LASIK

[fjr]

The first Lasik eye surgery was performed in 1998, so long term data on the effects of Lasik eye surgery are not available.

Maybe in my next lifetime.

 

[sparky3008]

The first Lasik eye surgery was performed in 1998, so long term data on the effects of Lasik eye surgery are not available.Maybe in my next lifetime.

I just hope you never require a life saving surgery that is cutting edge and hasn't been performed much.

I know it is not the same but for me Lasik was the one big gamble I took and am glad I did...

 

[fjr]

"I know it is not the same"

You can say that again.....but should I ever need life saving surgery...I'll take it. Just no extraordinary measures for me. It's in my living will.

 

[zzkenoman]

Now if you can get rid of the bad habbits  for example:  Adjusting your ghost perscription glasses on your nose, reaching for your ghost glasses on your night stand, preventing your head from tipping, so your ghost glasses dont fall off, double checking your eyes to see if you put in your contacts...things like this are common after your surgery, so keep it in mind and you'll have a great chuckle.

Too funny. I did the physical stuff you talk about for a great while. I laughed to myself each time.

I still have dreams of wearing glasses and taking them off realizing I had the surgery done but still need the glasses, too weird.

I have a friend that got his finger cut off and the ghost finger was with him for a while also.

Congrats Randy

wow, a finger gone? I hope this thread doesn't lead to more stories of lost members of the body, lol, just too funny to think of how many times I put my old glasses over my corrected eyes!

 

[gr8eyes]

fjr, with regards to your "lasik first performed in 98", your close for the USA. It was actually approved in November of 96. I had gone to Canada in May of 96 to have it done because it wasn't approved here yet. But if my memory serves me correctly the procedure was first done in Israel around 1990.

I'm not sure what you would consider long term. If 30 years then your correct. However research shows that so far after 15 years, structurally, the cornea looks no different now than it did before the procedure. In fact the laser is so accurate it could inscribe your name on a human hair. The cells immediately adjacent to the lasered area are completely normal. Is it possible in 30-40 years something comes up that id detrimental to the eye because of the laser? I wouldn't say its impossible but..................................In my opinion after following people for almost 8 years I see no change in the cornea. As a matter of fact you can't even tell they had anything done when viewed with a microscope.

Glenn

I would be interested to know Warchilds history, and why he has had a less than desirable result.

 

[etz]

maybe lasik would help this poor couple

CLICK ME (but not if you're at work please) (4.81MB)

the text says "Need Glasses?"

I finally got off my hump and went for the consultations a year ago, but I was told I was an unsuitable candidate for Lasik. Gotta pay heed when the doc tells you that your corneas are at the thickness borderline. They said that I was good to go for PRK, but I was not liking the longer recovery time. Maybe one day.

 

[fjr]

As I said for me the risk benefit ratio is not worth it. The above photo is a possible outcome. I think we should also keep in mind that gr8eyes has never actually performed this procedure and his stated research is incorrect because he ignores negative outcomes and the morbity associated with them. There are many ophthalmalogists, the doctors who actually do surgery on the eye, that will not do the procedure. There are also many that will. Mine does not and does not recommend it. I'll heed the advice of my MD, thanks.

I would say that yes, in terms of a surgical procedure, 15 years is a very short time.

I am perhaps, surgical reluctant, based on my knowledge of elective procedures. I wonder, when obtaining informed consent, if LASIK surgeons actually show people the possible negative outcomes, as shown in the above example?? If this thread keeps up, perhaps I'll apply for CME credit.

 

[FatNakedGuy]

Randy, can you PM your dr's name/number please? Interested in doing this.

Thanks!

 

[exskibum]

As I said for me the risk benefit ratio is not worth it. The above photo is a possible outcome. I think we should also keep in mind that gr8eyes has never actually performed this procedure and his stated research is incorrect because he ignores negative outcomes and the morbity associated with them. There are many ophthalmalogists, the doctors who actually do surgery on the eye, that will not do the procedure. There are also many that will. Mine does not and does not recommend it. I'll heed the advice of my MD, thanks.

