|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > July 2005 > Thinking of taking the plunge
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 |
Thinking of taking the plunge
|
|
| Andrew Chew 2005-03-26, 10:22 am |
| R -2.50
L -3.25
How likely will lasik induce astigmatism where I have none currently.
Why do some people end up with 20/10 vision whereas others only get 20/20 or
worse.
Any opinions on the 5th generation laser, Allegretto?
If myopia is largely due to axial length rather than the cornea, I guess one
day someone will use gene therapy to reverse the excessive growth of the
eye. That is surely a less traumatic way to handle myopia if it works of
course.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-03-26, 10:22 am |
| Where did you get the idea that you have no astigmatism? Unless you
have lived your life in zero gravity in outer space, you have some
astigmatism. Everyone has some astigmatism.
As for gene therapy, myopia is a rather trivial problem to treat with
gene therapy. A better use for gene therapy would be on mental
illness, obesity, etc. Then we wouldn't have any more Minariks
around.
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 08:37:13 +0800, "Andrew Chew"
<andrew@nospam.alumni.nus.edu.sg> wrote:
>R -2.50
>L -3.25
>
>How likely will lasik induce astigmatism where I have none currently.
>
>Why do some people end up with 20/10 vision whereas others only get 20/20 or
>worse.
>
>Any opinions on the 5th generation laser, Allegretto?
>
>If myopia is largely due to axial length rather than the cornea, I guess one
>day someone will use gene therapy to reverse the excessive growth of the
>eye. That is surely a less traumatic way to handle myopia if it works of
>course.
>
| |
| tes@test.com 2005-03-26, 10:22 am |
| Ragnar,
your family needed gene therapy before you were born.
It would save lots of people grief.
Ragnar wrote:
> Where did you get the idea that you have no astigmatism? Unless you
> have lived your life in zero gravity in outer space, you have some
> astigmatism. Everyone has some astigmatism.
>
> As for gene therapy, myopia is a rather trivial problem to treat with
> gene therapy. A better use for gene therapy would be on mental
> illness, obesity, etc. Then we wouldn't have any more Minariks
> around.
>
>
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 08:37:13 +0800, "Andrew Chew"
> <andrew@nospam.alumni.nus.edu.sg> wrote:
>
>
>
>
| |
|
| > How likely will lasik induce astigmatism where I have none currently.
>
> Why do some people end up with 20/10 vision whereas others only get 20/20
or
> worse.
I was told that you will never get any better vision than your already "best
corrected vision" with glasses or contacts. Mine with glasses was 20/10 and
I was lucky to get that with Lasik. My son had a eye exam the other day when
I had mine. He was pushing 20/20 and couldn't be corrected any higher.
Whats your best corrected vision now? 20/20 is still very good vision
especially when you achieve it without glasses. If you are going to get
Lasik then I'd try to aim for slightly lower than your "BCV" then you may
not be dissapointed if its not perfect.
Regards
Wal
| |
| Simpledog 2005-03-26, 10:22 am |
| You really think that would have helped?
What I wonder is, what drives this guy? I mean, what does he get out of it?
What's his problem? I did like Minarik's point of him having thousands of
tiny poke marks from all the ten foot poles. That cracked me up.
<tes@test.com> wrote in message news:FqudneCDa-7T4d7fRVn-oA@comcast.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Ragnar,
>
> your family needed gene therapy before you were born.
> It would save lots of people grief.
>
> Ragnar wrote:
| |
| Andrew Chew 2005-03-26, 10:22 am |
|
"Wal" <notmewally@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ahcr6F694u0iU1@individual.net...
> or
>
> I was told that you will never get any better vision than your already
> "best
> corrected vision" with glasses or contacts. Mine with glasses was 20/10
> and
> I was lucky to get that with Lasik. My son had a eye exam the other day
> when
> I had mine. He was pushing 20/20 and couldn't be corrected any higher.
> Whats your best corrected vision now? 20/20 is still very good vision
> especially when you achieve it without glasses. If you are going to get
> Lasik then I'd try to aim for slightly lower than your "BCV" then you may
> not be dissapointed if its not perfect.
I have 20/10 with glasses. I had 20/10 vision when I was a kid and only lost
it around 12. Any idea why some people cannot be corrected to 20/10? Could
it be due to astigmatism?
