|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > December 2005 > His expectations about lasik were unrealistic and hes back in glasses now! Contrast ch
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 |
His expectations about lasik were unrealistic and hes back in glasses now! Contrast ch
|
|
|
| I have provided the link below. Whyd he get lasik if he wasnt going to
be happy at less than 20/20? Its clear hes VERY picky about vision.
20/30 in one eye, 20/40 in the other eye isnt bad at all, this is
pretty much what I see with BEST corrected glasses and everything is
really sharp. I can see TVs not from 4 feet but from like 20-40
depending how large said TVs are. I can clearly see faces from quite a
distance off. I dont believe for a minute hes really 20/30 in the
better eye. It sounds more like hes 20/100!
Right now im wearing glasses that undercorrect me in the vinicity of
20/100 and honestly im not having much trouble seeing. You may ask why?
well I can see this computer monitor better with an undercorrection! I
also see just fine around the house, less strain on my eyes too. This
makes me think he experienced a decrease in *quality* of vision,
especially at night. It sounds like his poor contrast is what makes
things blurry at night and dim light. Glasses arent going to give him
the vision he had before lasik but yes it will improve any myopia and
induced astigmastim he has. I guess any improvement will help
considering the damage lasik did to his vision. If he was wearing
contacts before, why did he even get lasik? If he couldnt tolerate
contacts then why does he want to go back to contacts instead of stick
with a thin pair of glasses?
Yes he did waste $3000 on lasik and ruined his eyes in the process with
worse vision, hence his complaints that he cant see too well. Alot of
people are like that, heck one of my friends "got" 20/20, albet a
blurry one and hes complaining about difficulty reading the words on
the lecture board in his college class! To put this in perspective, I
did NOT have the least bit of trouble at 20/30 and only a little
trouble at 20/60! I told him that most people will say you have good
vision and shouldnt be complaining! Me and him agreed that the snellen
chart becomes meaningless when were talking about haze and glare, his
two main complaints. He does seem supprised at being very near 20/20
considering the vision quality.
I think we should start making eyecharts that test more than visual
accuracy. A good way to start is the contrast chart
http://www.psych.nyu.edu/pelli/pell...i-robson720.gif
This will work on all vision problems, especially lost of contrast due
to lasik. There should be different numbers like 20/200 for the upper
left darkest letter and 20/8 for the faintest lower right letter.
Someone who got lasik could be scoring 20/30 or even 20/20 on the
accuracy chart but perhaps only 20/50 or worst on the contrast! Make
that contrast chart a standard and people will take lasik much more
seriously. Make it required that all surgeons test your contrast before
and after lasik like they do with accuracy. This gives a more
comphensive testing of your abilities before/after lasik.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt....f181619f276c0f7
| |
| crvc@wyoming.com 2005-12-23, 11:00 am |
| This is an interesting eye chart. I had a tape measure handy. I'm
sitting at my desk, looking at the 12-inch laptop screen. From a
distance of 15 inches I can only see clearly the first four rows. The
fifth row fades from dim to very dim. I know there is a sixth row but
nothing is legible. What's interesting was when I had to slide my
chair back to get something off the shelf. Then from six feet away I
clearly saw the seventh row. There is a hint of an eighth row but it's
not legible.
I had LASIK several years ago. Now I wear glasses for a combination of
astigmatism and farsightedness. Without the glasses on, from 15 inches
I can make out the top two rows only and they aren't sharp.
So when I healed from the laser surgery I was close to 20:20. But now,
at age 48, I need glasses to be able to read. I don't remember anyone
telling me that would be the case. Maybe I should have realized this
pre-op.
The chart does not address night vision problems. At night, even with
glasses I can't see clearly enough to safely drive a car. With RGP
lenses I can drive at night as long as it's not snowing. If it's
snowing, it is as if I'm driving in the densest fog imaginable.
I've gone back to the hospital eye center for rechecks, complaining
always about my poor night vision. The doctor's reponse was, "Well
why do you need to drive at night anyway?"
| |
|
| In article <1135351619.743218.61980@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
crvc@wyoming.com wrote:
> This is an interesting eye chart. I had a tape measure handy. I'm
> sitting at my desk, looking at the 12-inch laptop screen. From a
> distance of 15 inches I can only see clearly the first four rows. The
> fifth row fades from dim to very dim. I know there is a sixth row but
> nothing is legible. What's interesting was when I had to slide my
> chair back to get something off the shelf. Then from six feet away I
> clearly saw the seventh row. There is a hint of an eighth row but it's
> not legible.
