Slashdot Mirror
The U.S. Navy's Doctrine of Laser Eye Surgery
The New York Times reports that laser eye surgery — now performed on nearly a third of every new class of midshipmen — is transforming Naval careers. Navy doctors are performing these operations with "assembly-line efficiency," allowing older pilots to continue flying, and those who might otherwise have been disqualified to pursue flight school. The number of procedures has reportedly climbed from 50 to 349 over the past five years. The Navy uses a different procedure than that used on civilians — grinding the cornea rather than cutting a flap — out of fears that the flap could come loose in supersonic combat.
I've had glasses since I was 11 months old, and as much as I'd like to get rid of them, getting flaps cut or 'ground down' just dont sound very appealing to me.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
the flap could come loose in supersonic combat.
there's a circumsicion joke there somewhere
I have had this done and would NEVER do it again. Perhaps I am one of the few that have had problems, but I don't even drive very often these days.
Perhaps I should take up flying? Not as much traffic I guess.
"Plenty to see here. Cleared for takeoff."
I thought this article was about laser-eye surgery, as opposed to laser eye surgery. Meaning I could FINALLY get surgery allowing me to shoot lasers out of my eyes. Like Superman. I've never been so disappointed in my life.
Maybe if I was in danger of losing it. Or maybe they've improved a lot since I was in many moons ago. The commonly held belief back then was these docs (and dentists... don't get me going on this one...) were only in the military because they couldn't hack private practice. No suing for malpractice if you're a GI and the doc screws up.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
I wonder if this "grinding" technique is available to civilian consumers. I bet it would be preferred by the most active of us. Besides, grinding actually sounds more appealing to me than having a "flap" cut into my eye.
I have known people who were suicidal after having Lasik because they had it done at a "399.00 per eye" where the point is to get people in and out as fast as possible.
The problem with Lasik is that the burn area is only so big and some people's pupils dilate past that point resulting in all kinds of weird effects on the vision. Grinding would seem to allow much more control over the treatment area.
If you're going to get conventional Lasik here are some things to remember....
1. It IS surgery contrary to how "routine" Lasik places try to pass it off
2. Research your doctor doing the procedure
3. If you're lucky your doc possesses a cornea fellowship from Emory University
I think the phrase 'ground down' used in the summary is a little misleading. It's not an abrasive process which is used to reshape the cornea; rather a laser is used to ablate it.
Not that the word 'ablate' is any more paletable than 'grind' when it's coupled with the word 'cornea.'
The gift of death metal does not smile on the good looking.
BETHESDA, Md., June 17 -- Almost every Thursday during the academic year, a bus carrying a dozen or so Naval Academy midshipmen leaves Annapolis for the 45-minute drive to Bethesda, where Navy doctors perform laser eye surgery on them, one after another, with assembly-line efficiency.
Nearly a third of every 1,000-member Naval Academy class now undergoes the procedure, part of a booming trend among military personnel with poor vision. Unlike in the civilian world, where eye surgery is still largely done for convenience or vanity, the procedure's popularity in the armed forces is transforming career choices and daily life in subtle but far-reaching ways.
Aging fighter pilots can now remain in the cockpit longer, reducing annual recruiting needs. And recruits whose bad vision once would have disqualified them from the special forces are now eligible, making the competition for these coveted slots even tougher.
But the surgery is also causing the military some unexpected difficulties. By shrinking the pool of people who used to be routinely available for jobs that do not require perfect eyesight, it has made it harder to fill some of those assignments with top-notch personnel, officers say.
When Ensign Michael Shaughnessy had the surgery in his junior year at the Naval Academy, his new 20-20 vision qualified him for flight school. And that is where he decided to go after graduating last month ranked in the top 10 percent of his class, rather than pursuing a career as a submarine officer.
"The cramped environment in submarines is something that turned me off," Ensign Shaughnessy, 22, said.
For generations, Academy graduates with high grades and bad eyes were funneled into the submarine service. But in the five years since the Naval Academy began offering free eye surgery to all midshipmen, it has missed its annual quota for supplying the Navy with submarine officers every year.
Officers involved say the failure to meet the quota is due to many factors, including the perception that submarines no longer play as vital a national security role as they once did. But the availability of eye surgery to any midshipman who wants it is also routinely cited.
"Some of the guys with glasses who would have gone to submarines or become navigators are getting the chance to do something they'd rather do, and the communities that are losing the people are not as happy about it as the aviation community, which is gaining better candidates," said Cmdr. Joseph Pasternak, the ophthalmologist who oversees the program at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda.
In the Naval Academy's class of 2006, 349 of the 993 midshipmen had the surgery, up from 50 five years ago, according to Naval Academy records. Fewer than 30 percent of the academy students whose eyes qualify for the surgery choose not to get it, and the number of holdouts is dropping every year, Commander Pasternak said.
Last week, a little after 10:40 a.m., Colin Carroll, a 21-year-old midshipman from Olney, Md., put anesthetic drops in his eyes and lay down under the laser as Capt. Kerry Hunt, a Navy doctor, and two assistants prepared to begin. "We're locking the laser on now," Captain Hunt told him.
Midshipman Carroll had originally hoped to enter flight school but discovered not only that his eyes were not good enough, but also that he was prone to kidney stones, ruling him out of aviation entirely. He said he was "resigned" to entering the Marine Corps or becoming an officer on a surface ship, neither an assignment requiring perfect vision.
But he decided to get the surgery anyway.
By 10:49, both eyes were done, though extremely bloodshot, and Mr. Carroll walked out wearing sunglasses, declaring he could already see better.
The procedure used by the Navy, photorefractive keratectomy, or PRK, is different from the one used on most civilians. That approach, known as laser-in situ keratomileusis, or Lasik, requires cutting a flap in the surfa
The method the Navy uses has been available to civilians for years now. I should know - I had it. In LASIK SURGERY the potential for the flap to come apart exists because only the outer edge of where the cut is made heals. You recover in 3 - 5 days instead of 5 - 8 with PRK. But with PRK you don't have the heebie geebie factor of eye flaps busting loose. In fact most eye doctors will recommend PRK to those under 30 with any kind of an active lifestyle for sports, scuba diving, etc.
While taking a week or more off work is tough for some - YOU'RE PUTTING FRIKKIN' LASERS IN YOUR EYES in either way. Why not take the more permanent / durable approach? Don't chose 'Hi Dr. Nick' budget solution either. That's just stupid.
I had heard that the Naval Academy was a grind...
Oh, yeah, it's not easy to pad these out to 120 characters.
Uh, I don't think so.
*checks*
At least mine doesn't have a flap.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
I got out quite a few years ago, before this was possible. My cousin however is still in, and he got the surgery done, for free. They offer it to everyone, and encourage you to do it. It makes all aspects of being a soldier - particularly an infantryman, much easier. Now you can wear off the shelf eye protection, no longer are gas masks a pain in the ass to put on, nightvision goggle, scopes, sights in a tank, are all easier to use.
I think it's a great idea, myself.
I have been wearing glasses since age 6, so you can imagine how bad my eyesight is (they have to custom make my contacts with extended range). I have been told since middle school that I would be a good candidate for surgical vision correction. That was before they used lasers! Remember when they used to slice off little bits off the lens of your eye by hand?
I'm glad I waited. Maybe I will continue to wait a bit longer, grinding sounds like it might work better.
"Oh, say, can you see by the dawnzer lee light," sang Miss Binney
a reg page!
It's the old cheaper technique, that isn't used anymore because it hard to redo when your eyesight changes.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
I never understood, why is it that the US have such a concentration of pilots in the Navy rather than the air force?
Well it's not "grinding," unless the meaning of the word "grind" has changed recently, but there is at least one laser procedure available to civilians that doesn't cut a flap.
[b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']
Love of country. Desire to help the armed forces. Free ticket out of Havana. Instant citizenship. Etc.
And the number one reason that doctors enter the military... That fine butch asshair on all the female cadets.
I had PRK done in Jan-05, and have been extrodinarily happy with the results.
t -of-my-eyes" pain, and 3 days of "damn my eyes itch" iritation. Not for the faint of heart.
The only drawback was the day of "oh-my-god-what-have-I-done-get-these-icepicks-ou
Best money I ever spent, and I'd do it again in a heartbeat.
