hi there-
I got Lasik eye surgery in both my eyes from one of the most respected (and expensive) surgeons on the west coast. I did my homework, at the time 4 years ago, he had already done 10,000+ procedures. He has impeccable credentials (Harvard M.D.) and I believe he was one of the people who actually developed the technology. He is the founder of a very fancy institute and did numerous tests both before and after the procedure.
Anyway the reason why I mention this is because although things went perfectly, there was one bad consequence. I HAVE BLURRY VISION IN LOW LIGHT! I understand this is because, when you have as bad eyesight as I did, when the pupil expands in low light it goes beyond the area where the laser ablation took place. The consequence of having light going into your eye from the central focused region and the outer unfocused region is blurriness typically as halos or rings.
During the day/bright light my vision is absolutely perfect, I have better than 20/20 whereas before I had something like 600/20. Unfortunately my work takes me into lots of dark rooms looking at relatively dimly lit images and judging them for image quality/artifacts. So it was BAD!
As a consequence I am keeping up with technological developments waiting for a fix. Now they are using something called wavefront technology, I guess they are able to ablate away your cornea in fractions of a wavelength of visible light (the laser is UV to prevent heating which would kill underlying cells). Unfortunately I think this does not help me because I need the laser to be able to get a larger region of my cornea so that my expanded pupils don't reach the boundary of the ablated area.
I am not sure if my problems were due to my extremely nearsighted vision or other factors. In any case, I am posting this warning that even the best doctor may leave you with BAD results. (I have my complaints that this part of the industry seems to be poorly regulated, while I was given disclosures on the procedures, I do not think the odds of poor results were clearly explained to me. So if this doctor thinks I'm defaming him, I'll be happy to take him to court.).
Good luck.
I had suggested the operation to my wife but she was too afraid of the risks. Her mother had gone blind and eventually died at a relatively young age... not because of laser surgery, but I mention it here because it was a factor in my wife's private fears.
Then one day she was talking to one of her friends who had undergone laser surgery. He was thrilled with the results and claimed that he "walked out of the clinic with better eyesight than he had ever had with glasses or contacts" -- a rather unbelievable story detail but his raving reviews convinced her to try it out.
She had one eye done at a time, to reduce the credit card bill and also to ensure that if the first eye didn't go well then at least she would have one working eye!
It went great so a few months later she had the other eye done and has not regretted it. Now she notices a little bit of extra hazziness on bright lights at night, and is still a bit hooked on eye drops after about two years (but then, she used a lot of eye drop stuff when she had contacts).
I know about five or six people who have had the proceedure done and they all had positive results.
Finally, if you are having it done in the SF Bay Area, my wife would strongly recommend the UCSF eye center. That is where she had the second eye done and she found them MUCH more professional than the private eye doctor (trained at UCSF) that did her first eye.
Good luck.
Religion is poison to rationality, and we lose sight of that at our own peril. -- Lurker2288
Hold out for Staar Surgical and their intraocular lenses. Basically it's an implanted contact lens. Unlike Lasik, it's reversible. You can change your prescription. But it's not quite approved yet.
It definitely works. I went from having a -10 diopter prescription (which, if you're not familiar with such numbers, is really nearsighted, to the point I couldn't read a clock 2 feet away) to having perfect 20/20 vision.
But, it's not without risks. For example, my night vision is somewhat degraded because uncorrected light on the edges of the cornea (when I had the surgery done the current technology only corrected out to about 8mm) creates 'starbursts'. I'm still happy with the procedure, but it's not always perfect. There are chances (low, but statistics don't mean anything when you're only talking about one set of eyes) that much worse things can happen.
Any good doctor will clearly present your options and risks. Ask around for a referral from friends as to who to see... and don't just take the lowest cost vendor!
The 1500 is a guess, they said. The chart stops at 20/1000.
Initially, I couldn't read close up. I was like an old person w/o bifocals at the store - holding items at arms length to be able to read the label. That passed gradually over a period of weeks.
Initially my night vision really sucked. Lots of "blooming" around roadsigns reflecting the light and whatnot. Improves somewhat over time.