It's not very scientific. I also looked at it on my 12" laptop screen
and saw different rows depending on the angle of the screen and how I
set the contrast. It had nothing to do with my eyes. It would have to be
printed out and given to a large sample of people under similar
circumstances in order for it to tell you anything about how your eyes
see compared to others.
--
~RT
| |
|
| well the contrast chart should be printed or better yet buy an official
one that has uniformly even contrast shades. I think your supposed to
stand 20 feet away and read the chart with your best correction because
a refractive error will result in more contrast loss than normal. If
you cant see well enough from 20 feet, it may be permissable to move up
closer. Its not so much an accuracy test as its a contrast test. If you
do bad on that, it can explain why your vision isnt good, especially
not at night. Theres some other charts that can test your quality of
vision. The snellen chart works fine for testing myopia, astigmastim
and sometimes hyperopia but its not very useful for quality issues.
Surgeons know this and they only give you the snellen chart for obvious
reasons
| |
| Sandy 2005-12-25, 10:57 am |
| I did a contrast sensitivity test at one prominent L.A. surgeon's
office about a year post-LASIK, and the result was that one eye was 70%
of normal, and the other was 60% of normal. The doctor's comment was
that I'd suffered a SLIGHT loss of contrast. That was a gross
misstatement of fact.
This was a loss that I was unaware of, which is what happens when you
have lasik on both eyes at the same time. There is nothing to compare
your new vision to, so how can you really tell? That is one of the
reasons bilateral lasik surgery is so popular, and we've even seen
surgeons comment on this before.
| |
|
| The regular snellen chart wouldnt even have told you the story. 60% of
normal contrast is a huge loss, this means many shades of gray is now
nearly or totally black! Its true youll never know what your old vision
was, but you could tell something is wrong when you cant see a thing in
the closet, need a flashlight when walking around the house at night,
basically your vision sucks at night and in dim light, everything is
really dark and hazy.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-12-25, 12:54 pm |
| "Normal" for the general population may not be what Keller's contrast
sensitivity was before surgery. Keller, if you know your preoperative
contrast sensitivity (same test and conditions) and compare that to
your postoperative contrast sensitivity, then and only then can it be
known for certain what loss or gain can be attributed to LASIK.
I submit that if one loses or gains contrast sensitivity and does not
know it, then there really isn't a loss or gain. Contrast sensitivity
loss or gain only matters when it affects functional vision. An
objective measurement really does not mean much. What counts is how
the patient sees.
A preoperative contrast sensitivity test is quite important for all
patients considering refractive surgery (and not done nearly enough
IMO). If a person naturally has poor contrast sensitivity, the risk of
poor vision after refractive surgery is potentially elevated. If a
person naturally has excellent contrast sensitivity, then the risk of
poor vision is decreased (loss puts patient to "normal"), but may be
noticed by the patient. In either case, the patient should be advised.
Although the contrast sensitivity test is idea for this singular
measurement, a wavefront abberometer can analyze aberrations that
contribute contrast vision too. IMO, the contrast sensitivity test is
best.
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.
| |
| nunayabizinez@yahoo.com 2005-12-25, 5:56 pm |
| For credible, serious information about contrast sensitivity, visit Dr.
Arthur P. Ginsburg's site: http://contrastsensitivity.net/. He is an
internationally recognized authority in the field of vision science and
applied research.
My contrast sensitivity before surgery was fine. I never gave it a
second thought. Lasik diminished it to the point where I can't see much
at night, in dim or fluorescent lighting, or even on a bright sunny
day. Everything is all washed out all the time. I don't need no
stinkin' test to prove it.
When you've lost contrast sensitivity so that it affects your daily
life, you don't need a test to know it. If you can't tell without
having a test, you'll never know the difference, so why bother? Save
the money you'd spend on a test and try using it to make the planet a
better place to live.
Ace, don't even bother to ask me about my pre-op Rx and all that other
stuff. It's nunayabizinez. Get it?