Nothing to see here, move along.
While I'd love not have to wear glasses, the idea of zapping my eyes with lasers terrifies me. To even contemplate it, I'd have to be drugged up to - excuse the pun - the eyes. I can't even put in contacts, never mind lie there as a laser burns holes in my cornea...
You must think in Russian.
I'm sure there's a joke in here somewhere...
Join The Navy, See The World, etc
Let me tell you - as a person who has never had eye surgery - the flap won't come loose.
Please trust me. I play a doctor on teh Intarwebs too. Tell them I said it would be alright.
Get your own free personal location tracker
Yes, I'm not military and I've had PRK. Actually had a choice between PRK and LASIK and went with PRK because I didn't want a flap on my eyeball and wanted to have the ability to have the surgery done again. It was quite painful at first and took three months to recover, but I do not for one minute regret the decision to do it. Went from 20/400 to 20/20 in both eyes, including correcting some fairly severe astigmatism in my left eye.
Usually PRK is more expensive, but not for the military personnel.
the Navy grinds instead of cutting a flap.
(carrier landing).
Altitude?
- 1500 feet, sir.
Gear?
-Yes, sir.
Flaps?
- Open, Sir. What the hell? Everything's gone blurry and dark!!!
Not those flaps, Lieutenant!
(Crash... Blammm... splash splash of bits falling into the ocean).
You see, there's a reason they grind instead of do anything involving flaps, and there's also a reason I'm not employed writing comedy dialogue.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!
And for the record, I have about 20/800 vision (-8 lenses) and I'm allergic to Retinox 5, too.
I had LASIK done just under a year ago and couldn't be happier. I had it done in Madison by Dr. Probst (sp?). Apparently he helped invent alot of the equipment that is used (while in the waiting room, I noticed framed books on the wall written by him entitle ("Advanced Concepts in Laser Surgery", etc. so that made me feel a lot more at ease). Naturally having him do the procedure was expensive (I think it was around 4,000 and my eyes weren't all that bad), but when you're talking about your vision, you can only be so frugal. Anyway, I had a newish procedure done where a laser was used to make the flap instead of a thin blade. This helps with healing time and was able to play softball and pickup basketball within a week and a half or so. Maybe it was twice that, I am not very sure. Either way it didn't take long to heal and would highly recommend having it done that way. P.S. Definitely weird to sit there in the chair focusing on this little red dot and then you can suddenly start to smell your own flesh burning.
Is that how they fixed Harmon Rabb's eyes? And if so, can I have one as well so I can dig some hot Marine chick like Sarah MacKenzie?
There are less side effects and the results are almost always better with PRK. It also is easier to do touch ups as needed. The reason why it isn't as popular in the states is that it requires people to take a few days off so their eyes recover. I could afford a week off in countries where you can get more than 2 weeks of vacation. ;-P
Brought to you by the Vacation for everyone lobby.
no longer are gas masks a pain in the ass to put on
They're supposed to go on the other end!
I have actually had this (civillian) type of surgery.
The "flap" is a thin, transparent layer over the cornea which is peeled back to allow the laser to shape the cornea, then it is placed back over the cornea and it heals. Older surgeries used to discard the flap entirely, but a crescent heals faster and with less discomfort.
In my case the flap was discarded, it grew back with no problem. There was discomfort for the first week or so.
I was awake during the entire process. They gave me a mild sedative but I don't really think it was necessary - there was nothing particularly exciting about it. The eye was anesthetized, of course, and this was tested before the procedure began. I was using the eye up to and during the surgery, at which point it was bandaged over.
The actual laser part involved looking at a particular spot while the doc counted up some numbers like he was zeroing in on some chosen value. That's all there was: just look at some spot for about a minuts and it's done. No laser (visibly), no sound, no feeling, no buzzing or cutting or anything like that.
The anesthesia wears off a couple of hours later, and the eye hurts like it has a bad foreign object in it, but it the pain was periodic and not excruciating. It didn't prevent me from working on the computer.
There's nothing particularly exciting or scary about the procedure, and when it's all over you get to see clearly without glasses.
Photorefractive Keratectomy (PRK) is available to consumers and is actually a better procedure than LASIK, but is more expensive, requires a longer healing period and fewer physicians are trained to perform it (takes longer to get certified, LASIK certs can be obtained via short, vendor classes).
In PRK, the outer surface of the cornea is ablated by the laser (on an lower power) and then reshaped at a higher power. A protective contact lens is applied to patient and remains on for about 5 days, then is removed by the doctor. The patient applies drops to the eye several times a day for about a month while the outer cornea heals.
The benefits of PRK are the lack of any "flap" problems (incorrect cut, complete cut [ouch], misalignment, dislodgment, halo effects, etc...) and ability to correct some visioin situations not correctable via LASIK.
While my wife wasn't a good candidate for the procedure and didn't have it performed, I highly recommend the physician who evaluated her, Dr. Bruce Bodner Associate Professor of Ophthalmology at EVMS.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
I'd heard that people over forty don't respond as well to eyesight correct. What's the followup on those older patients? what's the failture rate?
My parents are both MDs, so I always go to them with medical questions before paying anyone for advice.
Last time I asked (I'm around -4.5 in both eyes), they were worried about the long terms of removing part of the lens in either eye. Apparently, part of the lens is also removed as a treatment for cataracts, and they had some worry that
a) Laser eye surgery could remove enough of the lens to make cataract treatment later in life difficult or impossible, and, also
b) There weren't any large scale long term (20+ yrs) studies on the rusults of the surgery.
As I said, this is secondhand... perhaps if there's a MD or a Optometrist on these boards they could comfirm/deny/just explain better?
I started wearing glasses when i was 2 years old, at the age of 35 I decided that the coke bottles that had burned a bump in my nose had to go. $5000, 3 surgeries (one had to be done twice) later i can see 21/23 (Was about 39/46). It was the best money spent, 7 years later my eyes are just starting to get weaker again. I hope that in 5 or so more years i still wont need glasses, which will mean a good 12 years seeing my alarm clock in the morning.
One note, on second surgery of first eye (They werent close enough the first time) they had to draw a line on my eye where the old cut had been made so they could cut in the same place again. I hope nobody ever has to have some draw on there eye, it was not at all pleasant and truely blew out my blood pressure for the day.
Their explanation in both cases was the same: we really don't know the long-term effects of PRK/LASIK/LASEK. It could have side effects (triggering glaucoma, etc) that would render you near blind in 30 years. Is it really worth that risk?
So I'm sticking with glasses. For one thing, I'm over 40 and while I'm still nearsighted, normal age-related presbyopia is setting in. I can deal with it by simply removing my glasses to look at things that are up close. If I had LASIK, I'd need to carry reading glasses with me all the time, so there's not much of a win.
Depends what you mean.. PRK has a quicker recovery time in the the LASIK flap procedure never, ever, ever heals. The flap is held on by surface tension (or something like that). PRK does have the advantage that the cells on the front of the eye heal over. There is a better PRK method nowadays where they 'soften' the cells on the front of the eye with alcohol, push them to one side, do the 'reshaping' and then push them back. Apparently its still a bit painful, but a lot less than the old PRK.
The article is a bit misleading. There is not really any grinding down, and the flap is still removed as with more traditional lasik. The difference is that the flap is thrown away and not replaced. The flap will heal itself and thus remove any risk of it coming loose at a later time.
The downside here is much more pain, and much slower (3 months) healing process, hence the flap is usually replaced to act as a natural bandage.
Big ones, small ones, some as big as yer 'ead!
Give 'em a twist, a flick o' the wrist...
349 in the past 5 years is not a whole lot of people considering the size of the navy.
Got Code?
Ever since I was a child, I've had latent Nystagmus (latent because it doesn't happen all the time).
Basically, I lose control of my lateral motor functions in both eyes, and they shake from left to right.
The skinny is that everyone's eyes automatically adjust eye position. When you look at something, your eye will gradually move a bit off of where you are looking, and then your eye will realize "oh crap, I need to adjust a bit to look back where I should be." With Nystagmus, the eyes take a lot farther to realize that they're not looking straight at the intended object, and so they travel away from straight noticeably further. When the eye finally realizes it's off, it snaps back into place, but then starts drifting again. Note- this isn't a lazy eye, because both eyes do it synchronously.
