Lasik Eyes Surgery - Wavefront Lasik will now treat greater astigmatism

Author

Wavefront Lasik will now treat greater astigmatism

Talkin Horse

2005-01-28, 8:11 am

My optometrist told me that, as of very recently, Wavefront is FDA-approved
to treat cases of moderate astigmatism. This finally makes me a candidate. I
had been waiting for the Wavefront technology due to my irregular
astigmatism, which would theoretically be much better handled by a custom
correction than by traditional Lasik. I have reason to believe that I'm
generally a good candidate for Lasik correction. My nearsightedness is
substantial but stable, and my lenses are adequately thick.

I'm not going to rush out and sign up. My optometrist suggested that I check
back with him after 6 months or so, to allow him to get some buzz on how
well the process was working in the real world. My understanding was that,
in its early history, Wavefront wasn't delivering the kind of improvement
over ordinary Lasik that would be expected by its technological advantage. I
assumed this was a matter of tuning the algorithms over time.

I'm cautious and nervous about the whole thing, for all the usual reasons.
My question (which, forgive me, I've asked before and I'll probably repeat
at a later point in the year -- for the reason that the answer is a moving
target) is: When is a good time to finally bite the bullet and get the
treatment? That is, when will the Wavefront treatment be adequate and
relatively optimized, such that there's no longer a need or obvious
advantage to waiting for further improvement? I presume it's not yet ripe
for me. Six months? A year? Two years?

Thanks!

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2005-01-28, 8:11 am

The Alcon LADARvision CustomCornea excimer laser was recently approved
for a wider range of correction, but I would not pin my hopes too high
on wavefront for irregular astigmatism until you see some actual
outcome data from the doctor you are considering.

You may want to use our 50 Tough Questions For Your Doctor on our
website or consider a CRSQA Certified Refractive Surgeon.

Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance

Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org

http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org

I am not a doctor.

Ragnar

2005-01-31, 11:53 am

Sounds like you have a good optometrist. He's giving you good advice.
I assume that the laser system you are talking about is the VISX.
You might as well wait a few months for your surgeon to perfect his
technique with the expanded range of the wavefront treatment.

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 07:12:52 GMT, "Talkin Horse"
<davidrolfeN0SP&AM@earthlink.net> wrote:

>My optometrist told me that, as of very recently, Wavefront is FDA-approved
>to treat cases of moderate astigmatism. This finally makes me a candidate. I
>had been waiting for the Wavefront technology due to my irregular
>astigmatism, which would theoretically be much better handled by a custom
>correction than by traditional Lasik. I have reason to believe that I'm
>generally a good candidate for Lasik correction. My nearsightedness is
>substantial but stable, and my lenses are adequately thick.
>
>I'm not going to rush out and sign up. My optometrist suggested that I check
>back with him after 6 months or so, to allow him to get some buzz on how
>well the process was working in the real world. My understanding was that,
>in its early history, Wavefront wasn't delivering the kind of improvement
>over ordinary Lasik that would be expected by its technological advantage. I
>assumed this was a matter of tuning the algorithms over time.
>
>I'm cautious and nervous about the whole thing, for all the usual reasons.
>My question (which, forgive me, I've asked before and I'll probably repeat
>at a later point in the year -- for the reason that the answer is a moving
>target) is: When is a good time to finally bite the bullet and get the
>treatment? That is, when will the Wavefront treatment be adequate and
>relatively optimized, such that there's no longer a need or obvious
>advantage to waiting for further improvement? I presume it's not yet ripe
>for me. Six months? A year? Two years?
>
>Thanks!
>