I would say that yes, in terms of a surgical procedure, 15 years is a very short time.

I am perhaps, surgical reluctant, based on my knowledge of elective procedures. I wonder, when obtaining informed consent, if LASIK surgeons actually show people the possible negative outcomes, as shown in the above example?? If this thread keeps up, perhaps I'll apply for CME credit.

Been here 5 weeks and already using an insulting tone directed, not at the topic, but at another contributor? Whatever.

 

[Randy]

I wonder, when obtaining informed consent, if LASIK surgeons actually show people the possible negative outcomes, as shown in the above example??

My doc didn't show me any of those pictures (although explained them very well) and also said I could go blind. I did it anyway.

gr8eyes may have never performed the procedure, but, in the field of eyes, I'll take his word over yours.

If you're not interested in doing it, hearing about it, or learning more about it, move on. There are plenty of other posts to read. My post count would be through the roof if I went into every thread and said, 'no thanks, this isn't for me'.

 

[fjr]

""Been here 5 weeks and already using an insulting tone directed, not at the topic, but at another contributor? Whatever.""

Insulting tone I don't really get. Stated a few facts perhaps, nothing that gr8eyes wouldn't agree with, I wouldn't think. Whatever.

 

[gr8eyes]

fjr is correct, I am an optometrist who doesn't perform the actual procedure. I do do all the pre=op and post-op follow up care for the first year. We actually do try and explain in great detail all the possible outcomes. Your picture of glare is but 1 of those. The legal system in this country requires us to cover all possible problems including the arm of the lasre falling off during the procedure and hitting youm in the head killing you. OK that one was a joke but........

I think I did talk about the problem with glare back in a previous post. Though some people still have problems, I'll still stand by the fact that MOST of them are minor and correctable. That picture you put up, by the way, is more indicative of a result from PRK not Lasik. Glare from Lasik is more like the glare a contact lens wearer experiences and it generally fades away with in 3-6 months.

Sorry if I miss led you earlier fjr

Glenn

BTW if your risk averse why do you ride motorcycles

 

[Randy]

Glare from Lasik is more like the glare a contact lens wearer experiences and it generally fades away with in 3-6 months.

Does it fade away or do you get used to it? I was a contact wearer for many years. I never really noticed the glare/starburst from oncoming lights at night. However, in preparation for my LASIK, I went without contacts for 3 weeks before I had my initial consultation. After the consultation, I went back to contacts for 4 more weeks then went back to glasses for 4 weeks before my procedure. When I went back to contacts, I immediately noticed glare/starbursts from oncoming lights. But it wasn't too long before it didn't bother me anymore.

 

[fjr]

Glenn,

Didn't say risk averse...risks I'll take. :cownoy:

Surgical reluctant...yes. :axeman:

If it has to be cut, I'll get it cut, but elective....no way. (ouch) :assasin:

But that's just me. Glenn is right. The majority of people who have this done have NO problems and I don't fault people for having it done. I actually don't mind wearing glasses so for me this would be something I would not do.

 

[sparky3008]

Glare from Lasik is more like the glare a contact lens wearer experiences and it generally fades away with in 3-6 months.

Does it fade away or do you get used to it? I was a contact wearer for many years. I never really noticed the glare/starburst from oncoming lights at night. However, in preparation for my LASIK, I went without contacts for 3 weeks before I had my initial consultation. After the consultation, I went back to contacts for 4 more weeks then went back to glasses for 4 weeks before my procedure. When I went back to contacts, I immediately noticed glare/starbursts from oncoming lights. But it wasn't too long before it didn't bother me anymore.

Hey Randy, I think gr8eyes when he talked about the man hole cover explained why the glare occurs. For me the glare lessened. In the beginning street lights from one side of the road to the opposite filled the entire road with glare and in order to see I had to look between them. After a month or more it went down to about what fjr shows in his pictures...

Also gr8eyes explained that either with a follow up surgery or if I misunderstood maybe today's surgery includes this of smoothing the edges to prevent glare.