What I've always wanted to know is if it would be possible for me to get PRK or LASIK with this condition. I would forever be worried that my eye would shake a bit while the laser was lasering and I'd end up with scorched eyeballs... Perhaps it's a paranoia, but hey, it's my eyes!
Does this method affect your night vision? (The LASIK method can negatively affect night vision.)
It wasn't that bad before laser correction. I had Radial Keratotomy surgery done in 1994 and I can still see. Though it is a little disconcerting when a doctor holding a scalpel above your eye says, "Don't sneeze."
Remember, there's no free lunch! Somebody paid for that surgery. Wouldn't it be nice if we all had access to the same health care system that those in the military have, given that we're already paying for it? A man can dream.
Sig cannot be found.
I notice most posts are talking about the particulars of this type of vision correction or that, but I got something different out of the title. They're applying this to nearly 1/3 of the midshipman class members. That seems like a rather high rate of surgery. I can see the specific benefits for pilots, but this sounds like it's approaching across-the-board-for-imperfect-eyesight. I've also heard that C-section rates for childbirth are much higher in military hospitals than in civilian. It kind of smacks of a one-size-fits-all attitude, with a correct-with-surgery clause added.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
On the one hand you could say "pay a high price".
On the other hand you could say "go with the folks that have done this tens of thousands of times".
I got mine done here in Houston from Dr. Wade back in 1998.
It was like $350 per eye.
The procedure at that time.
1) use a machine to map your eye.
2) feed results of the machine into laser controlling machine.
3) the doctor fixes your eye in place with a clamp.
4) the doctor uses a device in a track (no free hand cutting) that cuts 75% of a circle making the flap.
5) a machine guides the laser in a series of pulses (you smell a burning hair smell but feel nothing).
6) repeat for eye #2.
7) The *trickiest part* is to *religiously* put in the medicated eye drops for a couple weeks so you don't get an infection because if you do then that is a problem- potentially a bad one. Infection rate at the time was something like 10 per 100,000 almost all due to the people not putting the drops in. I'm sure others didn't put the drops in and didn't get infected.
Results?
When I go to the ocean I can *SEE* water instead of a dark blurry mass.
When I go skiing, I don't have to stop at the bottom of every run and wait for my glasses to unfog.
When I play sports, I can see the disk and I don't ever get my glasses knocked off (and damaged).
A few less ear aches and headaches (I had heavy glasses).
No contact eye infections.
No wierd veins in my eyes when i go skiing.
Some what dryer eyes-- so I have to use drops when humidity gets down below 30%. But that may be partially because it is always 80% humidity here normally.
It could be a problem later in life. Then again, I almost died in 1993 anyway so I want to grab some fun while I can.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
i'm gettin glight headed now... why is my blood pressure going up when *you* had the surgery a while back?
i might as well get it done since i'm already feeling all the negative emotional effects!
After reading about the experience of Beck Weathers on Mount Everest (he had radial keratotomy surgery, and during the climb experienced blindness that cost him both hands and part of his face to frostbite), I've decided that maybe glasses aren't so bad after all.
The Navy uses a different procedure than that used on civilians -- grinding the cornea rather than cutting a flap -- out of fears that the flap could come loose in supersonic combat.
I wonder if this means that people who have had eye surgery in the civilian sector are also ineligible for flight school, or if the military has even considered asking people if they have had the procedure before admitting them.
Sure, the remedies aren't going to be 100%, but if we waited for them to be perfect, we'd still have extremely short life expectancies.
Almost all the gain in life expectancy is due to (no risk) public health measures, not (potentially risky) medical procedures.
Ready to enlist? Because if you aren't, STFU.
Generally speaking even in peacetime the military is a fairly hard lifestyle. When I was in (during the Gulf War) we worked out that we were getting paid about $2.25 an hour for work that was either very boring or very dangerous.
Guaranteed: food, shelter (gotta love those two man tents), medical care, and maybe a few perks after you've exited the service (GI Bill rocks). Also guaranteed: a chance to go to a third world shithole and either get killed outright or seriously maimed, and in my unit 55-80 hour work weeks.
That being said, in the Army I met two damned fine dentists (out of five) and one damned fine doctor (out of at least eight). I'm not sure where everybody gets the cheery "they're awesome" opinion of military docs, but I'm guessing that the Navy and Air Force have real standards when it comes to physicians.
Hey, I hear if you want to join up you can get the surgery FOR FREE! :)
Of course, the down side is that you have to give up or postpone your current career plans and risk getting shot at and stuff, but still! You too can get this surgery for free!
On another note, it's probably cheaper to the tax payers long term to pay for the surgery than it is for all the special gear + glasses/contacts etc. Even if the surgery is slightly more expensive for the people who only stay in 4 years than the glasses, it likely improves combat effectiveness enough to make it worth while. Not having to worry about broken glasses, getting the special gas masks, night vision goggles, or whatever could save lives and make a real difference in the outcome of battles.
Think about it this way, all those guys in the military get issued machine guns FOR FREE! I don't really think they're gonna give me one too.
Well, there's and easy way to get the same benefits...join up. You also get the benefit of travelling to foreign places, meet new people who are all to happy to ... shoot at you or try to blow you up.
"Consistency is contrary to nature, contrary to life. The only completely consistent people are the dead." A. Huxley
out of fears that the flap could come loose in supersonic combat.
Actually, LASIK concerns relate to high-g combat which is mostly subsonic. That's where pilots experience the highest inertial forces which could (theoretically) tear open a LASIK-cut cornea and eyeball. For every aircraft the optimum (quickest turn rate) turning speed is subsonic, and the ability to change the aircraft's attitude is paramount in tactical engagements.
OK, all you have to do is pay the extra 2+ years of servitude at a job that carries with it elevated risk for harm and you can have the health benefits they enjoy.
Oh, you thought the only cost was tax dollars. Get a clue.
Doctors should heal, not make better killing machines.
I've had people ask me why I've never gone to contacts or had Lasik.... Couple of reasons. One, allergies, that leaves out contacts. My job is the main reason I put up with the hassle of glasses. I work on printers, fax, copiers, networks and you have something once in a while fly up and hit you in the face. Be it liquid or solid. I few years back I had a spring clip fly up and smack my glasses, dead center in the left lens. Had I not had glasses, it would have hit me in the eye. Yeah, if I had 20/20 and safety glasses it would have it those, but, I'm not taking any chances with my eyesight even if the surgery is 100%. I've heard that some report night time driving in the rain is a problem also....
Its great that they offer this free to enlisted active duty , and its often used as an a recruitment incentive. However in reality the waiting list for this procedure is often atleast 2 years, speaking from personal experience.
I have been thinking about getting the Lasik for a long time. It seem to me that the risk versus reward is low in the short term. But we don't know what the long term effects of the surgery are... By long term I mean the possibility of being more suseptible to eye disease and disorders that are more common in later life.
My mother had radial keritotomy (sp?) 15-20 years ago. My understanding of the procedure is that it is the equivalant of Lasik but using a blade to make the incisions instead of laser. My point is that she is in her mid sixties now and has developed glaucoma and will be forced to take eye drops every few hours and have regular checkups to keep it under control for the rest of her life. She has been told that her eye surgery may have put her in an elevated risk group for glaucoma, but not until now.
Until I hear of more long term studies on the effects of Lasik... I think I'll wait.
(end of post)
It's called PRK.
It doesn't cut the cornea, and it's the only surgery allowed for prospective and current Navy pilots. Midshipmen (who do not yet have careers as pilots) who want to fly but cannot see have to elect to have the surgery and accept the outcome if it goes awry (i.e. not by military doctors and not on the Navy's dime). We briefed these midshipmen on the risks and responsibilities, and they elect to pay and have the surgery.
It's not that painful, and they are generally out the next day or so. Your vision will be watery for a while as your brain adjusts to the new focus of your eyes, and you take steroid shots. Three months minimum after the surgery (when your vision is considered stable) you are evaluated by a Navy doctor (as part of your precommissioning aviation physical) and they are the ones that determine if you are a go for flight school. Note: your vision does not have to be perfect (20/30 or better, I think), and the strict vision requirements are for pilots, NOT NFOs (Naval Flight Officers... the back seat driver like Gooseman). This is not new news, but it's an interesting discussion (I recently taught as an NROTC instructor, so I know the ropes).
