|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > November 2005 > Has/does anyone believe in the lasering one eye at a time strategy?
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 |
Has/does anyone believe in the lasering one eye at a time strategy?
|
|
|
| info about me:
OD(right eye)-4.5 sphere, -.5 cylindar.
OS(left eye)-5 sphere, -.5 cylindar.
UCVA=worse than 20/400, count fingers(CF)
BCVA=sharp 20/30 in OS, 20/30 to 20/40 in OD
pupil size=9mm or so. +2.5 accomodation in each eye(mild presbyopia).
Mild dry eyes sometimes occurs.
My strategy:
This applies if(as in hypothethical) I were to get lasered today or in
the near future(before any major technological advances) What I would
do is get my dormant left eye which is at least half diopter more
myopic lasered first using the most advanced lasek machine with true
wavefront epi-lasek. The optical zone would be 8mm, the largest FDA
approved and the largest possible. Theres no way ill go for an oval
astigmatic zone for only -.5 astigmastim since such said zone will be
8x6 instead of a round 8x8 zone! My dilated pupils could be 9x9! The
oval zone may give me slightly better daytime UCVA but seriously hurt
my night vision.
I have a strategy and this is to ask for a -2 correction in my dormant
eye. This is to greatly reduce anisopia in case I have a less than
satisfactory result in my dormant eye. I will then of course be done
with surgury and see well from my virgin eye and see reduced from the
lasered eye. If I were to get fully corrected in one eye and decide not
to do the other, glasses will be a major problem due to severe
anisopia. I cant tolerate contacts so those are out. Other surgeries
are just as risky. Id be stuck with anisopia glasses or laser the other
eye and hope for the best.
Lasering -2 diopters will also reduce possible night vision issues
because there will be only 2 diopter difference between the 8mm optical
zone and the untreated zone my pupil dilates past. If I am still having
any vision quality and/or accuracy issues, I will be thankful its not
more severe. My uncorrected vision will improve and ill be a little
less dependant on glasses. Id end up -3(left eye) and -4.5(virgin right
eye)
This will give me a great opporunity to compare my virgin eye vs. my
lasered eye using glasses with -3 and -4.5 lens with whatever
astigmastim power I will need. I will wait three months or more before
I take my next course of action. If im happy with results, I will get
my virgin right eye lasered and ask to be -1 undercorrected to greatly
reduce the likehood of overcorrection. I dont mind being undercorrected
but an overcorrection is a disaster!
If im still happy at this point after 3+ months wait to heal and
stabalize, I will get an enhancement to the left eye and probably ask
for a -.5 undercorrection again for safety. With my mild monovision, a
small difference of half diopter can easily be tolerated and will allow
me to see the computer monitor clearly and sharply with no need for
reading glasses, not even as I get older. I also can put off needing
reading glasses for near for some time. My distance vision should be
like 20/50 in the -.5 sphere, -.5 cylindar left eye, correctable to
20/30. Right eye will be more undercorrected at 20/70 but 20/30 BCVA.
This is all if I dont lose any lines of BCVA and if I did, I would stop
after lasering -2 from my dormant left eye in the first place!
step 1:
laser dormant left eye from -5 to -3
step 2:
wait at least 3 months
step 3:
If results are good, laser right eye from -4.5 to -1
step 4:
wait at least 3 months
step 5:
If results are good, enhance left eye from -3 to -.5
step 6:
enjoy reduced dependancy on glasses and greatly improved UCVA!
20/50(left) 20/70(right)
| |
|
| I was scared to read this all the way through.
Please let us know if you ever find an ophthalmologist who shares your
flight of fancy. I love this step process, kind of like trying on
different pairs of jeans until one pair fits (allowing for anticipated
weight gain/loss) and one leg being longer than the other--for now. LOL!
LASIK ala which is better, one or two? I love it!
Just curious, how old are you? ADD +2.5 doesn't necessarily indicate
presbyopia.