Glenn - USAEyes.org wrote:
> "Normal" for the general population may not be what Keller's contrast
> sensitivity was before surgery. Keller, if you know your preoperative
> contrast sensitivity (same test and conditions) and compare that to
> your postoperative contrast sensitivity, then and only then can it be
> known for certain what loss or gain can be attributed to LASIK.
>
> I submit that if one loses or gains contrast sensitivity and does not
> know it, then there really isn't a loss or gain. Contrast sensitivity
> loss or gain only matters when it affects functional vision. An
> objective measurement really does not mean much. What counts is how
> the patient sees.
>
> A preoperative contrast sensitivity test is quite important for all
> patients considering refractive surgery (and not done nearly enough
> IMO). If a person naturally has poor contrast sensitivity, the risk of
> poor vision after refractive surgery is potentially elevated. If a
> person naturally has excellent contrast sensitivity, then the risk of
> poor vision is decreased (loss puts patient to "normal"), but may be
> noticed by the patient. In either case, the patient should be advised.
>
> Although the contrast sensitivity test is idea for this singular
> measurement, a wavefront abberometer can analyze aberrations that
> contribute contrast vision too. IMO, the contrast sensitivity test is
> best.
>
> 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 2005-12-26, 12:55 pm |
| That is ludicrous. Your vision was terrible BEFORE your LASIK. 70%
of normal after LASIK.. just what was your contrast sensitivity before
LASIK?
On 24 Dec 2005 23:53:01 -0800, "Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>I did a contrast sensitivity test at one prominent L.A. surgeon's
>office about a year post-LASIK, and the result was that one eye was 70%
>of normal, and the other was 60% of normal. The doctor's comment was
>that I'd suffered a SLIGHT loss of contrast. That was a gross
>misstatement of fact.
>
>This was a loss that I was unaware of, which is what happens when you
>have lasik on both eyes at the same time. There is nothing to compare
>your new vision to, so how can you really tell? That is one of the
>reasons bilateral lasik surgery is so popular, and we've even seen
>surgeons comment on this before.
| |
|
| Even if someone never had a contrast senestivity test, if he loses a
good amount of contrast, he will obviously know. Everything looks dull
and washed out, much like frosted glass and worse than smeared glasses.
Some say its like looking thru haze or fog. They can still see the
snellen chart all right but letters are grayish instead of solid black.
Their night vision sucks because shadows of gray is all black. I know
people with such severe loss of contrast they are legally blind at
night!
"My contrast sensitivity before surgery was fine. I never gave it a
second thought. Lasik diminished it to the point where I can't see much
at night, in dim or fluorescent lighting, or even on a bright sunny
day. Everything is all washed out all the time. I don't need no
stinkin' test to prove it."
exactly the point. My consolences.
"When you've lost contrast sensitivity so that it affects your daily
life, you don't need a test to know it. If you can't tell without
having a test, you'll never know the difference, so why bother?"
Good point. Testing will however prove that almost everyone loses at
least a litle contrast. A small loss might not be enough to notice when
you no longer have any reference before surgury unless you get only one
eye lasered.
"Ace, don't even bother to ask me about my pre-op Rx and all that other
stuff. It's nunayabizinez. Get it?"
LOL funny joke but seriously I extend my consolences for your bad lasik
outcome. Whatever your vision was before lasik is now irrevelent
because theres no going back. Of course its even sadder if the person
was a low myope and hardly needed glasses in the first place!
"Your vision was terrible BEFORE your LASIK. 70%
of normal after LASIK."
Lasik made his vision much worse now 
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-12-26, 6:02 pm |
| Subjective changes are, by their very nature, going to be noticed by
the patient. It is the subjective opinion of the patient that is most
important, but is often difficult to quantify and subject to the
variables of the testing and reporting method.
A patient who was objectively evaluated before and after surgery is
able to provide exacting information that is useful in studies and
evaluation of the patient's outcome.
If a patient had above normal contrast sensitivity and then after
surgery has contrast in the normal range, that is a degradation of
vision, but is still "normal". Of course, it may be that a patient
would not be satisfied with normal vision and it would be best if that
is determined prior to surgery.
As I said before, preoperative evaluation is helpful to advise a
patient what to expect after surgery.
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 think the satisfaction of the patient is most important reguardless
of the outcome. You can take two people with the same outcome and one
may be very happy while the other miserable. Ive seen people that are
happy despite having complications because they see better without
glasses.
|
| |
|
|