The speed wouldn't be the problem, it would have to be high-G loads from tight turns in a dogfight. Plus, dogfights almost never get supersonic, if ever.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
If what I said came accross as any affront to those who serve in the military, I fear my I've been misunderstood. My point was simply that medical care is not free, and it would be nice if we had access to the same healthcare system as those in the military, as well as those who work for any federal agency, as well as the loftiest of Congresscritters, get. But I wouldn't dare offer insult to anyone in the military, and upon rereading my comment, I'm not sure how you got that.
Sig cannot be found.
But at the end of the day I know that I can see - with my glasses.
At the end of the day, people with laser surgery can basically see. Some have problems with glare, and some develop vision problems that can't be corrected even with glasses, but the procedure basically works for most people despite the risks.
That's at the end of the day. How about at the end of the decade, or of your lifetime, though? This thing has only been done for a short while now, and the longitudinal studies aren't in, by definition.
Military organizations, again, have done studies over shorter periods. Eighteen months is not the measure of this surgery, though. It's performed on a sensitive organ that already has problems with deterioration with age. Given that, I'm not exactly jumping to get it done because of the deals on those special ads that come with the Sunday funnies in my paper.
Are contact lenses such a problem? I can see it for jet pilots, okay, maybe. But for everyday people, what -- you absolutely can't wear goggles when you swim?
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
I'm not quite sure how that rebuts the claim that the procedure was free. Please advise.
Sig cannot be found.
Small sample I realize, but I know two different people whose ability to do optical astronomy has been severely impacted by
eye surgery. Combined with an increased risk of glaucoma (and no end in sight to the prohibition of the one medication that is effectively indicated for glaucoma), I believe I will continue to make myself be satisfied with the highest quality glasses I can get.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Like others here, I've had very bad vision since I can remember. I've worn glasses during my waking hours for over fifty years. In the 70's I wore contact lenses, which worked very well for me. Now, I've got a condition that gives me permanent double vision, which is only partially correctable and only with glasses. I hate my bad vision. It's an unbelievable, never-ending hassle to me.
However, I would *never* allow any doctor cut flaps or grind on my eyeball in an attempt to rid myself of my eyeglasses. Although I despise my eyeglasses, I love my eyes, which I hopefully will still be needing for some decades into the future.
That's the problem with these procedures. They haven't been doing them long enough to know what the long-term effects are. I cannot imagine trading off my vision later for mere vanity or convenience.
Thank you. I think I'll suffer with my specs. I *know* that they will not render me blind. I don't know that cutting flaps into my eyes will not do that.
Your point about the med school funding -- I'm considering med school, so I know whereof you speak -- is well taken.
I did have a friend in the Navy, though, who underwent a nightmarish wisdom tooth extraction. The Navy dentist gave him conscious sedation (a narcotic) instead of a general anesthetic, and then proceeded to perform an extraction that would have given any Civil War surgeon pause. My friend described the fear very effectively. Said he never slept on his back after that, because it reminded him of the surgery chair somehow.
In general the reputation of the military's medical services was that of a poor-to-middling staff model HMO, based on my friend's description of the general situation. Maybe that reflected all the young doctors doing their five years and gaining experience, maybe not.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Well I'm not the parent poster, but I think the point is that when you're employed by someone then you get health benefits not available to people not employed by them. Quite frankly, I'm pretty sure the only reason the military offers the surgery for free is that it's actually a long term cost/efficiency savings for the military.
:)
My work health plan offers discounts to eye surgery because I have an eye plan that pays for glasses etc. Since they expect to pay X amount of money for glasses, and they estimate how many years I'll be getting new glasses etc. some nice actuarial program tells them they can offer me a discount on the surgery and save money in glasses.
For combat troops who need special equipment/risk more lives if they are wearing glasses, the 'savings' for offering the surgery are greater. Whether or not our Congress critters get free surgery I don't know, but it's not a standard government benefit, so... the answer is, it was decided that it was a good way to spend the tax payer's dollar, but paying $4k for everyone in America who wears glasses... for no real reason except it would be nice for us... Well, I guess there's always Canada
As for taking offense... I guess it might be that you're implying that somehow members of the military don't deserve those benefits. That it's somehow unfair that they get them when not everyone else does. Sure it'd be nice if we all could, but sadly if we knew how to make socialized medicine work well it would probably be in place already.
..erm...so you're saying they've been doctrine long enough to know how to do it right....
Thanks alot! Now that I went through the two last links and some of your comments, I'm definitely disgusted of laser eye surgery (a flap? peeling off your eye? protective contacts? ewww wtf), and won't consider it again before they invent some stuff that does it without cutting or peeling off anything in your eye, damnit! Don't mean to sound like a cunt but that's disgusting, not even talking about the actual risks
Meanwhile I'll stick to glasses and contacts, even if it's annoying sometimes.
You just got troll'd!
Sometimes you can't tell the difference.
The Navy is doing PRK. This was the first procedure done widely on civilians. Lasik was introduced later. The primary Lasik advantage is the patients have usable vision sooner and are pain free sooner. PRK is the better treatment, but in our quick fix society, Lasik is more popular. It is also pushed by many docs as there is less negative feedback from customers, less followups during the shorter initial healing cycle.
Lasik, cuts a flap into the stroma, this is not the same flap that is removed for PRK as some folks have been characterizing. Alarmingly this flap never full seems to heal. It has been lifted YEARS after the original surgery. Lasik permanently weakens the cornea.
PRK is essentially moving or removing the epithelium. A thin surface layer that will grow back, not the deeper flap cut in the above. Variant (LASEK or epi-Lasik) attempt to preseve the epithelial layer and use it as a sort of bandage during healing. This helps speed the healing and lower pain, but it is still not as good as traditional Lasik.
Bottom Line:
PRK and variants, better/slower/more painful. Laskik has more issues/complications, but is more comfortable/faster.
The navy is making the right choice here.
First off, I used a very highly recommended doc. He even had photos in his office of all the Hollywood celebrities he'd done it on. Not that hollywood celebrities add any credibility to any expertise other than acting, and even that's debatable. Except that they do tend to have very big, strong social networks, and cost is typically no object, so I felt like this was at least a good goc with fabulous word of mouth recommendations, and he wasn't cheap. He also had a "zero failure rate" in at least ten years of practice.
So I did it, and had 20-20 vision. I don't qualify as a faiure, but I certainly didn't know how many ways your vision can be not-right either. Sure, I can read the 20-20 line on the chart at 20 feet. So I'm a success, right? Well, the letters aren't acutually supposed to have drop-shadows. But I do see them and I can read them with no difficulty.
My cornea had developed a "wrinkle" in it. That's what the doc called it. So small and slight that it can't be seen without special instruments. But the doc could see it. And I can see the refractive abberation it causes on my retina. I see double vision on anything with high contrast. It's especially bad in the blue-green part of the spectrum. When driving, I see double green lights but only one red light.
Don't misunderstand, it's not a two-eye focusing on the same thing problem. Even with one eye shut, I see double, like a drop shadow. It's a slightly left-right misalignment with my left eye and a 45 degree diagonal misalignment with my right eye. Looking at the full moon at night is depressing. It's a big fat misshapen blur. This kind of thing can NOT be corrected with glasses either.
To be fair, I have incredible vision at certain distances. I can still see very well up close, no reading glasses needed at all even though I'm 45 years old (I had the surgery 3.5 years ago to cure myopia, so I've never needed reading glasses anyway) I can also see details on distant mountains and in clouds and passing jet planes I could never have seen with my glasses on. What the sunsets do to clouds truly blows me away now. I've never seen such beauty before in my life! But that's not very useful generally. Driving- especially at night is maddening because of all the double images from traffic lights and other lighted signs. I hate neon signs now like you wouldn't believe. And then there's the moon, and I see at least twice as many stars as you probably do. I see twin-stars that should be solitary.
But, I still have 20-20 vision, because I can make out the damn letters on that friggin chart. So I'm not a failure. I'm a screaming success, from the doc's point of view anyway.
The solution? I've been told the only thing to do is have the operation again. For free this time, of course. I don't think so. I wish I could have my old eyes back. I fear they'll only get worse if I do it again.