--
~RT
| |
|
| fast typer arent I? Flight of fancy? Ok so you disagree with the
unilateral approach. If you were the "perfect" candidate and had
confidence then go for bilateral lasik but for many of us, its safer to
dip your toe in the pool than just dive in. What if you have a bad
lasik experience? Youll be glad it was only on one eye then! This will
also give you the chance to compare your lasiked eye to your virgin eye
and see for yourself if its really better or if theres visual
distrubances, especially at night, a common problem for us large pupil,
higher myopic folks. Are you famillar with anisopia? Look it up. As for
mild presbyopia, +2.5 is my maximum accomodation power, a little low
for a 23 year old. I wont be able to see fine print without some myopia
or + glasses to "make" me myopic.
| |
|
| In article <1132325772.370306.273690@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote:
> fast typer arent I? Flight of fancy? Ok so you disagree with the
> unilateral approach. If you were the "perfect" candidate and had
> confidence then go for bilateral lasik but for many of us, its safer to
> dip your toe in the pool than just dive in. What if you have a bad
> lasik experience? Youll be glad it was only on one eye then! This will
> also give you the chance to compare your lasiked eye to your virgin eye
> and see for yourself if its really better or if theres visual
> distrubances, especially at night, a common problem for us large pupil,
> higher myopic folks. Are you famillar with anisopia? Look it up. As for
> mild presbyopia, +2.5 is my maximum accomodation power, a little low
> for a 23 year old. I wont be able to see fine print without some myopia
> or + glasses to "make" me myopic.
Has nothing to do with the one eye at a time approach. I have no opinion
on that.
At 23 years old, you are not presbyotic any more than my 9 year old who
has ADD +3 over -7.50. Check with your optometrist. The ADD is most
likely to accommodate for the mimification of your Rx, not presbyopia.
That's not the same thing. And you're not that highly myopic either.
Getting one eye done at a time will definitely lead to anisopia at least
temporarily and permanently if you decide not to proceed. Since you
cannot tolerate contacts (so you say) how will you handle the difference
between your two eyes with spectacles? I don't think I'd be happy with
that.
But it's this wonderful scenario you've worked out correcting to this
and then that and then maybe this that I love. If only LASIK outcomes
were that exact and pre-imaginable esp when leaving residual myopia. You
forgot to factor in the possibility of having a "bad" LASIK outcome on
the second eye but not the first.
At 23 years old, you have a long way to go. Glad to see you're asking a
lot of questions. But really, I don't understand why you are still
mulling this over given your large pupils and your penchant for
imagining all sorts of scenarios. You are not a good candidate no matter
how you cut it. I can tell you now, no matter what your outcome is, you
will find something wrong with it and you won't be happy. It's not like
finding the perfect pair of jeans and discarding them in the fitting
room when they don't fit just right.
Better to figure out why you can't be corrected to 20/20 with corrective
lenses and fix that.
--
~RT
| |
| CatmanX 2005-11-18, 5:59 pm |
| i cant believe that i am actually answering this topic, but anyway.....
What sort of bumb XXXX are you????
multiple surgeries for no valid reason??? stupid to the max. Risk of
post surgical complications increases dramatically with further
surgery.
anisoMETROPIA??? what anisometropia?? you dont have it.
if you are 23, you are not presbyopic, so why the XXXX would you be
undercorrected? undercorrection is likely to make you go more myopic.
you would like that after paying $15000.00 for 5 surgeries.
with a -5.00 script, you will never get an 8mm OZ, more likely 6.0mm if
you are lucky, so forget about going for 8.00mm as it wont happen.
finally, go see a competent surgeon if you want rs. he will go for a
treatment that is proven successful, not some hypothetical drivel
thought up by someone with no knowledge of the process.
dr grant
| |
|
| In article <1132343314.626754.151370@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"CatmanX" <grantm@connexus.net.au> wrote:
Grant
I usually hate your foul mouthed rants, but reading this made laugh
coffee through my nose.
--
~RT
| |
|
| I dont have an add on my glasses but if you want to go by add, I do
wear weaker glasses for the computer and around the house. No point
overcorrecting myself for things closer than 20' or optical infinity.
Light rays are parrallel in the distance but for near, they become
perpendicular.
http://www.webmd.com/NR/rdonlyres/e.../presbyopia.jpg
look at that image. When you get closer than infinity such as 4 meters,
you need 1/4 diopter accomodation. This is not a problem for me and
even if someone had NO accomodation, 1/4 diopter just isnt much of a
blur. At 1 meter you need +1 accomodation or you will experience a +1
diopter hyperopic blur. Youd need +1 lenses to resolve this. Myopia is
like having built in reading glasses. A -2 myope is in focus at half
meter and if he can accomodate, hes in focus from less as well.