After all the laser is removing or reshaping the eye in one spot and must create a ridge.

Sure gr8eyes can explain it better but just know that for me it did get better, not perfect.

 

[sparky3008]

As I said for me the risk benefit ratio is not worth it. The above photo is a possible outcome.  I think we should also keep in mind that gr8eyes has never actually performed this procedure and his stated research is incorrect because he ignores negative outcomes and the morbity associated with them.  There are many ophthalmalogists, the doctors who actually do surgery on the eye, that will not do the procedure. There are also many that will. Mine does not and does not recommend it. I'll heed the advice of my MD, thanks.

I would say that yes, in terms of a surgical procedure, 15 years is a very short time.

I am perhaps, surgical reluctant,  based on my knowledge of elective procedures. I wonder,  when obtaining informed consent, if LASIK surgeons actually show people the possible negative outcomes, as shown in the above example??  If this thread keeps up, perhaps I'll apply for CME credit.

Been here 5 weeks and already using an insulting tone directed, not at the topic, but at another contributor? Whatever.

Hey fjr,

Before I had my surgery done I even spent some time on the internet reading all the horror stories of people that basically lost their eyesight in one extinct or another.

Still in the end I took the "risk" based on the facts. Many of the stories had to do with people who allowed the eye to dry out after they had rubbed the skin away from the eye. This made me really nervous about this so for the first week or so I didn't sleep well at all as every time I would move I woke up to make sure I hadn't rubbed my eyes.

I don't gamble, but everything we do is a gamble from choosing what field we study in college to which job we select (lay off's or the field we pursue is hard to get a job), even the house we buy will it rise in value or will the neighborhood decline. Stock we invest in and so on are all risks. For me I had one major factor and that is I no longer drive for a living. If I did I would not have had the surgery because I had glare before and the glasses could correct it afterwards I knew they couldn't and driving at night is when I would work the most.

On one lane roads I know to immediately start looking at the yellow line and the benefit to everyday life have made this one sacrifice worth it.

I have known many many people personally who have gotten it done and never have I met a person that has the horror story. I am sure they are out there but the numbers are on our side not theirs...

 

[exskibum]

As I said for me the risk benefit ratio is not worth it. The above photo is a possible outcome.  I think we should also keep in mind that gr8eyes has never actually performed this procedure and his stated research is incorrect because he ignores negative outcomes and the morbity associated with them.  There are many ophthalmalogists, the doctors who actually do surgery on the eye, that will not do the procedure. There are also many that will. Mine does not and does not recommend it. I'll heed the advice of my MD, thanks.

I would say that yes, in terms of a surgical procedure, 15 years is a very short time.

I am perhaps, surgical reluctant,  based on my knowledge of elective procedures. I wonder,  when obtaining informed consent, if LASIK surgeons actually show people the possible negative outcomes, as shown in the above example??  If this thread keeps up, perhaps I'll apply for CME credit.

Been here 5 weeks and already using an insulting tone directed, not at the topic, but at another contributor? Whatever.

Hey fjr,

Before I had my surgery done I even spent some time on the internet reading all the horror stories of people that basically lost their eyesight in one extinct or another.

Still in the end I took the "risk" based on the facts. Many of the stories had to do with people who allowed the eye to dry out after they had rubbed the skin away from the eye. This made me really nervous about this so for the first week or so I didn't sleep well at all as every time I would move I woke up to make sure I hadn't rubbed my eyes.

I don't gamble, but everything we do is a gamble from choosing what field we study in college to which job we select (lay off's or the field we pursue is hard to get a job), even the house we buy will it rise in value or will the neighborhood decline. Stock we invest in and so on are all risks. For me I had one major factor and that is I no longer drive for a living. If I did I would not have had the surgery because I had glare before and the glasses could correct it afterwards I knew they couldn't and driving at night is when I would work the most.

On one lane roads I know to immediately start looking at the yellow line and the benefit to everyday life have made this one sacrifice worth it.