I had what I called "ghosting" - anyone who's had LASIK that I've talked to (with significant correction) knows what I'm talking about. Hard to explain. Some of it may be residual near-sightedness I was told, even though I could manage 20/15 on the eye chart. That's what you sometimes hear called "LASIK 20/20" - you can do the eye chart test, but things aren't necessarily crisp. At one point, predominantly with high contrast images (black and white bumper stickers, the moon, etc) I would get something like a 25% intensity image about half-shifted down and to the right (or left, I forget). This got better with time.
Some of the residual artifacts I am not sure if they resolved themselves, or whether my brain adapted. Keep in mind your brain adapts to the fact that you have two huge blind spots in the center of each eye, due to the optic bundle entering the rear of the eye.... yet under normal circumstances you don't notice it. I wonder too if the brain subtly corrects for some of the residual artifacts. Hmm..
I wholeheartedly concur with those that say to go to a high profile, higher cost place. I went with a firm that had done the likes of Tiger Woods, yada yada. I went from 20/1500 (guessed, off scale) with astigmatism to 20/15. Someone I knew went from something like 20/800 to 20/40, best case. They spent a few hundred, I spent a few thousand. There's also the integrity factor... the place I went, for the single price, if you need a slight corrective surgery after healing is about done and the results are known, they would do that for the included price. Of course they're gambling you won't need it, but it's there. Also unlimited check-ins if you think something is not quite right. Some of the low lead-in prices make everything else ala-carte - you could end up paying thousands anyway.. and does the place offer a nationwide network of places you can get checked under the initial base contract for no additional cost?
Anyway, back to the integrity thing. They measure how thick your corneas are, and where I went, they remeasured right before surgery. (should be standard, but I've only done it once, so that's my only data point) The double check showed a little thinner than before. They were going to be taking out the maximum cornea allowed. Which meant I could not have a followup procedure in that eye. They sat me up in the chair before the procedure started, told me that my chances for 20/20 were diminished because their estimate of how much cornea they needed to remove was exactly how much I had. No followup work could be performed. They were willing to tear up my check right then and send me on my way, because they couldn't offer the service they promoted.
I still went ahead with it, and overall have been pleased with the results.
To those who say you could go blind... yes you could. I could have also paralyzed the side of my face when I had my wisdom teeth cut out. If I ever undergo general anesthesia, I could die.
It's like saying getting into a car means you could get killed. Yet an awful lot of us do it every day. Check out the odds and place your bets.
One thing I did was ask how many eyes the place had done. Then, what was their rate of problems. They didn't know off hand, but got me the answer. 2 or 3 minor problems out of 50,000+ eyes left me thinking my odds were pretty good. I placed my bets, and consider myself a winner.
Your mileage may vary, as the saying goes.
w
Incredible coincidence... I got laser eye surgery today. All I can say is, it's amazing. The best investment I've ever made. (I'm actually not supposed to be on the computer right now, but... oh well.) I can already read things at distances that my parents and brother cannot, and my vision hasn't even cleared up yet, the way that it is supposed to. I got Wavefront LASIK. Traditional LASIK had many problems with it: for example, it tended to injure night vision, and its accuracy wasn't incredible. However, Wavefront LASIK actually pinpoints what your individual eyes look like, and works on your eye so well that it has great accuracy, doesn't hurt night vision much, and has fewer problems associated with it. I can already tell you that I highly recommend LASIK Wavefront, even if it leaves you broke. It's that worth it.
This isn't my story, but my sister-in-law who, granted, is not exactly what I would call stoical.
Her vision was something along the lines of 20/800, and everybody chipped in (over $5,000) to get her corrective eye surgery for college graduation. She completely freaked out during the surgery. They have to cut a flap into your eye, while you're awake, and with little-to-no anesthesia. She had a complete panic attack at this point, although continued through the end.
After healing, her eyes were something like 20/25 in one and 20/35 in the other. Terrific improvement, and she stopped wearing glasses. After a few months though, she was back to 20/60 in one eye, and 20/80 in the other. She doesn't wear glasses all the time, but is required to for driving. This kind of relapse is fairly common I believe, but not this severe.