I just dont see very well from near with glasses because it corrects my
nearsightness and lets me see from distance but im no longer
nearsighted with minus lenses, see?
If I could tolerate contacts, there would be no point getting
refractive surgury. Everyone who does has remarked they hate their
contacts(and glasses)
you are right having a bad experience in the 2nd eye but having two
ruined eyes will make you much more miserable than one ruined eye.
I still have not gotten "official" word if im not a candidate and I
havent an official messurement of my pupils. I probably wont get lasik
now but the future is open because of new technological advances. I
dont know when or if ill ever get lasik but its quite likley I wont in
the near future. However lasik is right for some people.
I have a good idea why I cant see 20/20
1. spectacle minification. My -5 glasses make things smaller. The 20/20
line
is just a bunch of .......... dots to me. There are people seeing 20/20
even with -5 glasses
but they have perfect or nearly perfect optics
2. I have astigmastims and high order abberations. Almost everyone has
this, some people more, some less than others.
I might see 20/20 with RGP contacts, those do a very good job providing
an optically smooth surface on your cornea and helps mask some
astigmastim and HOA's plus they dont minify so that 20/20 line will
appear larger.
Hello dr. Grant, thats no way to talk! What language! Unprofessional of
any doctor!
Who said multiple surguries? You get one surgury and perhaps one
enhancement.
anisopia means a large pescription difference such as being
hypermetropic in one eye and myopic in the other for example. I know I
dont have it but me or anyone that does unilateral lasik will if he
decides not to do the other eye!
"if you are 23, you are not presbyopic"
even if I am not, I still dont see very well from near and the more
minus, the worse I see from near. I see much better from near with less
minus, this is why im using -3.25 for the computer but my real
pescription is like a diopter and a half higher.
"undercorrection is likely to make you go more myopic."
I will be myopic with an undercorrection but then I wont need reading
glasses. I am considered a moderate myope at -4.5 to -5 and I cant see
even one feet past my eyes clearly! If I get my myopia reduced to -1.5
I will be able to see the computer monitor clearly without reading
glasses and things in the distance will be just a little blurry.
If I wont get an 8mm zone for -5 then I would never consider lasik in a
million years. In the past the largest zone was 6mm and anyone with
pupils larger, especially those with much larger than 6mm can kiss
their night vision bye. Some even have problems 24/7! GASH was their
symptoms and sometimes worse! I have yet to get an official measurement
on my pupils but if they are larger than the zone I can get, forget
about lasik then! Does any of you think there will be new procedures in
the future that can address patients with huge pupils? If not I can and
will never get refractive surgury.
I will get a rs evaluation soon. I have discussed intacs with one and
he says they may work out better for me because ill be undercorrected
and wont need reading glasses. Plus intacs can be removed at anytime.
Also I dont run much of a risk getting overcorrected with intacs since
they usually dont correct more than -3 myopia.
| |
| CatmanX 2005-11-19, 5:59 pm |
| Glad to make your morning more enjoyable RT.
dr grant
| |
| CatmanX 2005-11-19, 5:59 pm |
| Buddy, you are stupid to the max. You have no idea what you are talking
about and make less sense than Ragnar, who is mostly incomprehensible
(LOL).
Sorry you don't appreciate my language, but stupid assholes really piss
me off, so my XXXXing language starts to bloody well change as I can't
jump down the wire and swear at you in person.
Lets look at a few of your points:
1) First 2 paras, you repeat optics 101. You don't make or have a
point. What is this diatribe supposed to mean?
2) Para 3 - WTF???
3) You may or may not be able to tolerate contacts, nut have you tried
the new breed of lenses. Most RS people who are CL failures are
predisposed to problems as their CL problem was dry eye related, so
post RS dry eye is more likely.
4) You are discussing RS and haven't seen a surgeon to establish
whether you are suitable or not. But you are espousing how RS should be
performed and make out like you know something. Jesus F#%^ing Christ.