Maybe if I didn't succumb to glasses at 12, my vision would have corrected
itself. How old is your son?
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-03-26, 10:22 am |
| Yours is a rather low refractive error and you are not showing any
astigmatism. Virtually all techniques and technologies do well with
this type of correction. You could have LASIK, PRK, LASEK, or
Epi-LASIK. I am biased toward the surface ablations techniques of
PRK, LASEK, and Epi-LASIK because they eliminate the need for a LASIK
flap. Just one less thing to go wrong. I like fewer things to go
wrong, but the recover for surface ablation techniques is longer and
less comfortable.
Allegretto in the FDA trials did as well as any of the custom
wavefront-guided lasers, when comparing apples to apples. Allegretto
in the US is wavefront optimized, not custom wavefront.
I doubt genetic alterations are in the near future, but I like your
theory.
Some people get better vision than others for many reasons. One is
that they start out better. This is commonly due to low higher order
aberrations. There is much more to vision quality than the chart with
the big E. You should read
http://www.usaeyes.org/faq/subjects...ustom_lasik.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.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-03-26, 10:22 am |
| Although it is possible to achieve 20/10 uncorrected vision after
surgery if you had 20/10 corrected vision before surgery, but that
really is not a reasonable expectation. The best anyone should
honestly expect is 20/20 "perfect" vision.
Remember that there are no guarantees in surgery of any kind, and
LASIK is no exception. There is more going on here than changing the
shape of your cornea, and even if not highly probable, it is possible
to have vision after surgery that is worse than corrected vision
before surgery.
Some people cannot be corrected to 20/10 because of physiological
limitations including fovea density, ocular health, lens clarity, and
natural higher order aberrations.
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.
| |
| Richard 2005-03-26, 10:22 am |
| "Andrew Chew" <andrew@nospam.alumni.nus.edu.sg> wrote in
news:1111711235.27734.0@sabbath.news.uk.clara.net:
> R -2.50
> L -3.25
>
> How likely will lasik induce astigmatism where I have none currently.
Depending on other factors, such as your pupil size, thickness of your
corneas, you may be an excellent candidate for the various refractive
surgery options. You have a relatively small correction, and no
astigmatism to correct, which is good, less variables.
>
> Why do some people end up with 20/10 vision whereas others only get
> 20/20 or worse.
A good rule of thumb is that your best possible outcome post refractive
surgery will be no better than your best corrected vision currently is. It
may not be as good as your current BCV, but will not be better.
--
Richard
| |
|
| On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 11:53:48 -0500, Richard wrote
(in article <Xns962464A19270Erichardrapiernetscap@130.133.1.4> ):
What's interesting about this is that my contacts and spectacles never
corrected my vision as well as my BCV according to my final eye exam before
having LASIK. I had slight astigmatism, so my soft contacts never corrected
for that, and my vision was always lousy out of glasses. It was only at my
first consult for LASIK, that the OD showed me what 20/15 would look like
through their machine (don't know the name--the one that flips lenses until
you say #1 or #2 looks better). She said that that would be the best
possible outcome. I had never seen so clearly! I don't think anyone else had
ever tried to correct me past 20/20.
>
> A good rule of thumb is that your best possible outcome post refractive
> surgery will be no better than your best corrected vision currently is. It
> may not be as good as your current BCV, but will not be better.
>
>
--
~RT
________________________________________________
Hogwasher, Premier News and Mail for OS X
http://www.asar.com/cgi-bin/product.../hogwasher.html
________________________________________________
| |
| doctor_my_eye@msn.com 2005-03-26, 10:22 am |
| The quality of vision you get for BVA (Best Visual Acuity) has a lot of
factors involved. The skill of the optometrist who refracts you can
make a major difference. Sometimes the LASIK surgeon has an
autorefractor that uses wavefront technology to "nail" your best
refraction to help him get your best surgical result. The most
critical difference between a "20/10 eye" and a "20/20 eye" is that the
more acute eye has more receptors in the macula, packed closer together
than the average eye. Generally speaking, it is almost impossible for
a high myope to have 20/10 BVA because his eye is so elongated that his
receptors are more widely spaced. Think of a 20/20 eye as a camera
with "normal" color film, and a 20/10 eye as one with "high speed" film
(more grains, closer together).
