|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > November 2005 > why do some people get lasik if they already see fine without glasses?
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 |
why do some people get lasik if they already see fine without glasses?
|
|
|
| His dilemna:
It's been roughly 6 weeks after my Intralase surgery. My unaided sight
was 20/40. With glasses I saw 20/15 in both eyes, but the left eye was
sharper. My right eye is 20/20 clear with 20/15 blurry, but I can make
out about half the 20/15 line. My left eye is 20/20, but half the line
is fuzzy even though I can make out the letters. When I just slightly
squint my left eye, it sees razor sharp and I can read the 20/15 line.
When squinting my right eye, my vision doesn't change at all. I had my
3rd visit to the doctors today and he said I had no swelling and my
astigmatism was the cause of the fuzziness. He added .25 and I could
see the 20/15 line just fine. My question is, how long will I take to
heal and what are my chances that I will be able to see 20/15 clearly
after full recovery? Again, when I squint even slightly, I can see very
well with the left eye.
my reply:
what was your glasses pescription in each eye before lasik? You got me
curious why you got lasik with an uncorrected vision of 20/40. Are you
active in outdoors and sports? As for healing, different people heal at
different times. This is why they make you wait 3 months minimum for an
enhancement but in my opinion its definately not a good idea for -.25
or -.5 myopia and/or astigmastim remaining unless you dont mind
possible overcorrection and additional risks.
so why take the lasik risks for such a low pescription and visual
accuracy good enough to drive legally? He didnt need glasses to begin
with, maybe except to drive as good measure. Now I dont think hes happy
that hes seeing worse than he did with glasses. I would have never
reccomended lasik for this low pescription and told him he may not be
happy with what he sees vs. what he saw with glasses. I am not bashing
lasik but find it absurd sometimes people that have a UCVA good enough
not to depend much or at all on glasses think lasik is so safe they get
it.
| |
|
| Are you posting this message with the original poster's permission? I
noticed on your discussion group you've quoted people from this group
and others anonymously. Did you get their permission? It's very uncool
to do this.
I do not give you permission to repost my posts anywhere else.
--
~RT
| |
|
| I posted anonymously, no one will know and besides its something that
puzzles me why get lasik if your not really dependant on glasses?
| |
|
| In article <1132285335.487200.293550@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I posted anonymously, no one will know and besides its something that
> puzzles me why get lasik if your not really dependant on glasses?
That's fine to wonder that, and to say--oh btw I read somewhere about
someone who said blah blah
but to cut and paste their actual post without their permission is not
cool. It shows bad netiquette and is, in fact, plagiarism.
That person might "know" and not appreciate it. I don't want you to turn
around and post my words somewhere else without my permission, no matter
how interesting you find them.
If you're going to moderate your own discussion board and participate in
online communities, you should know that it's not an acceptable thing to
do. Just trying to help.
--
~RT
| |
|
| plagiarism? I take no credit for what he said and its not a college
essay asignment either, but just quoting an example with my reply to
illustate the point. I am sorry you are offended by me quoting someone
anonymously. anyway I wish to get back on topic. I have an online
friend whos also 20/40 without glasses, 20/15 with and ive been telling
him I dont reccomend lasik. He also says he wants at least 20/15 or
wont be happy at all
| |
|
| In article <1132287888.141582.20780@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote:
> plagiarism? I take no credit for what he said and its not a college
> essay asignment either, but just quoting an example with my reply to
> illustate the point. I am sorry you are offended by me quoting someone
> anonymously.
Quoting and lifting are two different things. You did not quote anyone
in your original post. You moved an entire message (private? from
another newsgroup?) to this very public one without that person's
permission. If you had quoted the person, then you would have credited
the source. It is bad form. If it was a private message, possibly
illegal. Period.
> anyway I wish to get back on topic. I have an online
> friend whos also 20/40 without glasses, 20/15 with and ive been telling
> him I dont reccomend lasik. He also says he wants at least 20/15 or
> wont be happy at all
Exactly what do you want us to comment on here? Seems like a no brainer.
Are you a LASIK consultant? What are your qualifications to recommend
LASIK or not?
--
~RT
| |
| CatmanX 2005-11-18, 5:59 pm |
| Why are you posting tjis crap here and what do you think we care for
your response.
If you have something worthwhile to post, do so, if not don't.
dr grant
| |
| Ragnar 2005-11-18, 5:59 pm |
| Unless I missed something.. the person was 20/40 before LASIK? I
don't think this person should have had LASIK done.
The final results of LASIK are generally achieved between the 3rd and
6th month. The final results of PRK are generally achieved between
the 6th and 12th month.
Also... people who have enhancements done before waiting at least 3
months after surgery are opening Pandora's box...