Like every other deal I've heard of, she can go back any time she wants to get corrected the rest of the way, "with no extra charge." (yeah, right) She's not planning on doing so, mostly because of the fear of the surgery, but also because of cost. The 'deal' was for surgery with the same laser they had previously used, and they didn't use that one any more. The one they had now was 'better', but came with more expensive licensing. So in order to finish the correction, she would now have to pay something like an extra $500 per eye.
So, your mileage may vary, but it didn't work very well for her. And whatever you do, watch out for those 'deals' with fine print.
Punctanym: alternate spelling of words using punctuation or numerals in place of some or all of its letters; see 'leet'
Some of the best money I've ever spent. Right now I have 20/15 in one eye and 20/25 in the other (slight residual astigmatism).
:)
May vision was bad before. And I mean BAD. I was almost legally blind. Anything beyond about 6 inches in front of my face was a complete blur. And you can't imagine the feeling you have when you crush your coke bottle glasses and toss them in the trash.
My onyly negative was that for some reason, Some of the anesthetic drops missed my cornea in my left eye. So when that blade cut, it was kinda painful. But I can't complain with the results.
Keep in mind though, it is not a miracle cure all. When you have bad vision (like me) you may still have to wear glasses (most likely ata reduced perscription.
But like I said, it was well worth the money to be freed from having to put on glasses just to get out of bed.
~X~
~X~
People have been doing RK (radial keratotomy) since the 1940's with razor blades (if you can imagine), the precursor to PRK (photoradial keratotomy), the laser equivalent. There are people alive today who have had eye surgery for over 60 years. I know at least one who had RK in the 1970's, and who has suffered, to my knowledge, no long term side effects. This is a poor statistical sample, however.
It is not yet probably known what the odds are of higher risk for long term complications, but certainly people have been having laser surgeries for a long time. Lasik is a bit different too, though, and much newer. It is possible that it will lead to a variety of long term complications that would not arise with P/RK.
I'm curious...how long ago did you have your surgery? My opthamologist claims that the starbursts and halos are preventable by proper screening. Apparently, from what he says, some people's corneas are too large to perform the surgery on and some people's eye tissue (can't remember which tissue) is not thick enough. He claims the screening for these factors is relatively new.
Denver Isuzu Suzuki
I had 420/20 vision in both eyes, well beyond legally blind. Through my vision plan at work, I went to TLC for $1800 per eye. In my research I had determined that (generally) cheap != good. The $1800 per eye covered all optometrist visits, the initial surgery, most medications (largely eyedrops), and any needed followup treatments. I had both eyes done at the same time, and they offered me a valium...which relaxed me quite nicely. The surgery went well, but almost everything that could go wrong after that did. The tissue grew back almost completely (which was a new one to them), reverting me to about 380/20 vision. After several weeks I had a second surgery. Two days later I developed the "Sands of the Sahara", which causes serious fogging of the cornea and can cause real problems if not treated quickly...and I woke up with it on a Sunday morning. Now for the good part. I called TLC right after I woke up that morning, and they set me up with a optometrist half an hour later. Some eyedrops were all it took. I had pretty bad glare for three to four months. Bottom line: I'd do it again in a heartbeat. For all the problems, it's hard to overstate the pleasure and practicality of not needed glasses or contacts. TLC stayed on top of the problems...they took care of me. The pleasure of being able to see...always...and not becoming an invalid if my glasses break is priceless. Check up on the people doing the work, and go for it.
Mutant Freaks of Nature: "Frighteningly Addictive"
I was in a similar situation. I came into a sizeable lump of cash in 1997 and spent the better part of a year reading up on the then new "Lasik" procedure. In February of 1998 I spoke with a number of professionals including my current doctors and local specialists in laser procedures and in March of 1998 decided to go for it.
I would do it again in an instant - but I would still do the same amount of study that I did before. IMHO far too many people don't do the required research before this kind of thing and that's where a lot of the problems can come from.