5) You don't get 6/6 because you have crap optics. Spectacle
minification has nothing to do with it. All -5.00 patients have crappy
optics, that is why they are -5.00 in the first place.
6) -0.50 is hardly astigmatism. How do you know you have HOA's as you
have not had RS evaluation???
7) XXXXing sorry to offend you with my bad language.
8) There is no word anisopia. Don't show your ignorance. The word is
ANISOMETROPIA.
9) Unilateral Lasik is a temporary situation, why would any self
respecting doctor go for multiple surgeries to minimize a short term
issue. This is why god invented CL's and eyewire screws to remove one
lens from your glasses.
10) You are wearing -3.25D for computer but your real Rx is -0.50 more.
So what is your Rx? -3.75 , -4.50 or -5.00???? Any wonder you have near
problems, tour saying you are overcorrected.
11) If you get myopia corrected to -1.5 you will probably go more
myopic due to blur. By the way, is your prescription stable? Has it
changed in the past year or 2?
12) You will not get an 8.0mm zone with -5.00. That one is a guarantee.
13) For god's sake, get an evaluation.
A few notes:
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. You have very little
knowledge. Your ideas are very dangerous. Stop hypothesizing total crap
and see a good surgeon and discuss your options, but for god's sake,
don't talk about any of the crap you talk about here, it only makes you
sound stupid.
A distance diagnosis to your problems is there are optical and
accommodative problems. I would already be dubious as to success with
RS due to this. I would want the accommodative issues evaluated and
addressed first. Corneal aberration may or may not be able to be
addressed with RS. I shall be sending you an account for that
consultation, by the way LOL.
Stop listening to anything eye, bill and brent (presumably all the same
person) have to say. They are much more stupid and incoherent than
Ragnar. ROFLMAO
dr grant
p.s. apologies to Ragnar. I know he gets offended when his name is in
the same sentence as brent's.
| |
|
| In article <1132436002.384562.278000@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"CatmanX" <grantm@connexus.net.au> wrote:
> 8) There is no word anisopia. Don't show your ignorance. The word is
> ANISOMETROPIA.
I looked up anisopia since I had never heard of the word when Ace used
it. Apparently it does mean an inequality of vision between the two
eyes, but the word hasn't been used in peer reviewed studies since the
1950s as far as I can tell.
http://tinyurl.com/9fmya
--
~RT
| |
| CatmanX 2005-11-19, 5:59 pm |
| Sort of explains the logic - 50 years out of date.
Cheers RT.
grant
| |
| CatmanX 2005-11-19, 5:59 pm |
| p.s. inequity of vision does not mean difference in prescription. It
relates more to amblyopia. Still, it is antiquated and not the correct
word for the circumstance.
grant
| |
|
| 1. The point is an emmetropic or corrected to plano eye is focused at
infinity. To focus at 1 meter, you need +1 diopters. Take someone whos
-1, his eyes are +1 diopters too much focusing power so -1 lenses
subtracts this refractive error and brings him to plano. However at 1
meter, he will be in perfect focus and see clearly. Make him plano and
he wont be in focus at anything less than infinity unless of course he
can accomodate.
2. I explained it well in paragraph one. Things from near are clear
only as long as one can accomodate or is myopic. My -5(left eye) is in
perfect focus at 8 inches or 1/5 meter. Now give me -5 glasses and I
will need to accomodate 5 diopters, else it will be blurry!
3. I hear claims that surface ablation doesnt really promote dry eyes,
just the flap lasik because it severs nerves.
4. I got a brief evaluation test earlier this year but I do not have
enough info. I am getting another and this time I want my pupils
measured with a pupilometer plus I want comphrensive testing including
cycoplegia for possible pseudomyopia which I suspect I have at least a
little of
5. Put on some -5 glasses and get back to me about minification. crap
optics? Well true but correction greatly improves vision to 20/20,
20/25, 20/30, whatever the optics of your eye itself is capable of.
Minification is an artifical limit of visual accuracy. Give a high
myope contacts and hes gonna achieve a better visual accuracy because
the line hes reading wont be too small.
6. Correct and it doesnt even make a difference because mines
irregular. I have gotten refractions and sometimes they "detect" no
astigmastim, other times -.5 or so. I could get a different result if I
returned the next day. I have glasses with no astigmastim correction
and glasses with and I see exactly the same. I know about HOAs,
everyone has them, some have more than others so they achieve 20/30,
20/40 or worse BCVA while some may be very lucky and have few HOAs so
they see 20/20 or even better!
7. makes a bad impression. Everyone knows you swear!
8. ok so the spellcheck was wrong
9. unilateral lasik is problamatic for glasses wearers due to
ANISOMETROPIA. Bilateral is performed most of the time but your in
trouble if a complication affects both eyes!
10. My real pescription is probably -4.5 in the right and -5 in the
left from the near point test. I measure with a ruler how far is clear.
My right eye sees clear from 22cm and the left from 20cm
I also get an estimate based on 20/xxx vs. diopters. If I am seeing
20/40 with -4.25 lenses in the right eye and 20/50 in the left, then im
barely undercorrected. The .25 undercorrection in the right makes the
20/40 line blurry while a stronger lense makes the 20/40 line easier to
see. A -5 dioper lense brings my left eye to its 20/30 BCVA, more minus
does nothing and even more minus starts to blur things again. Going
from 20/30 with -5 to 20/50 with -4.25
11. LOL I have been wearing glasses that undercorrect me for the
computer and around the house and I became less myopic! My brother
doesnt really wear glasses and his pescription improved by half a
diopter! Minus lenses make your eyes more myopic, plus lenses do the
opposite! Instead of putting a + lense on my full power glasses, it
makes more sense to wear weaker glasses so I will become less myopic.
12. Then why do people with pupils larger than the true optical zone
still go ahead? I know lots of moderate to high myopes with huge pupils
and zones smaller than that. They of course lose some or alot of night
vision and sometimes even 24/7! Do they hate glasses so much that
trading some vision is worth reducing glasses dependancy?
13. This is already a priority to me
| |
|
|
CatmanX wrote:
> Buddy, you are stupid to the max. You have no idea what you are talking
> about and make less sense than Ragnar, who is mostly incomprehensible
> (LOL).
>
> Sorry you don't appreciate my language, but stupid assholes really piss
> me off, so my XXXXing language starts to bloody well change as I can't
> jump down the wire and swear at you in person.
>
> Lets look at a few of your points:
>
> 1) First 2 paras, you repeat optics 101. You don't make or have a
> point. What is this diatribe supposed to mean?
>
> 2) Para 3 - WTF???
>
> 3) You may or may not be able to tolerate contacts, nut have you tried
> the new breed of lenses. Most RS people who are CL failures are
> predisposed to problems as their CL problem was dry eye related, so
> post RS dry eye is more likely.
>
> 4) You are discussing RS and haven't seen a surgeon to establish
> whether you are suitable or not. But you are espousing how RS should be
> performed and make out like you know something. Jesus F#%^ing Christ.
>
> 5) You don't get 6/6 because you have crap optics. Spectacle
> minification has nothing to do with it. All -5.00 patients have crappy
> optics, that is why they are -5.00 in the first place.
>
> 6) -0.50 is hardly astigmatism. How do you know you have HOA's as you
> have not had RS evaluation???
>
> 7) XXXXing sorry to offend you with my bad language.
>
> 8) There is no word anisopia. Don't show your ignorance. The word is
> ANISOMETROPIA.
>
> 9) Unilateral Lasik is a temporary situation, why would any self
> respecting doctor go for multiple surgeries to minimize a short term
> issue. This is why god invented CL's and eyewire screws to remove one
> lens from your glasses.
>
> 10) You are wearing -3.25D for computer but your real Rx is -0.50 more.
> So what is your Rx? -3.75 , -4.50 or -5.00???? Any wonder you have near
> problems, tour saying you are overcorrected.
>
> 11) If you get myopia corrected to -1.5 you will probably go more
> myopic due to blur. By the way, is your prescription stable? Has it
> changed in the past year or 2?
>
> 12) You will not get an 8.0mm zone with -5.00. That one is a guarantee.
>
> 13) For god's sake, get an evaluation.
>
> A few notes:
>
> A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. You have very little
> knowledge. Your ideas are very dangerous. Stop hypothesizing total crap
> and see a good surgeon and discuss your options, but for god's sake,
> don't talk about any of the crap you talk about here, it only makes you
> sound stupid.
>
> A distance diagnosis to your problems is there are optical and
> accommodative problems. I would already be dubious as to success with
> RS due to this. I would want the accommodative issues evaluated and
> addressed first. Corneal aberration may or may not be able to be
> addressed with RS. I shall be sending you an account for that
> consultation, by the way LOL.
>
> Stop listening to anything eye, bill and brent (presumably all the same
> person) have to say. They are much more stupid and incoherent than
> Ragnar. ROFLMAO
>
> dr grant
>
> p.s. apologies to Ragnar. I know he gets offended when his name is in
> the same sentence as brent's.
Thanks Grant, I haven't laughed so hard in days! Talk about telling it
like it is!
Linda
| |
| Ragnar 2005-11-20, 1:01 am |
| Mostly incomprehensible to you... primarily because you can't seem to
get concepts into your head. Everyone makes mistakes.. but you have
a habit of repeating your mistakes.. over and over again.
On 19 Nov 2005 13:33:22 -0800, "CatmanX" <grantm@connexus.net.au>
wrote:
>Buddy, you are stupid to the max. You have no idea what you are talking
>about and make less sense than Ragnar, who is mostly incomprehensible
>(LOL).
>
>Sorry you don't appreciate my language, but stupid assholes really piss
>me off, so my XXXXing language starts to bloody well change as I can't
>jump down the wire and swear at you in person.
>
>Lets look at a few of your points:
>
>1) First 2 paras, you repeat optics 101. You don't make or have a
>point. What is this diatribe supposed to mean?
>
>2) Para 3 - WTF???
>
>3) You may or may not be able to tolerate contacts, nut have you tried
>the new breed of lenses. Most RS people who are CL failures are
>predisposed to problems as their CL problem was dry eye related, so
>post RS dry eye is more likely.
>
>4) You are discussing RS and haven't seen a surgeon to establish
>whether you are suitable or not. But you are espousing how RS should be
>performed and make out like you know something. Jesus F#%^ing Christ.
>
>5) You don't get 6/6 because you have crap optics. Spectacle
>minification has nothing to do with it. All -5.00 patients have crappy
>optics, that is why they are -5.00 in the first place.
>
>6) -0.50 is hardly astigmatism. How do you know you have HOA's as you
>have not had RS evaluation???
>
>7) XXXXing sorry to offend you with my bad language.
>
>8) There is no word anisopia. Don't show your ignorance. The word is
>ANISOMETROPIA.
>
>9) Unilateral Lasik is a temporary situation, why would any self
>respecting doctor go for multiple surgeries to minimize a short term
>issue. This is why god invented CL's and eyewire screws to remove one
>lens from your glasses.
>
>10) You are wearing -3.25D for computer but your real Rx is -0.50 more.
>So what is your Rx? -3.75 , -4.50 or -5.00???? Any wonder you have near
>problems, tour saying you are overcorrected.
>
>11) If you get myopia corrected to -1.5 you will probably go more
>myopic due to blur. By the way, is your prescription stable? Has it
>changed in the past year or 2?
>
>12) You will not get an 8.0mm zone with -5.00. That one is a guarantee.
>
>13) For god's sake, get an evaluation.
>
>A few notes:
>
>A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. You have very little
>knowledge. Your ideas are very dangerous. Stop hypothesizing total crap
>and see a good surgeon and discuss your options, but for god's sake,
>don't talk about any of the crap you talk about here, it only makes you
>sound stupid.
>
>A distance diagnosis to your problems is there are optical and
>accommodative problems. I would already be dubious as to success with
>RS due to this. I would want the accommodative issues evaluated and
>addressed first. Corneal aberration may or may not be able to be
>addressed with RS. I shall be sending you an account for that
>consultation, by the way LOL.
>
>Stop listening to anything eye, bill and brent (presumably all the same
>person) have to say. They are much more stupid and incoherent than
>Ragnar. ROFLMAO
>
>dr grant
>
>p.s. apologies to Ragnar. I know he gets offended when his name is in
>the same sentence as brent's.
|
| |
|
|