|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > April 2005 > Which is better: Refractive Lensectomy or 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 |
Which is better: Refractive Lensectomy or lasik?
|
|
|
| Which gives better vision a Refractive Lensectomy or Lasik? It appears
that that crystalens promo's are equal to or better than a Lasik. Am I
correct in thinking that a lens insert can be changed several times as
the needs for vision change?
Thanks for any information.
u4ick
--
-Laissez Les Bon Temps Rouler-
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-04-13, 4:44 pm |
| Without intending to be rude, I'd say you greatly underestimate the
seriousness of what you are considering. Someone who thinks changing
intraocular lenses several times is an appropriate method of vision
correction, must not understand the scope of the surgery necessary.
A refractive lensectomy (Refractive Lens Exchange, RLE)is in my
opinion ONLY appropriate for someone who has a diseased natural lens
or is fully presbyopic and the natural lens is unable to change focus
from distant objects to near objects. As a general rule, this means
that anyone under about the age of 40 with healthy eyes would not be a
very good candidate for RLE. See
http://www.usaeyes.org/faq/subjects/rle.htm for details.
While the Crystalens is a significant advancement in the ability to
restore accommodation, it is far from perfect and not totally
predictable. To change a young healthy natural lens with a Crystalens
only for the purpose of correcting sphere (myopia, hyperopia) is
downright foolish. Visit
http://www.usaeyes.org/faq/subjects/crystalens.htm for details.
LASIK, and its cousins PRK, LASEK, and Epi_LASIK, all have their
limitations, but they are significantly less invasive than RLE and
have more predictable refractive outcomes. If you have a young
healthy eye with moderate to low myopia (nearsighted, shortsighted) or
hyperopia (farsighted, longsighted), one of these may (emphasis on
"may") be the better choice.
You may want to consider also Intacs, if you have low myopia, or a
phakic intraocular lens (P-IOL) if you are highly myopic and under age
40.
You need to have a thorough evaluation by a competent doctor who is
knowledgeable in all techniques and technologies, and then discuss
your options at length.
And lastly, the most that any refractive surgery can do is to provide
the convenience of a reduced need for corrective lenses. To achieve
that convenience, you will need to accept some risk. From the
apparent tone of your note, you do not yet have a full understanding
of the potential risk, nor have you been appropriately evaluated to
determine if there may be an unusual risk in your unique situation.
Do you research, and proceed with knowledge and caution.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
| CatmanX 2005-04-13, 4:44 pm |
| theoretically, the better optics should occur on RLE in evrey case. THe
cornea is left intact and the replacement lens covers the entire pupil
and is better opticlly than a laser ablated cornea. RLE does take all
your accommodation, so unless you are presbyopic, over 40, it is not a
good option as you will not be able to see up close.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-04-19, 10:50 am |
| That mainly depends on your age. How old are you?
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 11:57:08 -0500, u4ick <nospamm@nospamm.com> wrote:
>Which gives better vision a Refractive Lensectomy or Lasik? It appears
>that that crystalens promo's are equal to or better than a Lasik. Am I
>correct in thinking that a lens insert can be changed several times as
>the needs for vision change?
>
>
>Thanks for any information.
>
>u4ick
| |
| u4ick 2005-04-19, 10:50 am |
| 63 years old.
Ragnar wrote:
> That mainly depends on your age. How old are you?
>
>
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 11:57:08 -0500, u4ick <nospamm@nospamm.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
--
-Laissez Les Bon Temps Rouler-
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-04-19, 10:51 am |
| Unless you have significant astigmatism, Refractive Lens Exchange
probably makes much more sense than any cornea based refractive
surgery,such as LASIK, PRK, LASEK, or Epi-LASIK.
You may want to look into Crystalens closely
(http://www.usaeyes.org/faq/subjects/crystalens.htm)
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-04-19, 10:51 am |
| At 63, you are presbyopic and at the age of cataracts. Lasik isn't
for you. Check out www.crystalens.com those accomodative lenses go
for about $4500 per eye.
Once you have standard non-accomodative IOLs put in, you cannot have
accomodative lenses put in.
If $9000 is too expensive, you could either choose to do monovision
where one eye is for seeing near and the other far or you could have
both eyes set the same and wear reading glasses. For the monovision..
try that out with contact lenses first.
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 19:27:56 -0500, u4ick <nospamm@nospamm.com> wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>63 years old.
>
>Ragnar wrote:
|
| |
|
|