The surgeon I chose was at the Cleveland Clinic and had taken part in the clinical trials for Lasik before it was an approved procedure. At the time he had more experience than any other surgeon I could find without major travel and he was very upfront about the possible downsides and my own potential for success with the surgury. He did not try to sell me on anything just gave me as much of his time as I wanted and honest, sometimes even frighteningly so, answers.
Not all of the professionals I spoke with were the same. Some were very much in the "sell" mode and made me feel rushed as though they wanted me to decide right then and there. The doctor I eventually went with actually refused to let me make a decision on the spot and insisted that I take my time and think it over first. He also warned me ahead of time that due to the size of my pupils I may not be the best candidate and could still require glasses afterward.
I'll also add that I'm very squeemish about my eyes. I've worn glasses since 3rd grade and in high school flirted briefly with contacts. But I had major problems getting contacts in and out and when they were in found them to be a constant irritant I could not ignore...and that was with soft lenses. When my stigmatism got worse and I had to switch to hard lenses I gave them up within 6 months, wearing them was less plesant than dumping handfuls of beach sand into my eyes.
When I came in for the pre-op for my surgury the day before the doctor gave me a prescription for a mild sedative due to my anxiety over having them zap my eyes while I was awake. Also durring the entire pre-op the staff was equally curteous, friendly and upfront as the doctor himself. Nothing felt rushed but I was never kept waiting either, any questions were answered very patiently and I was not allowed to leave until they were sure that all of my questions were answered.
The day of the surgury I took the sedative and was driven to the hospital. You can't drive yourself home since afterall they'll be zapping your eyes so this is necessary even if you don't take the sedative. I know some people who did drive themselves against doctors orders and frankly I can't imagine how they did it - but my eyes are always extremely sensitive to light and were even more so immediately after the surgury.
The surgury itself took less than 15 minutes. The operating room was small and clean, the laser machine was quite large and the doctor was already seated at the controls waiting for me. Again he took time to make sure I didn't have any final questions and that I was sure I wanted to go though with the procedure. There were also 3 or 4 assistants and nurses standing by to assist.
There is some mild discomfort durring the procedure but frankly it was less uncomfortable than the hard contacts I wore. It was somewhat unnerving to be awake but the doctor was very reassuring thought the entire procedure and explained what he was doing as it happened.
The most uncomfortable part is where they make the cut to fold back the flap - and that is mainly because the pressure of the device they uses causes your eye to black out so all you see is black with some colored specks which is a little frightening - but the doctor again was reassuring and explained what would happen which made it very easy to take.
The laser zapping took only seconds and there is a slight smell like burning hair when it happens. Aftertha
--- Juggle juggle@hitesman.com
In retrospect, I would never, ever recommend it to anyone. I started off at -5.5 (which is pretty bad). I had no astigmatism, and no other problems. I had been wearing contacts for years without any problems and didn't really mind them that much, but just thought that it'd be nice not to need them.
The surgery went well. I walked out of the office, went to sleep, and woke up 3 hours later. I looked outside and could see perfectly - and I do mean PERFECTLY. I was ecstatic. For the first time in my life, I could see without those lenses. This was as good as my vision would get.
For 3 months after this, I had massive fluctuations in my vision. Some days I'd wake up seeing fine, other days I'd have weird problems including double vision, halos, astigmatism, etc (and that's not even including the night vision problems). After those 3 months, my vision finally settled down to being under corrected at -1 with astigmatism (which changed every time they measured it). At this point, I basically figured that I had no choice but to go ahead and have the touch-up (since it was much harder to correct my vision with lenses now).
After 6 months, I had a touch-up. Following this operation, I had the same weird after effects for months, until my vision finally stabilized - into 20/20 vision. During the day. In good sunlight. When I'm not tired. All of a sudden I have dry eye problems which cause me huge problems at night, or when I'm tired. Problems I never had before. I have weird problems with blue lights. At night, I can focus on most things, but am unable to focus on blue LEDs or lights. Apparently this is a normal side effect of the surgery.