On 17 Nov 2005 19:18:19 -0800, "Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote:
>His dilemna:
>
>
>It's been roughly 6 weeks after my Intralase surgery. My unaided sight
>was 20/40. With glasses I saw 20/15 in both eyes, but the left eye was
>sharper. My right eye is 20/20 clear with 20/15 blurry, but I can make
>out about half the 20/15 line. My left eye is 20/20, but half the line
>is fuzzy even though I can make out the letters. When I just slightly
>squint my left eye, it sees razor sharp and I can read the 20/15 line.
>When squinting my right eye, my vision doesn't change at all. I had my
>3rd visit to the doctors today and he said I had no swelling and my
>astigmatism was the cause of the fuzziness. He added .25 and I could
>see the 20/15 line just fine. My question is, how long will I take to
>heal and what are my chances that I will be able to see 20/15 clearly
>after full recovery? Again, when I squint even slightly, I can see very
>well with the left eye.
>
>
>my reply:
>
>what was your glasses pescription in each eye before lasik? You got me
>curious why you got lasik with an uncorrected vision of 20/40. Are you
>active in outdoors and sports? As for healing, different people heal at
>different times. This is why they make you wait 3 months minimum for an
>enhancement but in my opinion its definately not a good idea for -.25
>or -.5 myopia and/or astigmastim remaining unless you dont mind
>possible overcorrection and additional risks.
>
>
>
>so why take the lasik risks for such a low pescription and visual
>accuracy good enough to drive legally? He didnt need glasses to begin
>with, maybe except to drive as good measure. Now I dont think hes happy
>that hes seeing worse than he did with glasses. I would have never
>reccomended lasik for this low pescription and told him he may not be
>happy with what he sees vs. what he saw with glasses. I am not bashing
>lasik but find it absurd sometimes people that have a UCVA good enough
>not to depend much or at all on glasses think lasik is so safe they get
>it.
| |
|
| "Unless I missed something.. the person was 20/40 before LASIK? I
don't think this person should have had LASIK done."
This is what I was trying to make a point on. I know its just our
opinions but many of us will agree it makes no sense to gamble your
eyes if your already seeing 20/40 without glasses, well enough not to
really need them, except maybe driving at night or in bad weather. Or
perhaps to watch a movie or read the board from the back of a big
classroom. Your dependancy on glasses would be very very low, if any at
all.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-11-19, 10:59 am |
| There's not really any gamble.
It's more more like putting a band-aid where no problem exists. Some
people just like to wear band-aids.
On 18 Nov 2005 23:35:57 -0800, "Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Unless I missed something.. the person was 20/40 before LASIK? I
>don't think this person should have had LASIK done."
>
>
>This is what I was trying to make a point on. I know its just our
>opinions but many of us will agree it makes no sense to gamble your
>eyes if your already seeing 20/40 without glasses, well enough not to
>really need them, except maybe driving at night or in bad weather. Or
>perhaps to watch a movie or read the board from the back of a big
>classroom. Your dependancy on glasses would be very very low, if any at
>all.
| |
|
| Tell the 27 year old guy who is moving out of his house this weekend
because he lost his job due to wrecked vision from a surface treatment
(you know, the safe kind)
that there's not really any gamble. Then there are these outcomes from
the medical literature:
Permanent Disease Changes Present in all Post-LASIK Corneas!
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...4873&query_hl=1
Cornea. 2005 Jan;24(1):92-102.
Pathologic findings in postmortem corneas after successful laser in
situ keratomileusis.
Kramer TR, Chuckpaiwong V, Dawson DG, L'Hernault N, Grossniklaus HE,
Edelhauser HF.
Emory Eye Center, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA.
Theresa_Kramer@emoryhealthcare.org
Excerpt: Permanent pathologic changes were present in all post-LASIK
corneas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corneal Nerve Damage Continues to Increase years 2-3 after LASIK
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...5047&query_hl=2
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004 Nov;45(11):3991-6.
Corneal reinnervation after LASIK: prospective 3-year longitudinal
study.
Calvillo MP, McLaren JW, Hodge DO, Bourne WM.
Department of Ophthalmology, Mayo Clinic college of Medicine,
Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
Excerpts:
Between 2 and 3 years they [corneal nerves] decreased again, so that at
3 years the numbers remained <60% of the pre-LASIK numbers (P <0.001).