I wonder how the military is dealing with the possibility of pilots who can pass the 20-20 test on the chart but aren't reporting the double vision thing. Then again, maybe they've perfected the "details on mountaintops" thing and are exploiting it somehow. That could be useful for military pilots!
------------------
Buy my toys and have fun while you still can! - http://www.backyardartillery.com/
I'm not rebuting anything. I'm calling you out for being an asshat who thinks he should get the same healthcare as someone in the military without having to pay the extraneous costs - such as having to serve.
It's not really "free," it's just being rolled into the opportunity cost of the job: it's like a benefit, one of the few benefits of being in the military. A civilian would have to pay for the surgery, sure, but they would probably so make significantly more money. Same with the health plan and free housing (barracks). Go read the military pay rates if you want. I'm not saying they're not a bad deal if you want to be in the military, but if you have half a brain you don't do it for the money, that's for sure.
So saying the surgery is 'free' is right up there with Verizon wireless telling me I can get a 'free phone,' if only I agree to pay them $50 a month for three years. Only fools and people who work in advertising would call that 'free.'
TANSTAAFL.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
If fear is a greater obstacle, than money, then you can have each eye done at separate times. That will cost more, however.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
I'm curious - did they offer it to hyperopic (farsighted) soldiers? Its only about 8-10% of the population with bad vision who are nearsighted, but LASIK is primarily aimed at myopic patients.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
That was exactly the point I was trying to make- that it was a stupid statement to say the procedure was free. I like the military, I think they are being compensated horribly for what they do. I'm not sure why I'm being flamed so.
Sig cannot be found.
...you absolutely can't wear goggles when you swim?
Most people tend to wear contacts to avoid the goggle-eyed look. Vanity is a rather compelling force. Anyone who's had to take shop classes or similar course where protective gear will attest to that from hearing at least one macho guy/dainty girl saying "I'm not gonna wear this, it makes me look stupid..." These same people are often the ones who later bitch about getting crap in their eye or melting half their face with chemicals.
Well ok, not mine exactly but my wife's.
She has both anterior and posterior uveitis. Primary treatment for these is steroid injections directly into the eye. It treats the swelling but the side result is nearly immediate and total cataracts. So she's also had lens replacement surgery in both eyes. Next up is laser surgery to remove secondary cataracts. False lenses will collect material in the eye as a film which has to be removed periodically with a laser. Oh yeah, she's also <35 years old.
All that, and she still has about 20/25 to 20/30 vision.
So it's my gut feeling that you'd have to screw up pretty darn bad to have a lasik procedure go awry. I agree with your advice to shop around - there are good and bad eye doctors out there. But if someone does as you suggest and do their research and pick a good one they shouldn't worry about anything bad happening. I'm sure it's "Bob's discount lasik center and donut shoppe" that is throwing off the averages.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
I was hoping the Navy was using sharks with lasers...
Wow, Ground corneas!! The military gets all the good stuff..
-- -- Warning. Do not stare directly at the sun.
Dude, my point wasn't about the military, it was about our messed up health care system. Here's my idea of paradise:
1. Make the base pay for an E-1 $80,000/yr. Scale on up accordingly.
2. Allow any private employer to buy into the same health care system available to federal agencies/military.
3. Rejoice.
Sig cannot be found.
I'm shopping for a new eye Dr. and would like to find one with one of these. I've been reading about them for years and I think it'd do good for me since I can never tell if 1 is better than 2.
END OF LINE.
Not...
I had it a couple years ago. I reposted my blog entry afterwards here in my slashdot journal.
Excerpt:She took her time. A swipe swipe here, a swipe swipe there, here a swipe, there a swipe... After she satisfactorily buffed away the covering of my eyeball, she used an actual broom to sweep away the leftover shit in my eye. I know this because I heard her say the word "broom" before she used it. There were other tools used. Again I express my thanks to the inventors of those magical eyedrops. She continues to remove the last remnants of the covering of my eye like one might remove a proof of purchase from a can of Jif to win the $300,000 grand prize, gently now, don't want to ruin the serial number.
"I can be self-referential if I want to," said Tom, swiftly.
I got my first LASIK surgery in 1998 on both eyes. I had worn glasses and contacts my whole life and was tired of them. I was virtually blind without them and my prescription was so strong I always had to special order my contacts. So for me, it was well worth the risks, and I must say it was the best thing I have ever done in my life. Since then I have had 2 other surgeries in one eye and 1 in the other since after my eyes regressed a little after they healed. I see 20/20 and have no trouble other than the ocassional stars/halos around lights at night. If anyone is thinking about doing it the best thing you can do is follow the pre-op and post-op instructions to a T...drops every 30 minutes, lubrication drops constantly, proper vitamins, etc. I think that has a lot to do with how successful it is. Also since I had my surgery done there have been advancements...IntraLase to use the laser to cut the flaps, and wavefront mapping which determines the specific abberations of your eye.
//m
You need a few things. First, a class in communication - because your original post sounds nothing like your reply. Second, you need a class in economics.
How the hell are you supposed to raise E-1 pay up to $80,000 a year (and scale up), offer duty free goods, AND not tax the hell out of the civilian population? The military and government agencies get different healthcare because essentially they are providing a service to the people. We receive something in return for our tax dollars. Also, why should your employer pay for your healthcare anyway? Your health is ultimately your responsibility.
Employers offer healthcare as a "perk", a way of attracting the best employees they can. There are numerous jobs in America where the base requirements are the ability to breathe and respond to simple stimuli. In these situations, employers don't offer healthcare because there is no difficulty in filling these positions.
Overall, I don't think you have a clue what you are talking about.
Welcome to the thunderdome, bitch.
My dear friend, I may not have a clue what I'm talking about, but when has that ever stopped anybody from talking?
Per the first point, it may sound like hyperbole, but I think the military is one of the (if not the) most important functions of the state. As such, I think they should be paid and compensated like professionals (if not more so). Secondly, not everyone can serve in the military (I can't, they wouldn't let me in because of my ticker, go figure), but I think it is important that the sacrifice for national security be shared by all, so getting the hell taxed out of the population would make sense in that context (or just do what they do now, which is just run the currency presses all the time).
Should has nothing to do with it. Notice my use of the word "allow". If you, as an employer, did not think participating in such a system was a good idea, don't buy in. Simple.
See? We're not so far apart.
Sig cannot be found.
welcome our new sharp-sighted American naval overlords!
Considering I'm "overseas" from the US, I sort of wish this were more of a joke than it is.
I want to play Free Market with a drowning Libertarian.
Yeah, very cool and such. Hurray for your average eye doctor, NOT. I'd rather talk again after we've seen the effects of all this in a longer term. For example; its a fact that with laser corrections you're making your lens less stable because you basicly burn stuff off. It raises the risk of the lens getting lose tremendously, I've heard and read many stories about people who were very happy with the surgery at the beginning but after a few years the problems began to manifest...
So lets cut this kind of short-termed bullshit crap about how great everyone is doing this surgery and look at some longer termed results. Then we'll talk again about how great this is.
Not really sure (who can understand the slashmind?), but my guess is that people bristled at the suggestion back in your original comment (#15570352) that people not in the service should have access to the military healthcare system, or even that it would be nice if this were the case, since people in the military get access to such a nice taxpayer-funded healthcare system as a result of or partially in payment for the rather hazardous/boring/underpaid work that they do. If everyone had that available to them, it would (from a certain point of view) diminish the value of that special benefit to servicepeople. It's a roundabout way of considering the issue, I know.
:-)
Probably depends on whether or not you think all people inherently deserve free (by which I mean collectively-paid) healthcare. A lot of Americans, ultimately, don't think so (regardless of whether they admit it to themselves or not), and so what to one person seems like an unequivocally true statement ("wouldn't it be nice if everyone had healthcare?") is answered with a resounding "no" by many.
That, and idealism is in short supply on Slashdot; display any and you'll get flames. If you want karma, try cynicism.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
They're supposed to go on the other end!
You've clearly never been in a barracks.
May the Maths Be with you!
"However, I would *never* allow any doctor cut flaps or grind on my eyeball in an attempt to rid myself of my eyeglasses"
Yeah, because they're stalking you at night, trying to FORCE you to submit to their surgical whims. Even worse, YOU DON'T WEAR YOUR GLASSES AT NIGHT. So you CAN'T SEE THEM. Those clever, sneaky doctors!