I would recommend that you visit http://www.lasikdisaster.com/ If you want some more information. The major problem that they don't tell you is this: 20/20 vision is NOT the same as perfect vision. You can have double vision, ghosting, night vision problems but still have 20/20 vision. As long as you can read that little line on the eye chart, you have 20/20 and are considered a success story of the surgery. You could have a double image and not be able to drive, or function properly and STILL BE A SUCCESS.
In addition to this, you can end up with eyes that are miscorrected (so you still have blurry vision) that are UNCORRECTABLE. If you have multi-axial astigmatism, or other weird issues you may NEVER be correctable to 20/20 with glasses, contacts or ANYTHING ELSE. Think about that. No matter how bad your eyes are now, at least they're correctable.
In short, I would never, ever, ever have the surgery knowing what I know now. I would also never ever recommend it to anyone. The risks are not worth the rewards. Notice they say that 95% or 98% or whatever reach 20/20 - but they never say how many have these weird complications - and outside studies estimate them as high as 25%. Doesn't sound so good now, does it?
Cemil.
I think you've hit-upon a key point. If your eyesight is so bad that you're effectively blind without glasses (incapacitated), I would think that it's a fair chance to take. As other posters have said, the main reported side-effect can be poor night-vision (halos on bright objects) - and I found the same issue when I wore contacts.
I can "see" fine without glasses to get around and such, but I can't read comfortably without them.
The tradeoff is that I work in the film and television industry - eyes are pretty important (read: vital) for my job, and the risk is outweighed by the potential problems if something "went wrong".
I'm reasonably comfortable with the technology now - I know that a local company doing the laser correction does a "no touch" technique where they use the laser exclusively without the microkeratome so no foreign objects touch the optical surface of your eye - apparently it provides a smoother finished surface with less chance of issues at night.
But it's not an urgent "fix" for me. Add to that at least a couple times where glasses have saved my eyes from being injured (once by flying debris, and once by an accidental spray of cleaning solvent) and I'm not all that unhappy wearing glasses...
N.
"Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
This is IMPORTANT, mod parent up! The parent is referring to a laser called intralase which completely eliminates the process of using a microkeratome to cut the flap, the part of the procedure that is by far the most prone to induce complications. The laser cuts the flap for the procedure by using thousands of ultrafast femtosecond pulses of light focused just below the surface of the cornea in a radial pattern. Depth and thickness of the flap can be controlled with exquisite precision and since nothing physically touches the intracorneal tissue, risk of infection is grealty reduced. While you're at it, since you're probable a technical guy, what with posting to slashdot and all, why not check out the laser itself? Manufacturers are all different with respect to the spot size of the laser pulses, the method which they use to track tiny eye movments and compensate for them, and the range of astig. and correction they are intended to treat. Also, see if they do customized ablations to reduce higher order abberations as well. If you're going to check out the doctor before you have the prcedure done WHY NOT CHECK OUT THE TECHNOLOGY TOO?!
- "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
OK, now I'll tell you my personal experience (that's what GodLessOne is looking for, isn't it?). I got LASIK performed on my eyes back in December, 2001. At that time I lived in Colombia.
It turns out that, to the surprise of many of you, Colombian ophthalmologists are actually leaders in their field. Keratomileusis, the first refractive-correction surgery procedure was developed by Dr José Barraquer, and ALK (automated lamellar keratoplasty) by one of his students, Dr Luis Antonio Ruiz. ALK was very similar to LASIK, but the actual molding of the cornea was done mechanically. A Greek ophthalmologist was apparently the first one to use an excimer laser to do the molding, although I have read references that it was also Dr Ruiz's team who developed the automatic tracking mechanism that warranties that the laser will always burn the correct part of the cornea even if the eye moves. (The eye is not completely inmovilized. They ask you to look up, where there used to be a red light moments before, but if you do move your eyes it's OK.)
