|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > November 2005 > questions about intacs and lasik
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
questions about intacs and lasik
|
|
|
| questions for doctors and anyone in the know.
I have several questions about intacs:
1. My pupils are rather large. Is there a pupil size limit for intacs?
Lasek?
2. How much is the intacs procedure? lasek?
3. I would of thought intacs would be more popular for low to moderate
myopia because of the following advantages:
a. can be removed or extracted anytime for any reason. Lasik is
irreversable.
b. does not remove or ablate any cornea
c. does not touch your center vision, just the sides
d. doesnt severe or destroy any nerves in the cornea(see dry eyes)
e. viturually no chance of overcorrection for moderate myopes
4. I have -4.5(right) -5(left) of moderate myopia with about -.5
astigmastim. I should end up around minus a couple diopters which would
greatly reduce my dependancy on glasses and yet let me see well enough
from near and intermediate without reading glasses.
5. Does intacs remove high order abberations and irregular astigmastim?
Could it help improve my BCVA from 20/30 to 20/25 or even better?
I feel that intacs may be the better option than lasik because of its
removability, greatly reduced chance of overcorrection(can be removed
for thinner ones) and if I am not satisfied or experience visual
anormalities, they can be extracted. There are several guys posting on
asklasikdocs and elsewhere stating the dangers of lasik(which I already
know most of the risks) but I was supprised to hear all lasik, even
wavefront increases high order abberations by 20% and that lasik ruins
the vision of all eyes in quality and also sometimes accuracy. I know
ill be seeing much better after lasik than without glasses but will I
see as well as I do with glasses, especially at night? Accroding to
some, its usually not unless you have high myopia and/or high
astigmastim and highly abberated corneas. The infomation some provide
is debatable id say. Thanks for your time reading and replying 
| |
|
| In article <1131972725.954450.100650@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I was supprised to hear all lasik, even
> wavefront increases high order abberations by 20% and that lasik ruins
> the vision of all eyes in quality and also sometimes accuracy.
This is simply not true. That's the rhetoric used by anti-LASIK people.
I had a similar prescription to yours and I see 20/15, perfect night
vision, no dry eyes and have increased contrast sensitivity. About a
year after my LASIK I wore +.5 readers for low light and computer work
for a couple of months. Don't need them anymore. There are risks to the
procedure and no one can guarantee your outcome. But the statement that
LASIK ruins ALL eyes' vision quality is a lie and is meant to scare you.
There is no scientific or anecdotal evidence to back up that claim.
--
~RT
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-11-14, 12:55 pm |
|
>1. My pupils are rather large. Is there a pupil size limit for intacs?
Yes. The inserts are placed into the cornea at the periphery. If the
pupil when dilated becomes large enough to allow light that passes
through the area of the inserts to is able to get inside the eye,
visual aberrations would be likely. This would be, however, an
astronomically large pupil. This measurement can be made before
recommendation of Intacs.
>1. My pupils are rather large. Is there a pupil size limit for Lasek?
Any limit on the size of the surface laser ablation will be based upon
either the mechanical limits of the laser or the thickness of the
cornea. Some lasers are able to create very large optical ablation
zones and transition zones out to 11.0mm. That is larger than any
normal pupil.
The larger the diameter of the optical ablation, the greater the
amount of tissue that must be removed to effect the same change. A
6.0mm ablation requires about 12 microns of tissue removal for each
diopter of refractive error, but a 7.0mm ablation requires about 18
microns per diopter. Also, wavefront-guided ablations tend to remove
more tissue than conventional ablations.
The doctor should measure the thickness of your cornea preoperatively
then calculate the probable amount of tissue removal to determine how
much untouched cornea remains. So long as at least 250 microns of
cornea remains untouched (more is always better), a healthy eye will
remain stable.
>2. How much is the intacs procedure? lasek?
Both seem to be about the same. The price ranges dramatically, but the
current average is $1956 per eye. You will need to check with your
surgeon.
>3. I would of thought intacs would be more popular for low to moderate
>myopia because of the following advantages:
>
>a. can be removed or extracted anytime for any reason. Lasik is
>irreversable.