RT wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 11:53:48 -0500, Richard wrote
> (in article <Xns962464A19270Erichardrapiernetscap@130.133.1.4> ):
>
> What's interesting about this is that my contacts and spectacles
never
> corrected my vision as well as my BCV according to my final eye exam
before
> having LASIK. I had slight astigmatism, so my soft contacts never
corrected
> for that, and my vision was always lousy out of glasses. It was only
at my
> first consult for LASIK, that the OD showed me what 20/15 would look
like
> through their machine (don't know the name--the one that flips lenses
until
> you say #1 or #2 looks better). She said that that would be the best
> possible outcome. I had never seen so clearly! I don't think anyone
else had
> ever tried to correct me past 20/20.
>
>
get[vbcol=seagreen]
refractive[vbcol=seagreen]
is. It[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
>
> --
> ~RT
>
> ________________________________________________
>
> Hogwasher, Premier News and Mail for OS X
> http://www.asar.com/cgi-bin/product.../hogwasher.html
> ________________________________________________
| |
| Andrew Chew 2005-03-26, 10:22 am |
|
"Glenn - USAEyes.org" <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message
news:2bc841hgc5h21o8a9g6bf1tsopkvrbig3g@4ax.com...
> Yours is a rather low refractive error and you are not showing any
> astigmatism. Virtually all techniques and technologies do well with
> this type of correction. You could have LASIK, PRK, LASEK, or
> Epi-LASIK. I am biased toward the surface ablations techniques of
> PRK, LASEK, and Epi-LASIK because they eliminate the need for a LASIK
> flap. Just one less thing to go wrong. I like fewer things to go
> wrong, but the recover for surface ablation techniques is longer and
> less comfortable.
I tried calling the national eye centre and asking them about Lasek.
According to the lady on the hotline, they don't do the procedure as it's
considered nothing more than a "glorified PRK". They do however perform PRK.
Interestingly, she also mentioned they only perform refractive surgery if
one's correction is more than ±1.5. Anything less, and refractive surgery
isn't recommended because of the risk of overcorrection. After reading up
about the Lasik flap, I am not sure I want to compromise my eyes that way.
It seems the flap never totally heals and there is a chance it can be
dislodged.
| |
|
|
"Andrew Chew" <andrew@nospam.alumni.nus.edu.sg> wrote in message
news:1111736349.54067.0@iris.uk.clara.net...
> I have 20/10 with glasses. I had 20/10 vision when I was a kid and only
lost
> it around 12. Any idea why some people cannot be corrected to 20/10? Could
> it be due to astigmatism?
Glen has answered this the above. My eyes went bad during my adolescent
years also. My optician at the time told me this is common.
> Maybe if I didn't succumb to glasses at 12, my vision would have corrected
> itself. How old is your son?
My young guy is 8. He was being treated for a lazy eye. He's been wearing
glasses for the last 2-3 years to try to help it and this last visit he was
told its pretty much fixed the problem and now only needs to wear glasses in
school or reading. Naturally we are all very happy about this. The Eye Doc
said the 20/20 vision he has is quite normal. She also said though that most
kids don't have better than that till they get older as there eyes are still
developing.
Regards
Wal
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-03-29, 7:24 pm |
| There is always a chance of overcorrection with any refractive error,
not just low myopes.
LASEK is glorified PRK, but its glories are probably worth the extra
trouble if it is available. If not, PRK will give you the same net
effect after 3-6 weeks as you would get with LASEK.
The LASIK flap does heal, but not the same as a cut on your arm.
Visit http://www.usaeyes.org/faq/subjects/complete.htm
As I said before, I have a bias toward surface ablation and away from
LASIK if you are a low myope and have the time for the recovery
period.
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.
| |
| drtjwright@gmail.com 2005-03-29, 7:25 pm |
| There are, of course, risks with all elective surgeries. And, although
the risks are slim, if they're 1 in 100 of problems and you're the one,
you don't really care about the other 99. My prescription is close to
yours, and I would not get refractive surgery as that degree of
nearsightedness is rather nice for reading and doing near tasks without
glasses. One thing I always ask my patients to consider is that if
they are approaching or past their 40's, they may end up trading one
pair of glasses for another, unless they try a monovision correction.
Personally, I'd rather be able to read in bed and not need glasses, but
I appreciate that others feel differently.