Deep breaths. Nobody's going to take your glasses away from you, Poindexter.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Thank you for serving.
- AJ
Due to thin cornea's, I opted to have PRK done on my earlier this year (rather than LASIK). I have no plans on doing supersonic flight thought, and am VERY VERY happy with the results.
The quick pro/con list of PRK vs. LASIK:
pro PRK:
no cutting of the cornea
con PRK:
can be more painful
longer healing time
The results of both procedures are exactly the same.
I got an ulcerated cornea from (hard) contact lens several years ago. It was quite painful, debilitating really, but my doctor said he'd never had anyone go blind from it. If you are in good health otherwise and get prompt treatment it isn't a very high risk.
Man, you really need that seminar!
I got a halo effect from my PRK procedure, so it's not perfect.
The U.S. Army also offers free laser eye surgery to soldiers. Preference is given to combat troops. "The bottom line is that if you're in the middle of a fight and you can't see the enemy before they see you, you're dead". The Army has been doing this since 2001. Combat troops with glasses are now considered obsolete.
because when it's this cheap and this easy, I just feel like I have to disregard the risks :
http://www.lasikathome.com/foureasysteps.htm/
I wish this procedure was available to me when I joined the USAF back in 1964.
With this procedure, I would have been a figher pilot... the ONLY thing keeping me
from flying was my bad vision. I passed all other tests, even the centrifuge and
took a whopping 7 g's, and a trip on the Vomit Comit...
I spent hours and hours on the simulator's even when I was an Air Force brat.
Kinda like the Iron Eagle movie... I know the guys in Ops and get free trips
to hawaii every weekend.... flying to Hickam, Hawaii on Military transports.
Got lots of cockpit time, even when I was in High School... joined the CAP
(Civil Air patrol)... but vision requirements even for private aviation was
then very strict until the FAA soon relaxed the requirement and allowed corrected
vision...
I loved to have "dog fights" with the regular USAF fighter pilots on the sims.
I got my ass whooped almost every time... but it sure was fun.
I had to have almost 20-20 uncorrected vision to fly. Darn... I missed out on
this... no so happy about it...
j
I applied to the RAF way back in 1975 as a photographic interpreter Officer... they turned me down saying that my eyesight wasn't good enough... Now I'm pretty pissed off with that, as with glasses, my eyesight is absolutely fantastic at close distances... what you'd expect for viewing photographic images... but no, they wanted perfect normal eyesight and in my experience, normal eyesight isn't good enough when viewing photographic images... never mind... several years down the line... the RAF in their infinite wisdom, declare that any attempt at corrective surgery is instant grounds for dismissal... twats... to put it politely... my eyesight is perfect for photographic analysis... but they can't cope with the fact... never mind, their loss...
So there's something missing in that methodology.
I started seeing a Cranial Osteopath last year for my disfunctional arms. I noticed a testimonial letter in his waiting room on the third or fourth visit about Osteopathic vision prescriptions, so I mentioned that I wore contacts. "Oh really? Let's see how they are." He got behind me, put his hands on my temples and instructed me to close my eyes. After a moment I was instructed to open my eyes. "Oh, these are totally wrong for you! We'll have to fix this too..." (Cranial Osteopaths have a very refined sense of touch, and he noticed muscles contracting when I looked through my original contact lense prescription.)
Over the next year, I've been through six different prescriptions. The left eye bounced between -1.75 and -2.00 (was initially -2.25), while the right eye steadily decreased from -2.75 to the current -1.25. My last prescription was in March; before that it was changing about every month-and-a-half.
My vision started going downhill when I was in the 4th grade. I'm pretty sure that was about the same time as when my parents started really fighting. As the good doctor said, "what was happening in your life, that you didn't want to see?" My brother and I got our first pairs of glasses at the same time, but while I remember being able to see clearly (at times) in the 4th grade, he has no such memory... Granted, he was in Kindergarten, but I think it likely that he carries some sort of fascia restriction from birth.
Over the past year, my eyes have gotten better, while my brother's have gotten worse. How many people do you hear of whose eyes have gotten better without surgery? And compare that to the multitudes whose prescriptions just keep ratcheting upwards... I will be evaluating natural vision improvement programs once I'm finished with my course of osteopathic treatment.
(I have written about this subject on slashdot before... See this comment, and the ones it links to.)
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
Went from 20/40 in both eyes to 20/10 in both eyes. Custom lasik. Roughly $1000/eye. And it was the best money I have *ever* spent. (Well, except for my Tivo, maybe)
I can not emphasize enough how much this has changed my life. I - truly - never realized how much texture is present in the world. Yea, it's that big of a difference.
Had it done about 3 years ago. All went smoothly. No complications, no issues. I haven't even thought about it until reading this thread. And I live an "active lifestyle" (mountain biking, softball, flag football, etc)
Why not just throw one of these into the standard kit, and let the troops do it themselves whenever they see fit?
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read." -- Groucho Marx
If coke bottle glasses are no longer needed, will geeks still exist?!!
"The majority is always wrong; the minority is rarely right." - Henrik Ibsen
I will never get LASIK. And, I only wished I was still in the Navy to get the RK procedure.
What isn't often banged on, is the fact LASIK does not fix certain conditions and even cause some problems with eyesight. Forgive me for not knowing the medical terminology, I am aware of some of the effects.
1) LASIK does not correct, and often enduces starbursts. Starbursts is anytime you look at a light at night and you see halos or elongations of light. Sorta like how bright lights are depicted on television. This is due to lines/scratches etc on the cornea, this can also be emulated with uncleaned glasses. If it's bad enough, it could be a cause for perceived night-blindness.
2) LASIK always effects depth perception; sometimes, at a complete loss. This is hard to admit for many who claim they've had the procedure. Due to the likely hood that they really had bad vision, they've gone through much of their lives with less than exagerrated depth perception; few people have perfect glasses, imperfections can throw off depth perception as well so to those who have never had decent eye-sight, they don't notice. This is the number one factor as to why the Navy/Marines refuse to use LASIK procedures for pilots, snipers or special forces.
3) LASIK the procedure is too new, untested and not well documented for long term effects. Alternate methods are well established and some have been practiced for many many years... like full lense/cornea implants/transplants.
4) LASIK removes mass from your eye, while other procedures maintain maximum, natural lense strength. So, if you are say, a boxer, LASIK might be extremely risky depending on how much they have to carve away.
The benefits are that LASIK is common and thus cheap and readily available. There are many LASIK shops in San Diego. But, other procedures, like RK (which practically repairs your eyes as if they were naturally that way to begin with), are often more expensive and can be hard to find a doctor that is qualified to do it, much less willing to. I've searched for doctors in San Diego that did alternate eye surgery procedures... and it's only worse becuase of all the crack-pots with LASIK on their minds who are qualified or skilled in neither. But, I'll wear glasses till I find a ex-Naval surgeon who has the equipment for a military approved surgical procedure and willing to do it.
My doctor has used a device like this for about 10 years now.
You just put your head in, it reads it, prints it out, you go in the regular exam room and they put the same prescription on the old "better, worse" machine and verify the results. That's it unless you are astigmatic. It might even help with that.
It basically works by shining the E into your eye and looking at it on your retina. When it is sharp on your retina, it has the correction factor right.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Your problem is that you grew up and disappeared into an adult; that's a fairly common disaster. Piers Anthony on /.
(Related question: how in the world do you get an 11 month old to keep his glasses on? ;-)
Glue? When our daughter was born she needed UV therapy for billirubin and they glued velcro discs to her head to hold her "sunglasses" on.
I suppose an elastic head band might also work.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I wear an expensive set of torric lenses. The same manufacturer makes a less expensive set of toric lenses (about half the price). The water content and oxygen transfer is about 15% lower. These are really comfortable.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
PARINT IS A KNOWN TROLL
There is a third way, which does not involve any cutting or grinding.
The inventor calls it 'No-Touch' laser eye surgery because everything is done by laser.
In eye surgery there are two layers involved the outer 'epitheleum' and the inner 'cornea'. The LASIK method involves cutting an incision in the outer, peeling it back, lasing the inner, and then allowing the incision to heal.