>b. does not remove or ablate any cornea
>c. does not touch your center vision, just the sides
>d. doesnt severe or destroy any nerves in the cornea(see dry eyes)
>e. viturually no chance of overcorrection for moderate myopes
Yes, these are all advantages of Intacs. Some of the disadvantages are
that Intacs are somewhat less accurate in reaching the desired
refractive change, can puncture the cornea or come out, do not correct
astigmatism, and have a very limited range of correction.
>4. I have -4.5(right) -5(left) of moderate myopia with about -.5
>astigmastim. I should end up around minus a couple diopters which would
>greatly reduce my dependancy on glasses and yet let me see well enough
>from near and intermediate without reading glasses.
Before you decide that being slightly nearsighted is what you want
after going through surgery, get a set of contacts that correct you to
-2.00 diopters and wear them religiously for at least a couple of
weeks. In theory -2.00 can be great, but there is nothing that screws
up a perfectly good theory faster than reality.
>5. Does intacs remove high order abberations?
Not predictably, not reliably, not affirmed by any legitimate study.
>5. Does intacs remove irregular astigmastim?
Irregular astigmatism is a catch-all phrase for a cornea with an
irregular topography. Intacs work by creating more pressure across the
cornea and thereby "stretching" the cornea. This can resolve wrinkling
and irregularities in the cornea, however it is not often that Intacs
are used for this purpose.
>Could it help improve my BCVA from 20/30 to 20/25 or even better?
Never, ever, expect refractive surgery to improve your vision to be
better than the best you can achieve with glasses or contacts. If your
limitation in BCVA is due to simple refractive error, then it is
possible that improvement will happen, but in most cases the
probability is low.
If you have a normal eye, it is more likely that aberrations will be
introduced than resolved, although the induced aberrations usually
don't interfere with vision quality and sometimes aberrations are
reduced.
If your vision limitation is due to something other than the way light
bends through your eyes (such as macular degeneration or amblyopia),
then you cannot reasonably expect improvement.
>I feel that intacs may be the better option than lasik because of its
>removability, greatly reduced chance of overcorrection(can be removed
>for thinner ones) and if I am not satisfied or experience visual
>anormalities, they can be extracted. There are several guys posting on
>asklasikdocs and elsewhere stating the dangers of lasik(which I already
>know most of the risks) but I was supprised to hear all lasik, even
>wavefront increases high order abberations by 20% and that lasik ruins
>the vision of all eyes in quality and also sometimes accuracy.
Ah yes, if you tell a lie often enough people will begin to accept it
as truth.
It is not true that all Lasik will increase higher order aberrations
(HOA) by 20%. Absolutely false. It is not true that Lasik ruins the
vision of all eyes in quality and sometimes accuracy. Again,
absolutely false.
The truth is that Lasik does tend to increase HOA aberrations
(wavefront less than conventional), but not in all eyes will have an
increase and some HOA will actually go down. Much depends upon the
exact HOAs and where they start naturally.
Although HOAs may increase, that does not automatically mean that
vision quality will be negatively affected. Ask people who have
actually had Lasik if they believe the quality of their vision is
worse now than it was before.
There are a few damaged people who have an anti-LASIK agenda. They are
almost exclusively people who had a bad outcome. Some of these people
will misrepresent facts and even outright lie in their anti-LASIK
fervor. Many times the lies can be spotted by stepping back a bit and
using common sense. Ask yourself: If every Lasik patient had vision
quality reduced by 20%, wouldn't you have heard about it from the
millions who have had Lasik? Wouldn't there be massive quantities of
lawsuits? Wouldn't the airwaves be inundated with news stories about
the millions who now can't see? Wouldn't Geraldo Rivera have a prime
time special on it?
Lasik is not perfect and some people will have a bad outcome. Most the
time it is due to poor patient selection or problems during surgery,
but even the best doctors who do everything "right" will have a bad
outcome. It is rare, but it does occur. That is the nature of any
surgery...surgery is not perfect. That fact is sometimes extrapolated
by zealots into everybody's eyes falling out or similar hysteria.
>I know
>ill be seeing much better after lasik than without glasses but will I
>see as well as I do with glasses, especially at night?