If you'd like the benefits of LASIK without most of the risks, have you
considered CRT lenses? They are hard contact lenses you can wear
overnight which will change the shape of your cornea (temporarily) so
that you do not need to wear a correction during the day. Still pricy,
but no flap.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-04-05, 6:28 pm |
| Rigid lenses are fine to wear, if one can tolerate them, but not
wearing them as is the case with CRT is not advisable and is an
expensive and almost always disappointing experiment.
On 29 Mar 2005 12:27:20 -0800, drtjwright@gmail.com wrote:
>There are, of course, risks with all elective surgeries. And, although
>the risks are slim, if they're 1 in 100 of problems and you're the one,
>you don't really care about the other 99. My prescription is close to
>yours, and I would not get refractive surgery as that degree of
>nearsightedness is rather nice for reading and doing near tasks without
>glasses. One thing I always ask my patients to consider is that if
>they are approaching or past their 40's, they may end up trading one
>pair of glasses for another, unless they try a monovision correction.
>Personally, I'd rather be able to read in bed and not need glasses, but
>I appreciate that others feel differently.
>
>If you'd like the benefits of LASIK without most of the risks, have you
>considered CRT lenses? They are hard contact lenses you can wear
>overnight which will change the shape of your cornea (temporarily) so
>that you do not need to wear a correction during the day. Still pricy,
>but no flap.
| |
| drtjwright@gmail.com 2005-04-05, 6:28 pm |
|
Ragnar wrote:
> Rigid lenses are fine to wear, if one can tolerate them, but not
> wearing them as is the case with CRT is not advisable and is an
> expensive and almost always disappointing experiment.
Except for the expensive part, I'm not sure why you say that. They
work, and I've seen very few patients disappointed with the results.
Granted, hard contacts always take some getting used to, but it tends
to be easier when people are only wearing them overnight. They're safe
(as much as any contacts are) and FDA approved for that use. I'm not
saying they're perfect, or good for everyone, but if you've got qualms
about LASIK, it's a possibility. And if it's an "almost always
disappointing experiment" I recommend another doctor do the fit!
| |
| Ragnar 2005-04-05, 6:28 pm |
| Well.. in west central Florida which has a population of roughly 6
million people, there is not one optometrist that I know of doing
ortho-k. There was one a few years ago named Leland aka Kelly Smith.
I had the pleasure of meeting him and telling him he was a quack in
front of a dozen of his patients. He got fired from the facility he
was working at roughly 3 months later because of the huge number of
patient complaints.
The entire idea is absurd. Getting good vision when WEARING contact
lenses is a big enough challenge. Expecting to get 20/20 vision after
taking the lenses out puts ortho k into the same category as the "see
clearly method" of quackery.
FDA approval doesn't mean much. Considering that they have been after
FDA approval for decades and only got it a few years ago tells you how
reluctant the FDA was to approve them.
On 29 Mar 2005 20:23:38 -0800, drtjwright@gmail.com wrote:
>
>Ragnar wrote:
>
>Except for the expensive part, I'm not sure why you say that. They
>work, and I've seen very few patients disappointed with the results.
>Granted, hard contacts always take some getting used to, but it tends
>to be easier when people are only wearing them overnight. They're safe
>(as much as any contacts are) and FDA approved for that use. I'm not
>saying they're perfect, or good for everyone, but if you've got qualms
>about LASIK, it's a possibility. And if it's an "almost always
>disappointing experiment" I recommend another doctor do the fit!
| |
| Andrew Chew 2005-04-05, 6:28 pm |
|
<drtjwright@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112128040.789456.146060@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> There are, of course, risks with all elective surgeries. And, although
> the risks are slim, if they're 1 in 100 of problems and you're the one,
> you don't really care about the other 99. My prescription is close to
> yours, and I would not get refractive surgery as that degree of
> nearsightedness is rather nice for reading and doing near tasks without
> glasses. One thing I always ask my patients to consider is that if
> they are approaching or past their 40's, they may end up trading one
> pair of glasses for another, unless they try a monovision correction.
> Personally, I'd rather be able to read in bed and not need glasses, but
> I appreciate that others feel differently.