It is good, but when problems happen, they typically involve the healing of the incision.
The NO-TOUCH method, uses a laser at one frequency to remove the outer layer, then uses a laser at a different frequency to reshape the inner layer. After about 3 days the outer layer grows back, and your eyes are fixed.
So why do you not hear more about No-TOUCH? Because the laser that removes the outer layer operates at a different frequency than what the FDA has approved, the whole procedure is not FDA approved, and hence not available in the USA.
It is available in Canada though (Fed Govt approved), and I have had it done (along with 10,000+ other people) and it works fine.
So if like me, and many others, the thought of incisions or grinding of your eye, makes you pause, there is an option.
softcoder09
Later in this topic I have posted a very brief description of a method that does not require incisions and is done totally by laser. (No-TOUCH method) The docs are so confident in its reliability they typically do both eyes at once. I've had it done.
There is quite a lot of rather rabid anti-Bates stuff out there claiming quackery, but the fact that the system is free and glasses and surgery are not leads me to wonder how sincere the critics really are.
For my part, I've been mucking about with the Bates system for about two months, (you're supposed to do it for a whole year), and have found the palming exercise in particular definitely works. --That is, text which is fuzzy and unreadable at a certain distance becomes crystal clear after four minutes of doing the palming exercise. Go figure.
I've even had a few "clear flashes" where suddenly for a few moments, the entire world is in perfect focus. (It was really cool the first time it happened. I stared at the world in amazement until I had to blink. The moment I blinked, it went back to its 'normal' out of focus state. According to people who have been successful in following this system, if I keep up with the exercises, my vision should continue to improve incrementally, and more interestingly, the clear flashes will become more frequent until one day things will click into focus and stay that way.
This system might not be for your girlfriend, but maybe it is. She can check it out for herself. Somebody posted the whole of Bate's book online. . .
Hope that helps.
-FL
There is quite a lot of rather rabid anti-Bates stuff out there claiming quackery, but the fact that the system is free and glasses and surgery are not, leads me to wonder how sincere the critics really are.
For my part, I've been mucking about with the Bates system for about two months, (you're supposed to do it for a year), and have found the palming exercise in particular definitely works. --That is, text which is fuzzy and unreadable to me at two feet becomes crystal-clear after doing the palming exercise for four minutes. Go figure.
The palming exercise is simple; You cover one eye with your palm so that the eye, while covered in darkness, can still move and act naturally. You don't close that eye or put any pressure on it. Then you simply look at things with your other eye. You scan around and focus on things and do that for about two minutes. Then you switch eyes. When you have done this with both eyes, your vision is suddenly much better. Try it. It's pretty cool, and seeing is believing.
Now, the conventional wisdom states that dysfunctional vision is the result of poorly shaped lenses and cannot under any circumstances be cured with exercises, but if this were true, then the level of 'out-of-focusness' I experience should remain constant no matter what happens. But that's obviously not how things really are; the palming exercises change my vision for the better. --Further, I find that doing the exercises for about twenty minutes will allow me to see much more clearly for several hours after the fact. I do this before going out or watching a movie.
All this means that there is more at work than simple lense structure; that the muscles acting on the eye -for whatever reason- subconsciously or whatever, are creating problems which in turn means that you should be able to re-train your brain to stop the eye muscles from acting like this. That's the general idea, and from my experiences, it is quite sound.
I've even had a few "clear flashes" where suddenly for a few moments the entire world is in perfect focus. It was really cool the first time it happened. I stared at the world in amazement until I had to blink. The moment I blinked, it went back to its 'normal' out of focus state. According to people who have been successful in following this system, if I keep up with the exercises, my vision should continue to improve incrementally, and more interestingly, the clear flashes will become more frequent until one day things will click into focus and stay that way.
Anyway, check it out for yourself. Somebody posted the whole of Bate's book online so you can read it for free. . .
This laser eye surgery thing basically just re-shapes your cornea into a secondary corrective lense; kind of like a built-in contact lense. The problem with this is that over time, your brain will 'correct' the new state of vision and your eyesight will diminish once more to wherever your subconscious believe it ought to be.
A little discipline and self-education should be preferable to having a laser trained on your eyeball! (One would think, anyway.)
-FL
While the science has shown Bates to have been wrong about numerous items, the fact that nearly a whole century has passed since he was studying the problem of vision dysfunction, I'm willing to forgive him. I really don't get the impression that he was trying to mislead, or that given updated information, he would have denied it. The fact of the matter is that text which is out of focus at two feet from my eyes is crystal clear after four minutes of doing the palming exercise. This means that Bates was really on to something.
Keep in mind that the Bates system is free to anybody who feels like reading the copyright expired book on-line, while glasses, surgery and the whole optomotry profession are, um, expensive.
The review you linked to was written by doctors whose livlihood is based on selling glasses and surgery. Something to consider.
-FL
But I like wearing glasses?
I skipped the air force academy after getting all the required paperwork, congressional recommendation, etc. The optometrist at the time told me that they would let me "jump out of the plane" and that's about it with 20/200 vision. At the time, and I may be dating myself, RK was considered by the Air Force as experimental. Given the state of matters at that time I would probably get stuck at a desk doing logistics or some crap. To which I said screw that.
So I applaud the guys that can get their vision corrected and get airborne.
That said, I'm really glad I didn't join the Air Force because of where I am now, so it was a blessing in disguise.
Photorefractive Keratectomy has gone through a face-lift and is being called by other names because PRK is sometimes associated with the old Radial Keratotomy (RK). When I had my surgery the doctor called it Advanced Surface Ablation (ALA), but it is essentially the same thing.
From what I have seen and experienced, PRK is a lot safer and the results are usually better. I interviewed with three of the best surgeons in my area before settling on one. All of them said that they have had patients who regretted LASIK, but they have never had a patient regret having PRK. The doctors were not saying this because they wanted me to have PRK. In fact, all of the doctors I spoke to wanted me to get LASIK. Their rationale was that there was very little pain and a lot faster recovery time.
The risks of LASIK are higher than PRK.
1) Flap related complications during the surgery and post-operatively.
2) Cutting the flap also cuts through the nerves that signal the eyes to create tears and that's why people get dry eyes after LASIK. For some people the dryness never goes away.
3) There may be more profound starbursts at night and more visual artifacts because of the flap. When the flap is lifted the tissue is ablated. The flap is placed back over the ablated portion, but flap never fits perfectly on the eye. The vision will be good, but there is a greater chance of visual artifact because of this.
4) There is a greater risk of infection because of the flap.
The advantages of PRK:
1) Fewer people experience dry eyes. My eyes feel a little dry in the mornings, but throughout the day they are fine. I don't know if this is because I think about it more or if they are drier than before.
2) The treatment area is larger so there is less chance of halos or starbursts at night.
3) No flap related complications.
4) Visual acuity is on par or better than LASIK.
The disadvantages of PRK:
1) Depending on what techniques are used it can be extremely painful for some post-operatively. I personally had almost no pain and I did not require any pain killers past the second day. YMMV. I am in Army Special Operations and I have had team mates who had the surgery and they have had excrutiating pain, so this will vary by individual. My doctor used a few of the advanced techniques that doctors have devised to help with post-operative pain.
2) Healing time is longer. Many will take three weeks to two months for best visual acuity. I was lucky and after four days I was seeing 20/15.
My right eye is 20/10 and my left is 20/15.
There are risks inherent in any surgery that is performed. From what I have seen the benefits of PRK outweight the risks. I no longer have to wear contacts in the field. This was a pain in the butt when I used to patrol in the jungle. Within 15 seconds my glasses would fog up. If I wore contacts, they became unmanageable after a few days. Now I can jump out of a high performance aircraft wearing Oakley's and land on my objective without worrying about how I'll maintain my contacts once I'm in the field.
As the comedian Brian Regan put it "...how could instantly improved vision not be at the top of your todo list. naaaa...I can see tomorrow"
Hard work is just an accumulation of the easy things that you didn't do when you should have.
Wow, so all the midshipmen get it right away while the typical enlistedman doesn't. Heaven forbid he (the bluejacket) is on deployment, out to sea or in a location where the FINE naval doctors aren't located. My friend inquired about this process about this time last year in San Diego (dry-side 32nd street), mind you we were both PCS'd there at the time, and was told he would be put on a waitinglist for the surgery. Guess how long the wait would have been? 3 years. He ended up paying out of pocket rather than go the navy route. GO NAVY! ACCELERATE YOUR LIFE RIGHT INTO A BRICK WALL!
If you wore glasses (I do) I'm sure you'd find some way to convince yourself it would be worth the risk. I can't even wear contacts for more than an hour my eyes are so sensitive, I've tried for over ten years to get a pair of contact lenses that work. Having really bad astigmatism doesn't help either.
I'd love to wear contacts the periferal vision was the first thing I noticed, I couldn't believe what I had to put up with wearing glasses, it's like a whole new world. Really I am missing half my vision.
Rain is the worst, I used to love the rain but now rain means no vision since I can't see through water on my glasses and I can't take them off because my vision is so blurry without them.
If I had the money I'd have surgery to correct my vision, I'd research it too I wouldn't go cheap and I may just do one eye at a time.
I had it done in Oct. 2000 and it takes about 30-45 seconds an eye. And your eyes are numb so you feel no pain only a little pressure as they push on it to cut it.
Seriously it's worth every single penny. I would do it again in a heart beat. I was almost legally blind my vision was so bad. Now I can see with clarity that even glasses could never provide.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
It took me 3 months to heal from my PRK procedure (wow, those first 3 days were hell). For the first 2 months I had a pretty bad halo. I did read that it is very important to make sure that the laser they use is capable of creating a blend zone that is within 0.5mm of your dilated pupil width or a halo problem could could occur as light enters the pupil through both the corrected and uncorrected portions of the eye. Maybe it would be possible to have a wider ablation done to correct the halo?
There's no place I can be, since I found Serenity.
PRK has been used for more than 14 years. Not a lifetime, but a fairly long period of time. During that time, those treated with PRK have typically seen their distance vision stay the same since treatment.
= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9640571&dopt=Abstract
Here is an abstract of a 2-5 year follow up study on this stuff. It was published in 1998. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd
I asked my optician why he still wore glasses and why he didn't get surgery. His response - his sight is too valuable to him. If my optician is telling me that, I'm sure as hell not going to have it done.
-= This is a self-referential sig =-
Yes, I understand that this can happen depending on the amount of correction required and (probably more important) the size of your pupils -- the larger, the more possible the effect. You shouldn't get the extreme form possible with LASIK that't due to the hard edge of the flap cut though. Most mild to moderate effects from PRK usually diminish over time. The sibling poster to your message (kasparov) had some good info.
All the best.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
The first serial-product eye surgery method was invented in the USSR in the early 1980's. They did not use lasers, but rather diamond blades to cut the eye and correct vision. They literally did it on assembly line, stretchers taking the place of engine blocks. The TV footage I saw was really scary but they did 120 patients or so per shift with very good result. Russians still claim the diamond cut method is better than lasers.
Blinded by PRK? Even with RK the chance of being blinded is minimal, if infections are treated. There's about 1/20 chance of minor perforations, which can result in infections with RK (that's RK, not PRK (Lasek) or Lasik) totaling about 1/1000 cases. And those infections are usually easily treatable. The chance of being blinded by RK is almost theoretical.
8 .html
Some info here: http://www.hon.ch/Library/Theme/VisionFaq/section
The chances of being blinded by PRK (Lasek) are virtually non-existent, barring accidents. But then there's also the chance of the optometrist putting your eye out while fitting you with new glasses.
I don't know where parent is getting its information, but people marking his post as Informative are sensationalist scare mongers. Wherever you'll look, you'll find that actual failure or long-term negative effects of Lasek (when compared to the situation before the procedure) is very rare.
The article quoted only goes into clinics claiming that there's an immediate success rate of 99.9% or better. That's not true, many need a second and even a third treatment before the desired result is achieved. Any decent clinic will offer these additional treatments for free, since they're actually part of the treatment as a whole. Just the fact that the doc with the laser has to go in 2 or 3 times to get it right doesn't make it a dangerous procedure, it just makes it a lengthy one and a moderately painful one at that, if you're unlucky.
Like going to the dentist for dentures. No walk in the park, but the end result is almost always an improvement of quality of life. People may even have died, in isolated cases, from infections following the removal of their teeth. Doesn't stop people from getting dentures though, nor does it inspire the kind of scare hype displayed here.
About 1.5 years ago I had a LASIK+ surgery on my both eyes. After the pre-examinations and stuff, the actual procedure was really quick, it took only a few minutes. It was also painless, and it did not make me panic. I'm happy with the results, too. It was only a minor surgery though -- I didn't use glasses before, but now I don't need them. What I previously needed two meters distance to read, I can now read from four meters distance. My sight is still not as good as my sister has -- she wears no glasses or lenses -- but I'm satisfied. It's good enough to drive a truck if I wanted.
The biggest discomfort of the surgery was the going home after having it. It was a bright winter day and my eyes were soaking wet, and I had to wear those protective glasses and they became constantly filled with tear, making it quite uncomfortable and nearly impossible to see anything. But it was much better already the next day. I had to wear the protective glasses on nights for two weeks and not to go to sauna for a few weeks, but I recall that I was already at work the next day after the surgery.
The most exciting part were the eyedrops that caused the iris to open wide open, wider than they do normally in a pitch black night. They applied them in order to do the precise measurements of eye refraction. I think my eyes looked very cool that way. Alas, that effect lasted for only a day.
In the long term, there's one thing that I lost. Before the surgery, I could watch a computer screen for hours upon hours without my eyes getting tired. The eyes were at relaxation at my normal computer-use distance. I was myopic. After the surgery, that was no longer the case. My eyes need to look far away every once in a while in order to be relaxed. I can't stare at < 1 meter distance for hours upon hours continuously anymore. If I attempt to relax my eyes on that distance, the screen is not sharp. However, it's likely that this change was actually for the better.
Is misspelling Neumann some kind of Jedi mind trick?
Having lived in an air force base town from birth, I saw a lot of fighter pilots. When I was 18 I had my eyes fixed with laser surgery, and out of curiosity asked the doctor how many AF pilots he's operated on. He said dozens - and that every single one asked for privacy b/c it was against AF rules to have laser surgery. So, hopefully pilots I know serving in Iraq right now don't have any supersonic mishaps.
What's really weird is that I really wanted to be a Navy fighter pilot when I was a kid, and would have done it, except that my eyes sucked (nearsighted). So now I'm 40 years old, and ended up being a surgeon. I'm still wistful though.
That's a good point. It's definitely bothersome for glasses-wearing people like myself not to be able to comfortably use binoculars, telescopes, sights etc...
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Though most of us are not business majors, isn't this the perfect place to run a cost-benefit analysis? Wouldn't it go something like this (in your perferred unit of currency)...
(what improved vision is worth to you) * (success rate, or 1 - your defined failure rate)
- (what avoiding a complication is worth to you) * (complication rate)
- (cost of procedure)
if this is a positive number, then get the surgery. If it's not, try something else or wait until you want improved vision more than before.
The take-home message is that you have to want or need the improved vision at least the cost of the surgery more than you fear the chance of realistically suffering a complication.
single quotes are for literals and double are for labels
Sure you can wear goggles. But if any water gets in the goggles, it can wash the contact right out of your eye. I wear contacts every day, but when I swim I just go semi-blind. If I was rich I guess I could get prescription goggles. Then again, if I was rich I would go ahead and get eye surgery.
Eyeballs keep changing shape for years once they start. That's why people get new lens prescriptions every year or two or three. Today's laser-corrected vision may have to be repeated all too soon.
And I agree -- no matter if you're a ground-pounder, flyboy, deck ape, etc. PRK is excellent for any serviceman or woman, if for no other reason that it means you don't have to wear BCGs.
For civs, "BCGs" are the honkin' big black-framed Buddy-Holly-style glasses assigned to personnel requiring vision correction.
The acronym stands for "Birth-Control Glasses...."
So whaddaya expect for nuttin'?
For most "standard" vision corrections, they are quite inexpensive (got mine for Of course, this might now work if you need correction for astigmatism, but it works great for standard myopia.
Can you name one part of your body that you could have elective surgery on that isn't irreplaceable?
Boobs, nose, lips, skin. Yeah, I need all of those.