I barely knew about Barraquer back in 2001, and nothing else. Some friend of my family strongly recommended some Dr. Luis Ruiz when they found out I was interested in LASIK. Only a year later, when I was researching LASIK on the web for a friend who also wanted to get her eyes treated, did I find out that I had been operated by one of the inventors of the damned thing. By the way, my friend also lives in the USA and got her eyes operated by Dr. Ruiz during a holiday vacation trip. I recently talked to her and she told me that she went for a control appointment a few weeks back and she's still 20/20 (she went to Colombia for an unrelated reason).
Back to my story:
So my recommendations are:
Part of the equation is your age - at 34, I was considering laser surgery (I use contacts or glasses), but one factor in the decision is that laser surgery doesn't do anything about the natural aging process, so I'll probably start needing reading glasses in the next ten years anyway.
That and some guys I know who have had it claim increased night glare, which basically prevents them from driving at night. No thanks!
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Talk with your opthamologist/optomitrist first. I had it done and had a pretty bad prescription +5/+5.5 and a large amount of astigmatism. The results for me were good enough (20/40 with both eyes, some residual astigmatism). I went for several years w/o glasses, but evenutally went back to using them. I can function fine w/o glasses, but fine work (tying a #22 fly on a 5x leader) was more difficult than when I was using glasses, which gave me 20/20 vision. If you are farsighted, you can expect some regression over the first couple of weeks and your vision will not be "oh my god!" great just after surgery. You should be sure that your doctor is experienced and well qualified, especially if you are a difficult case. A difficult case is defined as very farsighted and/or lots of astigmatism. People who are nearsighted tend to have better results. You should also be sure that your doctor measures your corneal thickness -- some of the cheesier (read cheaper) ones will take practically anyone and insufficient corneal thickness is a receipe for disaster. Also, the size of your pupil in low light should be measured. If your pupil is too large when fully opened you will have problems with your vision in low light. This can be corrected with glasses for night vision and is not an uncommon side effect of the surgery. The fact that I can read, drive and generally function quite well w/o glasses is a real blessing. The thing that drove me to get glasses again was the eye strain associated with long hours at the computer. All in all it was worth it and I would do it again, especially since the techniques for the surgery have improved since I had it about four years ago.
Isn't theory a great place? Everything works in theory.
This is part of what I do. And it's good. It's very good - and getting better. One of the first things I did was have one of my colleagues work on me. My recommendations:
1) Find a clinic that can perform a "wavefront ablation." These are procedures that are customized to your own eye instead of based on a generic template. The difference lies in that they can correct third and fourth order curve errors, not just sphere and cylinder. The technology is not yet mainstream so you may have to hunt around.
2) Ask the doctor how many procedures he's performed, what % require revision, and what percent result in impaired vision.
3) I personally believe in IntraLASIK. It's an all-laser method of creating the eye flap. Traditional methods use a very sharp blade on a battery powered slider. While good, these devices can skip a bit and actually *create* third order error.
4) For god's sakes, FOLLOW YOUR POST-OP INSTRUCTIONS. Use the eyedrops RELIGIOUSLY, use the eye shield at night. This stuff is micrometer surgery. It doesn't take much to ruin an otherwise optimal result.
Best wishes!
U of Iowa
After some further research, it appears the place that's doing it locally is doing a laser PRK as opposed to LASIK.
:P. Apparently this company also gives you "free touchups for life" after the surgery incase your prescription drifts as you age.
The laser PRK actually uses the laser to remove the cells above the cornea rather than cutting a flap.
The old-style PRK method of this that got a really bad name is when they used to abrade (read: sand off) the top surface of the eye using a q-tip of some sort. Apparently this was highly uncomfortable and was prone to problems healing (ick).
The laser version basically does the same thing, but it just vaporizes the top layer of cells then uses the laser to reshape the cornea underneath and is much less traumatic to the eye as nothing is physically touching the optical surface of the eye.
That said, the technology you mentioned is also very intriguing. Using a laser to cut a flap, then reshape makes good sense as well. Apparently each method has it's tradeoffs:
-The flap-cut method heals faster and causes less discomfort, however there's the issue of the flap itself and the size of flap they can cut to work on the cornea underneath. Apparently "flap problems" are the biggest cause of after-surgery complications
-The laser PRK method is a bit more uncomfortable afterwards as the membrane on the eye needs to regrow (a few days). But there's no flap, and they can work on a larger area to reduce night-effects. This method is apparently not approved in the US (although the reference for that was a few years ago) so you might need to go to another country to do it (ie: Canada).