Both subbasal and stromal corneal nerves in LASIK flaps recover slowly
and do not return to preoperative densities by 3 years after LASIK. The
numbers of subbasal nerves appear to decrease between 2 and 3 years
after LASIK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LASIK Flap Only 2.4% as strong as Normal Cornea
http://www.journalofrefractivesurge...asp?thing=11320
Cohesive Tensile Strength of Human LASIK Wounds With Histologic,
Ultrastructural, and Clinical Correlations
Journal of Refractive Surgery Vol. 21 No. 5 September/October 2005
Ingo Schmack, MD; Daniel G. Dawson, MD; Bernard E. McCarey, PhD; George
O. Waring III, MD, FACS, FRCOphth; Hans E. Grossniklaus, MD; Henry F.
Edelhauser, PhD
Excerpt:
The human corneal stroma typically heals after LASIK in a limited and
incomplete fashion; this results in a weak, central and paracentral
hypocellular primitive stromal scar that averages 2.4% as strong as
normal corneal stroma.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13% of post-LASIK eyes have posterior vitreous detachment!
And 25% of high myopes have posterior vitreous detachment after LASIK!
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...8256&query_hl=4
Ophthalmology. 2005 Apr;112(4):645-9.
Effect of microkeratome suction during LASIK on ocular structures.
Mirshahi A, Kohnen T.
Department of Ophthalmology, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-University,
Frankfurt am
Main, Germany.
Excerpt:
Luna et al. reported the development of PVD after LASIK with an
incidence of 2% in a group of 50 patients with low myopia (1.25 to 3.5
D) and 24% in a group of 50 patients with high myopia (6 to 10 D).
Considering the data from the 100 eyes, this corresponds to 13%; thus,
there is not a great deal
of difference between our results and the data in the literature.
| |
|
| Tell the 27 year old guy who is moving out of his house this weekend
because he lost his job due to wrecked vision from a surface treatment
(you know, the safe kind)
that there's not really any gamble. Then there are these outcomes from
the medical literature:
Permanent Disease Changes Present in all Post-LASIK Corneas!
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...4873&query_hl=1
Cornea. 2005 Jan;24(1):92-102.
Pathologic findings in postmortem corneas after successful laser in
situ keratomileusis.
Kramer TR, Chuckpaiwong V, Dawson DG, L'Hernault N, Grossniklaus HE,
Edelhauser HF.
Emory Eye Center, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA.
Theresa_Kramer@emoryhealthcare.org
Excerpt: Permanent pathologic changes were present in all post-LASIK
corneas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corneal Nerve Damage Continues to Increase years 2-3 after LASIK
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...5047&query_hl=2
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004 Nov;45(11):3991-6.
Corneal reinnervation after LASIK: prospective 3-year longitudinal
study.
Calvillo MP, McLaren JW, Hodge DO, Bourne WM.
Department of Ophthalmology, Mayo Clinic college of Medicine,
Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
Excerpts:
Between 2 and 3 years they [corneal nerves] decreased again, so that at
3 years the numbers remained <60% of the pre-LASIK numbers (P <0.001).
Both subbasal and stromal corneal nerves in LASIK flaps recover slowly
and do not return to preoperative densities by 3 years after LASIK. The
numbers of subbasal nerves appear to decrease between 2 and 3 years
after LASIK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LASIK Flap Only 2.4% as strong as Normal Cornea
http://www.journalofrefractivesurge...asp?thing=11320
Cohesive Tensile Strength of Human LASIK Wounds With Histologic,
Ultrastructural, and Clinical Correlations
Journal of Refractive Surgery Vol. 21 No. 5 September/October 2005
Ingo Schmack, MD; Daniel G. Dawson, MD; Bernard E. McCarey, PhD; George
O. Waring III, MD, FACS, FRCOphth; Hans E. Grossniklaus, MD; Henry F.
Edelhauser, PhD
Excerpt:
The human corneal stroma typically heals after LASIK in a limited and
incomplete fashion; this results in a weak, central and paracentral
hypocellular primitive stromal scar that averages 2.4% as strong as
normal corneal stroma.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13% of post-LASIK eyes have posterior vitreous detachment!
And 25% of high myopes have posterior vitreous detachment after LASIK!
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...8256&query_hl=4
Ophthalmology. 2005 Apr;112(4):645-9.
Effect of microkeratome suction during LASIK on ocular structures.
Mirshahi A, Kohnen T.
Department of Ophthalmology, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-University,
Frankfurt am
Main, Germany.
Excerpt:
Luna et al. reported the development of PVD after LASIK with an
incidence of 2% in a group of 50 patients with low myopia (1.25 to 3.5
D) and 24% in a group of 50 patients with high myopia (6 to 10 D).
Considering the data from the 100 eyes, this corresponds to 13%; thus,
there is not a great deal
of difference between our results and the data in the literature.
| |
|
| I still have a question for you eye, how well do you see now? 20/30?
What was your pescription before lasik and were you corrected to 20/15
with glasses? How large are your dilated pupils and how large a zone
did you get lasered?
| |
| serebel 2005-11-20, 1:01 am |
| Eye has been in the fiction/spin section of the internet again.
|
| |
|
|