The only way to reasonably predict your outcome is after a
comprehensive examination by a competent doctor who looks at your
individual circumstances. It is impossible for you to learn this over
the Internet.
>Accroding to
>some, its usually not unless you have high myopia and/or high
>astigmastim and highly abberated corneas.
Usually is accurate, but not always. Every once in a great while
someone who is a moderate myope with no astigmatism has a poor
outcome. You may have read about the woman in the UK who was
overcorrected into hyperopia (farsighted, longsighted) vision.
According to our Quality Standards Advisory Committee, about 3% of
refractive surgery patients have some sort of unresolved complication
at six months postop, with 0.5% having a serious complication that
requires either extensive maintenance or invasive treatment.
>The infomation some provide
>is debatable id say.
What I find is that often the facts are accurate, but the
interpretation of what those facts mean and how they relate is where
things go awry.
Recently the anti-Lasik zealots had been saying that every Lasik eye
is "diseased" because a study stated accurately that all eyes with
Lasik surgery have pathology. The zealot attempts to equate
"pathology" with "disease". Anything that has had surgery has
"pathology" in the strict medical sense. Change the meaning of one
word, and an entire study has a totally different conclusion.
It is always good to look at the actual information, keep an open
mind, and use common sense.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
USAEyes.org
"Consider and Choose With Confidence"
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
|
| > > I was supprised to hear all lasik, even
>
> This is simply not true. That's the rhetoric used by anti-LASIK people.
> I had a similar prescription to yours and I see 20/15, perfect night
> vision, no dry eyes and have increased contrast sensitivity. About a
> year after my LASIK I wore +.5 readers for low light and computer work
> for a couple of months. Don't need them anymore. There are risks to the
> procedure and no one can guarantee your outcome. But the statement that
> LASIK ruins ALL eyes' vision quality is a lie and is meant to scare you.
> There is no scientific or anecdotal evidence to back up that claim.
>
My reply: what was your pescription before and BCVA before? How small
are your dilated pupils? what laser was used? Ill probably need reading
glasses too after lasik. If eye posts here, he has all kinds of sources
showing how lasik ruins eyes. He challenged all of us to show him
topographies of even one case where the HOAs were less post lasik than
pre lasik. I have talked to him and asked him how do many people get
20/20 or even better if lasik ruins eyes. he says he did end up at
20/15 after lasik but it was blurry and ghosted and later on he lost
that, can no longer see this accuracy. I think he also mentioned
overcorrection. I have tried two old glasses together to slightly
overcorrect me and it didnt improve my visual accuracy at all. Seemed
to help a bit with contrast but eventrually it started to blur starting
at +1.5 overcorrection. I still think wavefront really can improve some
eyes beyond what they see with glasses but as a general rule, expect
equal or worse vision than glasses. If I demanded perfect vision after
lasik, I may be setting myself for disapointment cause thats not
guaranteed.
Hello Glen, thanks for the reply! I think my pupils are 8mm or more,
need to get them measured at a lasik center but from looking in the
mirror there isnt much iris left. Reguarding huge lasik zones, I heard
it causes strange effects the more oblate you make your cornea. Plus I
would be looking at a huge amount of cornea removed. With intacs they
tend to preserve your natural prolate cornea and thats the big thing I
like about em. My cornea measures 550 which is more than enough for
LASEK. $2000 per eye for intacs is a price I can afford. My friend did
call one intac/lasik center and they want $5000 per eye for intacs!
ouch! What do you mean by less accurate for intacs? I understand intacs
can also under/overcorrect you but all you need to do is extract them
for a different thickness. With lasik its permaent nonwithstanding
enhancements but thats more laser and more risks. I did read the risks
of punchurating the cornea but I think its 1 in 500. Intacs are
supposed to be able to correct as much as -3 myopia, -1 astigmastim. at
least 60% of people have pescriptions within the range of intacs so why
not consider those?
"Before you decide that being slightly nearsighted is what you want
after going through surgery, get a set of contacts that correct you to
-2.00 diopters and wear them religiously for at least a couple of
weeks. In theory -2.00 can be great, but there is nothing that screws
up a perfectly good theory faster than reality."
I have been wearing -3.25 glasses(same power both eyes) for several
months now. I am wearing those now and can clearly see the computer
screen arm length away. I dont tolerate contacts well but ive tried
them before. If I got a full correction I may need reading glasses to
see the computer screen anyway. By undercorrecting me, this will ensure
that I never will, not at 23, 30, 40, 50, etc. Right now I can not see
far enough without glasses to see the computer screen.
"Not predictably, not reliably, not affirmed by any legitimate study."
As long as it does not have a major affect on my vision quality, thats
fine with me. From what I hear, wavefront lasik corrects abberations
but also creates new ones anyway.
"Irregular astigmatism is a catch-all phrase for a cornea with an
irregular topography. Intacs work by creating more pressure across the
cornea and thereby "stretching" the cornea. This can resolve wrinkling
and irregularities in the cornea, however it is not often that Intacs
are used for this purpose."
If intacs can treat keratoconus, surely it can reduce a little
irregular astigmastim?
"Never, ever, expect refractive surgery to improve your vision to be
better than the best you can achieve with glasses or contacts."
I will be happy as long as I see as well with intacs as I do with
glasses. They say intacs have a 74% chance of 20/20 BCVA! I dont think
my 20/30 BCVA is from any pathalogy. My own optometrist just said its
the shape of my eye, specificially cornea. My dad and mom also cant be
corrected to 20/20 and my brother falls between 20/20 and 20/25 with
his -1.25 glasses. I realize 20/20 is perfect vision and you need good
optics to see this well uncorrected or corrected if you have refractive
error. So I may have some very slight imperfectations in my cornea.
as for lasik ruining all eyes, theres those who believe so and post
proof and those who think its nonsense. I am linking to another forum
where some people believe lasik ruins eyes.
http://www.asklasikdocs.com/forum/main/3740.html
what do you make of this?
| |
|
|
> My reply: what was your pescription before and BCVA before?
Right eye: -4.25 -0.50x150
Left eye: -3.50 -1.00x025
cornea: R 671
L 658
BCVA: 20/15
>How smallare your dilated pupils?
pupil 6.0
>what laser was used?
Ladarvision Custom Cornea
>If eye posts here, he has all kinds of sources
> showing how lasik ruins eyes.
Yeah, I've seen those "sources."
>He challenged all of us to show him
> topographies of even one case where the HOAs were less post lasik than
> pre lasik.
Increased HOAs do not equal decreased vision quality. It is much more
complex than that and is not a definitive quantitative measure of visual
quality.
>I have talked to him and asked him how do many people get
> 20/20 or even better if lasik ruins eyes. he says he did end up at
> 20/15 after lasik but it was blurry and ghosted and later on he lost
> that, can no longer see this accuracy. I think he also mentioned
> overcorrection.
That's too bad for "Eye" but just because s/he has an unsatisfactory
outcome that doesn't mean everyone else does too. The majority end up
seeing 20/20 or better without any ghosting or blurriness.
>I have tried two old glasses together to slightly
> overcorrect me and it didnt improve my visual accuracy at all. Seemed
> to help a bit with contrast but eventrually it started to blur starting
> at +1.5 overcorrection.
I don't understand the point of this. Of course overcorrecting your eye
is going to result in a decrease in visual acuity. Did you think that
"the more correction you get, the better you see?" You have a very naive
understanding of optics if that's the case.
>I still think wavefront really can improve some
> eyes beyond what they see with glasses but as a general rule, expect
> equal or worse vision than glasses. If I demanded perfect vision after
> lasik, I may be setting myself for disapointment cause thats not
> guaranteed.
>
Whoever said to expect better vision after RS than your BCVA beforehand
doesn't know what they are talking about. That's nonsense. Anyone who
demands supervision or perfect vision is a poor candidate for any kind
of elective surgery including LASIK or INTACs. The goal of refractive
surgery is to achieve at best your BCVA before surgery, and at least a
decreased dependency on corrective lenses.
Good thing you are asking all these questions because you have a lot to
learn. Good luck!
--
~RT
| |
|
| your pescription is definately lower than mine and your BCVA is twice
as good as mine too!
Your probably 20/200 in your better -3.5 eye and 20/300 in your worse
-4.25 eye.(UCVA before your lasik) I cant really even see 20/400
without correction. You got thick corneas which are an advantage, as
well as small pupils hence why your outcome was great. My corneas are
only 550 and my pupils at least 8mm. As for sources, I also searched
the web and they say that all laser surgury increases HOAs Dont get me
wrong im not an anti-lasik zelot but I just am concerned about gaining
more HOAs. From what I read it sounds like I should wait several more
years for technology to further advance then I can face the possibilty
of achieving 20/20 or better. Right now I dont relistically expect to
get better than 20/40.
"Increased HOAs do not equal decreased vision quality. It is much more
complex than that and is not a definitive quantitative measure of
visual
quality."
explain. Everyone makes a big deal about HOAs and ive seen charts that
show the difference with and without HOAs. If HOAs didnt matter then
why is there research into wavefront and trying to reduce them? I know
HOAs effect night vision much more because of dilated pupils
"That's too bad for "Eye" but just because s/he has an unsatisfactory
outcome that doesn't mean everyone else does too. The majority end up
seeing 20/20 or better without any ghosting or blurriness."
This would mean they had to see this good with glasses/contacts and
also end up plano as well. If I get over/under corrected or induced
HOAs and astigmastim im not gonna see 20/30 after lasik.
"I don't understand the point of this. Of course overcorrecting your
eye
is going to result in a decrease in visual acuity. Did you think that
"the more correction you get, the better you see?" You have a very
naive
understanding of optics if that's the case."
well this is what eye and others said reguarding seeing better visual
accuracy after lasik. He says because your farsighted so its very sharp
from far. He told me usually, people see worse after lasik than with
glasses(and contacts) I told him and others ive seen some people gain
lines of vision, he also said it depends on the patients willingness to
guess letters, the type of eyechart used, how strict the doctor is,
etc. They dont think its possible to improve BCVA from corrective
lenses.
"Whoever said to expect better vision after RS than your BCVA
beforehand
doesn't know what they are talking about. That's nonsense."
you are in agreement in what I said above. They were right. The only
exception I can see really being the case is spectacle minification
making things too small. Example: 20/30 with -8 glasses, 20/25 after
lasik because its not minfied anymore.
"Anyone who
demands supervision or perfect vision is a poor candidate for any kind
of elective surgery including LASIK or INTACs."
I agree. Many people still think they will automatically see a perfect
20/20 or better and are disapointed to end up like 20/30. I even tell
people not to get lasik unless they can live seeing equal or less than
what they did with glasses.
"The goal of refractive
surgery is to achieve at best your BCVA before surgery, and at least a
decreased dependency on corrective lenses."
very true. This is why the lasik ads and websites specificially say
"reduced dependancy" they point out many people need glasses to read or
drive which may be the case for me.
"Good thing you are asking all these questions because you have a lot
to
learn. Good luck! "
thanks so much for taking the time to reply! Its always good for me to
learn more surgury so I can make an informed decision to decide when
and if I will get it.
another ? I believe lasik is less risky than sleeping in your contacts
everynight, especially for years and years. Does anyone else?
| |
|
| In article <1132042846.141684.59550@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote:
> what I read it sounds like I should wait several more
> years for technology to further advance then I can face the possibilty
> of achieving 20/20 or better. Right now I dont relistically expect to
> get better than 20/40.
I don't know about that. But my biggest piece of advice is that this is
an ELECTIVE procedure. You should only proceed when you feel 100%
comfortable. I waited 4 years from the time I became interested in the
procedure until I felt comfortable doing it. Even then I went through a
couple of months of severe doubt and wavering. No one else can make the
decision for you whether to do it or not. It is good to ask questions.
Make sure you understand the bias of those who reply. But sometimes too
much information including all the remotest possibilities rather than
the probabilities (thanks Glenn for letting me steal your vocab) is not
helpful.
--
~RT
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-11-15, 12:55 pm |
| On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 12:31:04 GMT, RT <RTMD24@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>... But sometimes too
>much information including all the remotest possibilities rather than
>the probabilities (thanks Glenn for letting me steal your vocab) is not
>helpful.
I'm delighted you found something I've said is useful.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
USAEyes.org
"Consider and Choose With Confidence"
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
|
| I got the price of intacs from two centers near me. One wants $5000 per
eye, the other $3400! If I shop around I may be able to find for
$2000-2500 but the surgeon better be top notch and the center near me.
It would be too expensive to fly back and forth by plane, negating any
cost savings.
The doctor that does intacs answered some of my questions. He also
mentioned theres a pupil size limit. I dont yet know what the size
limit is or if its a contridiction or just a caution flag. I can live
with it if I experience slight glare and halos but if the doctor says
ill be unhappy and just want them removed, I wont bother inserting them
in the first place.
He also said intacs arent too popular because they only treat a narrow
range of conditions. Even if I pass the pupil size requirement, will he
insert them in a -5 myope and make me a -2 to -2.5? Do I need to
improve my vision down to like a -4 first?
If im not a candidate for intacs, I wont consider myself one for lasek.
My huge pupils are probably the biggest factor in making most or all
refractive surgury options risky and less effective, especially
reguarding night vision. I dont know what options will be available and
when in the future but I could be sticking with glasses forever. Even
if I qualified for lasek, id still need reading glasses due to mild
presbyopia. Natural vision improvement is my only chance to achieve any
reduction in my myopia.
| |
|
| My dilated pupils appear to be about this big:
http://www.psych.upenn.edu/backusla...ter_files/8.jpg
I will still get tested with a pupilometer but if I had to estimate now
I would say at least 8mm
This will probably make me a poor candidate but I await your opinions
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-11-16, 10:59 am |
| If what you are contemplating is a reduction in refractive error down
to about -1.50 or -2.00, then I highly recommend that you get a pair
of contacts that correct you to that level and use them for a couple
of weeks. In theory -2.00 may seem fine, but nothing screws up a
perfectly good theory like reality.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
USAEyes.org
"Consider and Choose With Confidence"
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-11-16, 10:59 am |
| An accurate measurement of your pupils can be performed by a doctor.
From this information you will know what, if any, refractive surgery
options are available.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
USAEyes.org
"Consider and Choose With Confidence"
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
|
| If what you are contemplating is a reduction in refractive error down
to about -1.50 or -2.00, then I highly recommend that you get a pair
of contacts that correct you to that level and use them for a couple
of weeks. In theory -2.00 may seem fine, but nothing screws up a
perfectly good theory like reality.
I cant tolerate contacts well, this is why I have been looking into
intacs. I do wear -3.25 glasses around the house and for using the
computer. If I can see well with -3.25 glasses theres no reason .35mm
thick intacs should give me equal or very close to the vision I get
with -3.25 glasses. You dont think -2 vision is good? Things should be
clear a couple feet out from my eyes and ill see just fine to forgo
glasses at home and in some places. If I fully corrected I would need
reading glasses for near and as my presbyopia gets worse, for the
computer too. I guess only those with any presbyopia would understand
why its good to be mildly myopic.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-11-17, 12:59 am |
| I have no opinion on whether or not -2.00 vision is good or not; it is
your opinion that is important. That is why I recommend you live with
-2.00 vision before having surgery to make it (semi)permanent.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
USAEyes.org
"Consider and Choose With Confidence"
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
|
| theres no comparsion how much better -2 is than -5 and it will be
"clear" that my dependancy on glasses will be significently reduced
without needing reading glasses. Id take monovision but I dont like it,
wont work for me. Lasik isnt going to help reduce my dependancy of
glasses more than intacs since id need + reading glasses anyway. With
intacs I would need - glasses but much less frequent. For this reason,
in my opinion, I dont think anyone less than a -2 should get any RS but
I am not gonna stop them. Maybe theyd rather wear reading glasses than
distance glasses, they use their distance vision much more than near so
the tradeoff is worth it to them.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-11-17, 10:58 am |
| All good reasoning and reasonable thinking. You most assuredly are on
the right track.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
USAEyes.org
"Consider and Choose With Confidence"
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
|
| |
|
|