The only reason I know about it is that I went for one of their free evaluations a few years ago because I was curious what they could do. I opted not to do anything at the time, but I felt comfortable with the staff and it seemed like an easy-enough procedure.
There were a few people in the lobby that were getting after-procedure checkups, but they didn't speak english, so I couldn't ask them about it
N.
"Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
First off, don't go for the person who is the cheapest. Find the most experienced doctor you can get. An inexperienced doctor can easily do massive, irreversible damage to your eyesight. Nothing is worth that risk.
;)
I went from about 20/600 in each eye to 20/25 and 20/50. That's the good part. I have a light astigmatism in my left eye, and a medium one in my right eye. Great for daily activities that don't involve reading. The astigmatism causes a double image (within each individual eye) that makes text a little bit difficult to see properly. I also have the halos around bright lights at night that are common among lasik patients. I often find myself squinting while driving at night. I had dryness and itchyness for 6 months, and needed to use eyedrops. My eyes still feel dry a bit more than they used to. I still have a pair of glasses for reading the computer screen and tabletop gaming.
It was a highly unpleasant procedure. They keep your eye wide open with a speculum for 10-15 minutes. You get local anesthetic drops for your eye, but you can still feel the pressure of what they are doing to your eyes. The keratome (that cuts the protective layer of your eye) is attached via suction and causes you to temporarily lose vision. You get the closest possible view of them slicing the protective layer of your eye, and then peeling it back like a bedsheet, causing your vision to blur. Then you have to intently follow a red dot while a laser burns your cornea down to the desired shape. It smells like burning hair. And since your nose is about an inch away, it's very strong. Afterwards, they have to lay the protective layer back down so that it lays flat. It naturally sticks to the cornea, so if it's not laid down perfectly the first time, the doctor may have to peel it back and put it down again. Perhaps several times. Now do the other eye. If you're looking to get both eyes up to 20/25 or better, then you should expect to come back in 6 months and do it all again.
Some bad reasons to get lasik surgery:
Save money on glasses/contacts. You will most likely still need to own a pair of glasses for the rest of your life.
Want perfect vision. Your vision with glasses or contacts is most likely better than lasik will be capable of.
Don't like the way you look with glasses. Try contact lenses.
Some good reasons to get lasik.
Don't like the way you look with glasses, and you have problems wearing contact lenses. (me)
You have very bad vision and can't really do anything until you get your glasses on, or contacts in. (me)
You like to engage in activities that aren't friendly to contacts or glasses, such as swimming.
I had mine done under my medical coverage, so it didn't cost me much more than a few bottles of eye drops and a new pair of glasses (a year later). It wouldn't have been worth it if I had to pay out of pocket. I'd say I'm 'fairly satisfied'. My vision is nowhere near as good as it was before with glasses (20/15, 20/10), except that I used to have prismatic effects with the thickness of my lenses. It's great to not have to clean fog, water and dirt off my glasses. Being able to see while swimming in the pool or ocean is especially nice. What's the point of going if you can't enjoy the view?
Was before I learned that some people can only see in a tiny area of their vision. Enough to read but not enough to hurriedly board an unfamiliar train arriving on the wrong platform.
Mammalian vision really consists of two parts: peripheral and central vision. Peripheral vision is really dedicated to monochrome vision and motion detection. Useful in all light levels and needed to orient yourself relative to surroundings. Central vision is used for colour and texture recognition (needed for reading/writing). Lose your peripheral vision, and you won't be able to tell where things have moved to when you shift your gaze onto something else. Lose your central vision (macula, 5% of retinal area, around 2.5mm in diameter), and you will still be able to tell when things move and where they have moved to, and orient yourself, but you won't be able to recognise faces or read text.
Or there's night blindness and glare sensitivity, where the eye loses the ability to automatically adjust the brightness and contrast settings.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads