|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > December 2005 > The refractive surprise - why surgeons have problems calculation IOL power in post RS
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 |
The refractive surprise - why surgeons have problems calculation IOL power in post RS
|
|
| Trulytelling@yahoo.com 2005-11-29, 6:00 pm |
| http://www.osnsupersite.com/default.asp?ID=3D10559
Central corneal measurement
After the anatomic factors explained above have been accurately
measured, corneal power must be determined before the IOL power can be
calculated correctly, Dr. Holladay said. He said it is particularly
difficult to determine the corneal power of an eye that has undergone
corneal refractive surgery such as LASIK, PRK, or RK because the
traditional tools surgeons have to measure corneal power are
inadequate; they were originally created to measure the corneal power
of an unaltered cornea.
"Our current instruments don't give us an accurate measurement of
corneal power," Dr. Holladay said. Keratometers and topographers are
limited in their ability to measure surgically treated corneas because
they take paracentral measurements and do not truly measure the center
of the cornea.
"There is very little correlation between the paracentral measurement
and what's going on in the center of the cornea," Dr. Holladay
said. "Topographers and keratometers have a central scotoma from 1.5
to 3 mm in diameter where no measurements are taken, and this central
area is the most important in the patient's vision and the true
corneal power."
The center of the cornea is the most critical area for calculating the
corneal power of a patient who has had refractive surgery, he said, and
yet it is the one area that is not truly measured by the available
technologies. These tools miss this critical zone, which increases in
size with the amount of refractive surgical correction.
"On the average patient with a 44 D cornea, the keratometer measures
3=2E2 mm apart in diameter," Dr. Holladay said. "This means, at the
corneal center, everything less than 3.2 mm in diameter is lost. This
isn't a problem in a patient who hasn't had corneal refractive
surgery, but in a refractive patient not measuring the central area
causes a significant error."
For example, he said, a patient with a cornea that measures at 36.5 D
after -10 D laser surgery actually has a central anterior corneal
power that is 15% of his refractive change flatter (-10 =D7 15% =3D
-1.5 D) than a patient with a 36.5 D cornea who has not had surgery.
The refractive surgery patient who has had the -10 D LASIK and
measures 36.5 D is actually about 35 D (36.5 - 1.5) in the center of
the anterior cornea, Dr. Holladay said.
| |
|
| This explains why many post lasik patients who later develop
cateracts(unrelated to lasik?) end up with IOLs that undercorrect them.
I know a guy who was discovered with cateracts a year and a half post
lasik and is now -4 and in bifocals full time. I even made a post
questioning why some get lasik even if they already have the first
signs of cateracts!
http://groups.google.com/group/alt....7fc6b0534662a0e
I for one wont be getting lasik. Ill probably get clear lense
extraction sometime in my 40s, by then technology will be quite
advanced and the wavefront IOLs they put will address my HOAs quite
nicely and give me like 20/10 vision! If they find a way to treat
presbyopia, I wont have to ask to be undercorrected either and perhaps
only need reading glasses for fine print or if I do lots of reading so
I dont make my eyes strained and tired.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-11-30, 1:02 am |
| Before you cut and paste your garbage, try reading it first.
On 29 Nov 2005 15:43:21 -0800, Trulytelling@yahoo.com wrote:
>http://www.osnsupersite.com/default.asp?ID=10559
>
>Central corneal measurement
>
>After the anatomic factors explained above have been accurately
>measured, corneal power must be determined before the IOL power can be
>calculated correctly, Dr. Holladay said. He said it is particularly
>difficult to determine the corneal power of an eye that has undergone
>corneal refractive surgery such as LASIK, PRK, or RK because the
>traditional tools surgeons have to measure corneal power are
>inadequate; they were originally created to measure the corneal power
>of an unaltered cornea.
>
>"Our current instruments don't give us an accurate measurement of
>corneal power," Dr. Holladay said. Keratometers and topographers are
>limited in their ability to measure surgically treated corneas because
>they take paracentral measurements and do not truly measure the center
>of the cornea.
>
>"There is very little correlation between the paracentral measurement
>and what's going on in the center of the cornea," Dr. Holladay
>said. "Topographers and keratometers have a central scotoma from 1.5
>to 3 mm in diameter where no measurements are taken, and this central
>area is the most important in the patient's vision and the true
>corneal power."
>
>The center of the cornea is the most critical area for calculating the
>corneal power of a patient who has had refractive surgery, he said, and
>yet it is the one area that is not truly measured by the available
>technologies. These tools miss this critical zone, which increases in
>size with the amount of refractive surgical correction.
>
>"On the average patient with a 44 D cornea, the keratometer measures
>3.2 mm apart in diameter," Dr. Holladay said. "This means, at the
>corneal center, everything less than 3.2 mm in diameter is lost. This
>isn't a problem in a patient who hasn't had corneal refractive
>surgery, but in a refractive patient not measuring the central area
>causes a significant error."
>
>For example, he said, a patient with a cornea that measures at 36.5 D
>after -10 D laser surgery actually has a central anterior corneal
>power that is 15% of his refractive change flatter (-10 × 15% =
>-1.5 D) than a patient with a 36.5 D cornea who has not had surgery.
>The refractive surgery patient who has had the -10 D LASIK and
>measures 36.5 D is actually about 35 D (36.5 - 1.5) in the center of
>the anterior cornea, Dr. Holladay said.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-11-30, 1:02 am |
| it should be pointed out that with people living to ripe old ages
these days, cataracts are expected, not the exception.
On 29 Nov 2005 16:02:17 -0800, "Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote:
>This explains why many post lasik patients who later develop
>cateracts(unrelated to lasik?) end up with IOLs that undercorrect them.
>I know a guy who was discovered with cateracts a year and a half post
>lasik and is now -4 and in bifocals full time. I even made a post
>questioning why some get lasik even if they already have the first
>signs of cateracts!
>
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt....7fc6b0534662a0e
>
>I for one wont be getting lasik. Ill probably get clear lense
>extraction sometime in my 40s, by then technology will be quite
>advanced and the wavefront IOLs they put will address my HOAs quite
>nicely and give me like 20/10 vision! If they find a way to treat
>presbyopia, I wont have to ask to be undercorrected either and perhaps
>only need reading glasses for fine print or if I do lots of reading so
>I dont make my eyes strained and tired.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-11-30, 1:02 am |
| >Before you cut and paste your garbage, try reading it first.
The garbage is in the subject line. It makes it appear that there is
some sort of unsolvable problem, and then the poster copies an article
by Jack Holladay, MD who has developed the solution to this problem.
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.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-11-30, 10:59 am |
| That is a good point.
Many scientific writings are of the format of presenting a problem,
and pointing out a solution to that problem. The malcontents love to
cut and paste the problem and ignore the solution entirely.
For instance, in the early days of LASIK, transition zones were not
done (they still aren't at quickie LASIK mills such as LVI). When a
patient has a significant degree of refactive error, a simple ablation
is prone to result in some halos and starbursts at night. With a
transition zone, those problems are minimized.
FYI, even in the most extreme circumstances, I no longer have any
halos or starbursts.
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 03:40:14 GMT, Glenn - USAEyes.org
<glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote:
>
>The garbage is in the subject line. It makes it appear that there is
>some sort of unsolvable problem, and then the poster copies an article
>by Jack Holladay, MD who has developed the solution to this problem.
>
>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.
| |
|
| well not everyone gets cateracts and some get it a few years before
they pass away from old age. However I wont be reccomending lasik to
anyone aged 50 or over, they would be better off getting clear lense
extraction IOLs that way they will never get cateracts and never have
to worry about it. Those who get lasik may still need cateract surgury
in the future anyway.
Tell yourself this. Your 55 and you want lasik. While its true you
never know when or if youll get cateracts, its a definate possibility
to consider. Would lasik have been worth it if you develop cateracts
several years down the road and need IOLs which may get miscalculated
anyway and youll be back to square one with worse vision? Or just get
those IOLs in the first place? I know quite a few people who regretted
getting lasik when they just could have gotten IOLs. Lasik was a waste
of money and vision for them.
| |
| Trulytelling@yahoo.com 2005-12-01, 1:01 am |
|
Ace wrote:
> well not everyone gets cateracts and some get it a few years before
> they pass away from old age. However I wont be reccomending lasik to
> anyone aged 50 or over, they would be better off getting clear lense
> extraction IOLs that way they will never get cateracts and never have
> to worry about it. Those who get lasik may still need cateract surgury
> in the future anyway.
>
> Tell yourself this. Your 55 and you want lasik. While its true you
> never know when or if youll get cateracts, its a definate possibility
> to consider. Would lasik have been worth it if you develop cateracts
> several years down the road and need IOLs which may get miscalculated
> anyway and youll be back to square one with worse vision? Or just get
> those IOLs in the first place? I know quite a few people who regretted
> getting lasik when they just could have gotten IOLs. Lasik was a waste
> of money and vision for them.
Jack Holliday may think he has the solution, however refractive
surgeons all over the world are blowing IOL calculations on
post-refractives every day. They do NOT all have access to the tools
and algorithms needed to make a complex calculation to compensate for
variable changes in thickness in the cornea induced by refractive
surgery.
Do you think refractive surgeons TELL their patients about this
potential future problem? It's a known future risk. Patients deserve to
know about it.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-12-01, 1:01 am |
| You appear to be under the mistaken assumption that surgeons do not
"blow" intraocular lens calculations if a patient has not had
refractive surgery.
Certainly determining the IOL calculation after refractive surgery can
be more challenging, but as demonstrated in the article by Dr.
Holladay, it is able to be accomplished.
Another technique used by some surgeons is to take the readings
necessary for IOL calculation before refractive surgery, subtract the
amount of refractive error correction accomplished with refractive
surgery, and then compare that to the number calculated with the new
post-refractive surgery methods.
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.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-12-01, 1:01 am |
| I would tend not to recommend LASIK to most people over 50 years old.
They would really have to WANT to have it done and be a youthful 50
for me to reccomend that. I know someone who is 66 years old who
could easily pass for 35 years old both physically, mentally, etc. In
fact, he is in better shape now than 99% of people are in their entire
lives. He can still do a backflip as unbelievable as that sounds....
On 30 Nov 2005 12:44:27 -0800, "Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote:
>well not everyone gets cateracts and some get it a few years before
>they pass away from old age. However I wont be reccomending lasik to
>anyone aged 50 or over, they would be better off getting clear lense
>extraction IOLs that way they will never get cateracts and never have
>to worry about it. Those who get lasik may still need cateract surgury
>in the future anyway.
>
>Tell yourself this. Your 55 and you want lasik. While its true you
>never know when or if youll get cateracts, its a definate possibility
>to consider. Would lasik have been worth it if you develop cateracts
>several years down the road and need IOLs which may get miscalculated
>anyway and youll be back to square one with worse vision? Or just get
>those IOLs in the first place? I know quite a few people who regretted
>getting lasik when they just could have gotten IOLs. Lasik was a waste
>of money and vision for them.
| |
| serebel 2005-12-01, 1:02 am |
| Looks like "TrueLies" has polled cataract surgeons worldwide. You must
be tired.
| |
|
| I am telling this 49 year old high myope to definately get IOLs instead
of lasik. The doctor also replied saying both IOL and surface ablation
are options. I replied again saying that IOLs will give him the peace
of mind never having to worry about cateracts plus laser surgury is
riskier for high myopes like him. Many people regret getting laser
surgury when a few years down the road they need a 2nd surgury to
remove their cateracts. Why not get IOLs in the first place? I dont
believe in anything but IOLs for those aged 50+ and I still reccomend
IOLs for 40+ as well.
| |
| Trulytelling@yahoo.com 2005-12-14, 6:01 pm |
| Holliday hasn't fixed the problem. Surgeons all over America are
botching IOL calculations for cataract patients even as we speak. Do
you think most surgeons in the US today have the knowledge and special
equipment to get IOL calculations for post-refractive surgery cataract
patients right? They don't.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-12-14, 6:01 pm |
| you don't want people to have RK, PRK, LASIK, nor IOL's which would
also put the kabosh on cataract surgery. I guess your solution to
eye problems is coke bottle glasses and squinting.
On 14 Dec 2005 13:34:31 -0800, Trulytelling@yahoo.com wrote:
>Holliday hasn't fixed the problem. Surgeons all over America are
>botching IOL calculations for cataract patients even as we speak. Do
>you think most surgeons in the US today have the knowledge and special
>equipment to get IOL calculations for post-refractive surgery cataract
>patients right? They don't.
| |
| Trulytelling@yahoo.com 2005-12-15, 1:03 am |
| Actually, cataract surgery is fine if you wait until it is a medical
neccessity.
No need for anyone to wear coke bottle glasses any more... high
refractive index plastics mean
that everyone can wear thin glasses. Contact lens technology is really
improving as well.
I love it when refractive surgeons tell patients who have
residual/induced refractive error and astigmatism
that they now get to wear thinner glasses! What a treat! My glasses now
after LASIK aren't much thinner
than when I was a high myope. It's just that now I have day and night
GASH and constant
eye pain from dry eye.
Before LASIK - great vision with glasses
After LASIK - terrible vision with glasses + chronic eye pain
My vision now is fluctuating, blurry and distorted with glasses or
contacts. Before I was a crisp
carefree 20/15 with glasses or contacts. I miss having good correctable
vision. Refractive
surgery definitely mangled my corneas (courtesy of the VISX S4).
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-12-15, 1:03 am |
| I disagree, but that probably is not surprising.
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.
| |
|
| "Surgeons all over America are
botching IOL calculations for cataract patients even as we speak."
They hopefully try their best but after laser surgury, it becomes much
harder to calculate IOLs and thats a fact. Imagine paying $5000 to get
lasik, prk, whatever then you get cateracts a few years later. You took
the risks with your eyes, damaged them with lasik and you still need
IOLs which is another surgury, more expenses and more risks and youll
be back in glasses!
For this reason, I especially dont believe in laser surgury if you are
around 50 or over. Just enjoy your glasses and when/if you get
cateracts, you then can get IOLs and enjoy a reduction of your glasses
dependancy.
"you don't want people to have RK, PRK, LASIK, nor IOL's which would
also put the kabosh on cataract surgery."
RK is obsolete now that theres lasers. When something better comes,
lasik may be obsolete too. I am not going to stop people from getting
refractive surgury, this is their eyes to risk and potentionally ruin.
What I can do is inform them of the risks and give my opinion. some
people wont make good candidates at all like this -13 lady or this -1
guy! If that -13 lady gets lasik she may ruin her eyes and wish she was
still wearing -13 glasses, as much as she dislikes them.
Lasik sometimes works OK for good candidates but nothing is guaranteed,
not even being free of glasses especially!
"I guess your solution to
eye problems is coke bottle glasses and squinting."
Theres new high index glasses technologies, like this company for
example:
http://www.thineyeglasses.com/default.asp
I cant see clearly the difference of this -22 guy but the -12 guy shows
the high index being less than half the thickness! Of course the
smaller frame helps alot too! My sister invited some friends and one of
the guys had such strong glasses things were blurry thru his(I estimate
-7.5) yet his were as thin as my -3.25 computer glasses! I couldnt
believe how thin they were for the power! Even if he was a -15 they
wouldnt be all that thick, definately less than half inch. Theres
always contacts which are really popular for very high myopes, they
wear em when going out and wear their glasses around the house where
theres no one to see so no embarrestment. Coke bottles is mostly a
thing of the past. If your eyes are that bad, get myodiscs then!
no squinting is needed if you get the correct glasses pescription and
if your BCVA is poor due to your incredable myopia theres low vision
aids.
"Actually, cataract surgery is fine if you wait until it is a medical
neccessity."
How bad must cateracts get before its a good idea to remove them? Some
say if it gets to the point where you cant see the 20/40 you need to
legally drive, others say not untill you become legally blind at
20/400! They then say if you are already blind from cateracts then
theres nothing to lose getting the surgury for IOLs.
"No need for anyone to wear coke bottle glasses any more... high
refractive index plastics mean
that everyone can wear thin glasses."
Theres now 1.74 plastic index and if you want higher, glass goes to 1.9
and ive read on 2.0 and 2.1 in the works! This means people of -10,
-15, even -20 can wear thinner glasses than ever. Im not exactly sure
on the thickness but its less than half inch and probably about a
quarter inch for like -12 to -15. None of the half to inch thick
cokebottles of the past! If you are -20 or more theres a myodisc design
as well.
"Contact lens technology is really
improving as well."
Yea, unfortunately not everyone can tolerate them and most people find
them uncomfortable at times but hey nothing wrong with a thin, stylish
pair of super high index glasses 
"I love it when refractive surgeons tell patients who have
residual/induced refractive error and astigmatism
that they now get to wear thinner glasses! What a treat!"
Well their dependancy on glasses is also reduced and they arent as
"blind" without glasses. Also glasses minify things, more the higher
pescription. But hey they get more of those wonderful high order
aberrations no glasses can correct so despite improved UCVA and thinner
glasses, they still dont see as well! Also many people arent happy if
they still have to wear glasses!
"My glasses now
after LASIK aren't much thinner
than when I was a high myope. It's just that now I have day and night
GASH and constant
eye pain from dry eye."
My consolences! A few milimeter thickness and less minification doesnt
come close in comparsion to the wonderful "gift" of your new lasik
eyes. High myopes dont like how things become noticabily smaller with
glasses, but ill take seeing a world a little smaller but much clearer
with glasses than what lasik can give. Plus the quality with glasses is
much better as well. None of the GASH or dry eyes or pain.
"Before I was a crisp
carefree 20/15 with glasses or contacts."
Wow thats amazing! What does 20/15 look like? I have virgin eyes and
dont get near that, am 20/30 with my -5 glasses. Wasnt it hard to see
the 20/15 due to the minification of glasses though? Or if you saw
20/15 fine with glasses, wouldnt contacts then be giving you 20/13
because things arent minified?
"I miss having good correctable
vision."
my consolences! 20/15 was just AMAZING for a high myope, especially
considering the fair amount of spectacle minification! The 20/15 line
would be minified to about 20/13 with -8 glasses! This means with
contacts the 20/13 line will be the same size as the 20/15 with -8
glasses! My BCVA isnt as good because I have more aberrations than
average. You had very, very few aberrations.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-12-15, 11:00 am |
| This is amusing... you say cataract surgery is fine if you wait
until it's medically necessary? What kind of logic is that?
Glasses are great if you don't mind looking silly sometimes, and
having the lenses fog up, and get smeared, scratched, chipped, slip
out of position, develop long-term grooves into your skull from the
frames, suffer from minification (or magnification), pay for $300
frames every year, etc.
Also, glasses do not treat astigmatism adequately. Glasses were
inadequate for me for over 20 years. Rigid gas permeable lenses are
the only viable alternative to refractive surgery. And even then,
over time, one loses their tolerance of contacts.
On 14 Dec 2005 18:08:02 -0800, Trulytelling@yahoo.com wrote:
>Actually, cataract surgery is fine if you wait until it is a medical
>neccessity.
>
>No need for anyone to wear coke bottle glasses any more... high
>refractive index plastics mean
>that everyone can wear thin glasses. Contact lens technology is really
>improving as well.
>
>I love it when refractive surgeons tell patients who have
>residual/induced refractive error and astigmatism
>that they now get to wear thinner glasses! What a treat! My glasses now
>after LASIK aren't much thinner
>than when I was a high myope. It's just that now I have day and night
>GASH and constant
>eye pain from dry eye.
>
>Before LASIK - great vision with glasses
>
>After LASIK - terrible vision with glasses + chronic eye pain
>
>My vision now is fluctuating, blurry and distorted with glasses or
>contacts. Before I was a crisp
>carefree 20/15 with glasses or contacts. I miss having good correctable
>vision. Refractive
>surgery definitely mangled my corneas (courtesy of the VISX S4).
| |
| Trulytelling@yahoo.com 2005-12-15, 11:00 am |
| ACE, new LASIK eyes are not a wonderful gift. Everybody who gets LASIK
gets nerve damage, increased corneal distortions and a structurally
weakened cornea. My vision is garbage and my eyes always hurt. Turns
out the secretary in my department has the same problem from LASIK. We
work together and never had the LASIK conversation.... refractive
surgery is harming millions. Try to stop talking it up as if it were
some sort of technological miracle.
You should wait until your cataracts interefere with your vision before
you have cataract surgery. Minor cataracts may not be noticeable.
| |
|
| "This is amusing... you say cataract surgery is fine if you wait
until it's medically necessary? What kind of logic is that?"
Some people get clear lense extraction to bring their very high myopia
closer to plano. They also have the benefit of never having to worry
about cateracts. I dont even believe in laser surgury for those 50+ of
age, they would be better off with IOLs.
" Ragnar
Dec 15, 7:31 am show options
Newsgroups: alt.lasik-eyes
From: Ragnar <ragnarsu...@yahoo.com> - Find messages by this author
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 12:31:36 GMT
Local: Thurs, Dec 15 2005 7:31 am
Subject: Re: The refractive surprise - why surgeons have problems
calculation IOL power in post RS patients
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse
This is amusing... you say cataract surgery is fine if you wait
until it's medically necessary? What kind of logic is that?
Glasses are great if you don't mind looking silly sometimes, and
having the lenses fog up, and get smeared, scratched, chipped, slip
out of position, develop long-term grooves into your skull from the
frames, suffer from minification (or magnification), pay for $300
frames every year, etc."
Its a girl thing, them women seem so shy in glasses. I see alot less
women in glasses then men and contacts, even lasik is more popular
among women. No ones commented anything negetive about my glasses. Even
if they did, its their problem not mine. You are right about the lenses
fogging up, this happens to me about once a week but the fogging goes
away in a few seconds so its no big deal. The smeared, scratched dusty
lenses are the most annoying part of glasses. Theres antiscratch coat
which makes it 10x harder to scratch the lenses. My glasses have those.
I have a glasses cloth which cleans them perfectly. They do get dusty
quite often, sometimes I just blow, other times I brush it off with my
shirt. I dont have a problem with those glasses slipping, they fit
right. Minification is not bad unless you are a high myope but then
your eyes may be too bad for lasik. Minification can cost a full line
or more for very high myopes, like seeing 20/25 because the 20/20 is
too small or 20/30 instead of 20/25.
$300 for glasses? If you choose an expensive frame, high index lense
with all the bells and whistles. Many glasses shops have a $99 special
for frame and lenses and you only need glasses as often as your eyes
get worse or if they break. I think my dad had the same glasses for 5
years! Glasses do treat regular astigmastim just fine. I see lots of
people with -3 diopters astigmastim being correctable to 20/20. I can
only be corrected to 20/30 but I have irregular astigmastim and high
order aberrations.
You are correct about tolerance to contacts. I cant tolerate soft
contacts and itll cost me $2000 to try RGP contacts and the optometrist
warned me if a tiny spec of dust gets under, itll really hurt! Youll
need to take them out right there and then. If I get RGP contacts I
will need:
1. reading glasses due to my presbyopia(or accomodative dysfunction) if
not forget reading things up close. Forget reading any of the magazines
in the store, forget reading the ingrediants on the bottle, forget even
reading my watch for the time! I dont like monovision.
2. Ill have to carry eyedrops with me too as contacts dry my eyes out
3. Ill have to carry contact lense solution in case dust gets under my
eye and I have to remove the contacts. Ill need the solution to be able
to insert them back in
4. Ill need to carry paper towels and antibacterial lotition so I can
steralize my hands before touching my eyes or risk an infection!
I think glasses are probably less of a hassle than all this. I would
wear RGP if I had no choice and I didnt get acceptable vision from
glasses but I still see fine with glasses. I dont have KC or anything
There is no easy way to reduce ones dependancy of glasses. Contacts are
the easiest way but many people make tradeoffs with those such as
discomfort, dry eyes, needing reading glasses, etc. Lasik is another
option but its risky and not everyone comes out right.
"new LASIK eyes are not a wonderful gift."
Not for everyone. Ragnar has never had anything bad to say about lasik
so in his case he is saying what a wonderful gift lasik is and agrees
with anyone who says lasik is a gift. His lasik experienced turned out
positive and hes eternally happy to be free of glasses for the time
being. Ive never seen him say if he had any problems with night vision
or GASH.
"My vision is garbage and my eyes always hurt."
My consolences as ive said in the above post. What pescription were you
before lasik? Was it too high to have good results with lasik?
"You should wait until your cataracts interefere with your vision
before
you have cataract surgery. Minor cataracts may not be noticeable."
Ok that makes sense. You dont have to wait till you become "blind" from
cateracts, just start having trouble seeing, then out they go?
|
| |
|
|