I have known many many people personally who have gotten it done and never have I met a person that has the horror story. I am sure they are out there but the numbers are on our side not theirs...

I did exactly the same as you, Sparky, except I did it for about 2 years before deciding to take the leap. I also went to a surgeon that a doctor friend of mine had used to have his done, after doing his own research.

My case was one where I was a highly suitable candidate -- hyperopia and very thick cornea. As I understand it, the chance of halos is greater with nearsightedness (myopia) than farsightnedness (hyperopia), due to the nature and area of the laser reshaping necessary to correct those two conditions. IIRC, something about pupil size also bears upon it -- again, in that case, I was an ideal candidate.

My surgeon explained all of the procedures and risks. He more than adequately covered the required disclosures. (With what I do for a living, I'd say that I'm qualified to make a judgment on adequate or inadequate disclosures.)

Which brings me to my comment to fjr. I assumed that gr8eyes assumed that we're all old enough and smart enough to seek counsel in a true physician-patient relationship. Nowhere did I see him or anyone else countermand or suggest ignoring one's physician's advice. Now, if everything any of us post here has to be qualified with a disclaimer, I can sure provide them (I've got several in my form files), but that seems like an unnecessary and stilted waste of bandwidth.

If fjr's Dr. says no to the procedure for him, I'd be the last to suggest otherwise (well probably next to last, with gr8eyes being last).

My results have been stellar. I tested at 20-15 as a kid, never had correction until I was 35, and was dismayed when my optometrist told me then that I would one day have to wear glasses for everything. He proved to be correct, though I went as long as I could playing sports without them. Now I'm enjoying being back to 20-20, even if, two and a half years later, I have regressed to the point that I have to wear reading glasses to read 12 point type when the light's not good. I was advised by my surgeon that would be likely, but that's minor compared to what my vision had become before the surgery. My only regret was that I didn't have it done earlier.

 

[Randy]

After 5 days, I went in today and I was at 20-20+ (could make out a few characters on the 20-15 line) and my reading vision was 'outstanding'. Things are still just a slight bit hazy, but, it's definitely getting better. To be honest, due to the fact that I was living with an uncorrected astigmatism in my left eye (just couldn't get used to the corrective contact lens), I think I'm very close to where I was with contact lenses in, it's just that i don't have to deal with contact lenses anymore.

 

[gr8eyes]

Everyone has added some valuable info. I respect fjr's opinion to not have the procedure done. I NEVER try and convince someone to have it done. That is their decision once I provide all the facts.

Exskibums assumption of me is correct.

If someones Dr said he wasn't a candidate it would be assinine of me to say they were, over the computer. That being said with new technology people who were not candidates 3,4,or 5 years ago MAY be candidates now. BUT, only your Dr can determine that.

Randy, with regards to the glare. It does both,that is it diminishes by itself to some degree but also you do tend to get used to it.

Some people may notice "floaters" in their eyes. If its a recent onset ,the floaters will really bother them. After a few months the brain begins to ignore the floaters and the person isn't bothered as much.

That happens with the glare.

Glenn

Now I'm sure everyone is bored with this topic.

How about that FJR

 

[sparky3008]

Everyone has added some valuable info. I respect fjr's opinion to not have the procedure done. I NEVER try and convince someone to have it done. That is their decision once I provide all the facts.
Exskibums assumption of me is correct.

If someones Dr said he wasn't a candidate it would be assinine of me to say they were, over the computer. That being said with new technology people who were not candidates 3,4,or 5 years ago MAY be candidates now. BUT, only your Dr can determine that.

Randy, with regards to the glare. It does both,that is it diminishes by itself to some degree but also you do tend to get used to it.

Some people may notice "floaters" in their eyes. If its a recent onset ,the floaters will really bother them. After a few months the brain begins to ignore the floaters and the person isn't bothered as much.

That happens with the glare.

Glenn

Now I'm sure everyone is bored with this topic.

How about that FJR

Can't ride cold, windy but tomorrow is promising