>
> If you'd like the benefits of LASIK without most of the risks, have you
> considered CRT lenses? They are hard contact lenses you can wear
> overnight which will change the shape of your cornea (temporarily) so
> that you do not need to wear a correction during the day. Still pricy,
> but no flap.
>
Hmm are these the lenses that alter the shape of your cornea supposedly
temporarily? I seem to recall reading somewhere that it was more permanent
that what people thought and might even introduce higher order aberrations.
If I went the contact lens route, I'd probably go for extended wear lenses.
The Focus N & Ds seem pretty nice.
| |
| drtjwright@gmail.com 2005-04-05, 6:28 pm |
| > The entire idea is absurd. Getting good vision when WEARING contact
> lenses is a big enough challenge. Expecting to get 20/20 vision
after
> taking the lenses out puts ortho k into the same category as the "see
> clearly method" of quackery.
> FDA approval doesn't mean much. Considering that they have been
after
> FDA approval for decades and only got it a few years ago tells you
how
> reluctant the FDA was to approve them.
Well, as far as "absurd" goes, it is well known that hard contact
lenses can change the shape of the cornea. These particular lenses are
designed to do just that, and any practitioner using them should have a
corneal topographer to show exactly what changes are occuring. You
would have 20/20 vision after removing the lenses because the corneas
would be temporarily reshaped. In the case of myopia, the lenses will
flatten the cornea, decreasing their power and effectively adding the
negative prescription one needs to see at distance. I have seen many
patients treated with ortho-K and these are real changes, albeit ones
which will reverse themselves when the patient stops wearing the
contacts at night. So, if you doubt me, just go to a doctor who does
it properly and try it out! They should be able to provide pictures
for you of your corneal topography before and after for further proof.
-Dr. W
| |
| Ragnar 2005-04-05, 6:28 pm |
| I don't need to doubt you.. I know the answer. I wore rigid lenses
for 20 years. I live in the Tampa area of Florida which has a
population of about 6 million people and there isn't one doctor in
this area offering ortho-k other than by special request. I have
never seen anyone continue the ortho-k regimen longer than one year
before giving up on it. Even if it did work as advertised, which it
doesn't, it's not an acceptable condition.
Enough of the Ortho-K topic. This is the LASIK newsgroup. Take your
snake oil to sci-med or some other place.
On 31 Mar 2005 10:51:09 -0800, drtjwright@gmail.com wrote:
>after
>after
>how
>
>Well, as far as "absurd" goes, it is well known that hard contact
>lenses can change the shape of the cornea. These particular lenses are
>designed to do just that, and any practitioner using them should have a
>corneal topographer to show exactly what changes are occuring. You
>would have 20/20 vision after removing the lenses because the corneas
>would be temporarily reshaped. In the case of myopia, the lenses will
>flatten the cornea, decreasing their power and effectively adding the
>negative prescription one needs to see at distance. I have seen many
>patients treated with ortho-K and these are real changes, albeit ones
>which will reverse themselves when the patient stops wearing the
>contacts at night. So, if you doubt me, just go to a doctor who does
>it properly and try it out! They should be able to provide pictures
>for you of your corneal topography before and after for further proof.
>
>-Dr. W
| |
| hillybilly@appalachia.org 2005-06-12, 11:57 am |
| I don't know if this has been answered before or if its even the right
place/time to ask, but here go's..............
my wife wants to get the lasek surgery, and is worried about losing
the ability to see very good really close up. Without her glasses she
can see very well really close up, like being able to read jeweler
marks.
| |
|
| In article <e6loa1p09h29a7a6dpcsbvpgkhjr2l37hr@4ax.com>,
hillybilly@appalachia.org wrote:
> I don't know if this has been answered before or if its even the right
> place/time to ask, but here go's..............
> my wife wants to get the lasek surgery, and is worried about losing
> the ability to see very good really close up. Without her glasses she
> can see very well really close up, like being able to read jeweler
> marks.
What is her prescription and her age? Also, can she see close up with
her glasses ON?
--
~RT
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-06-12, 5:53 pm |
| There are two ways to describe myopia (nearsighted) vision. One is
that you cannot see things far away very well. The other is that you
can see things close very well.
If you wife is over age 40, the ability for the eye to change focus
from distant objects to near objects is reduced. This is called
presbyopia and is a natural part of the aging process. Presbyopic
patient normally use bifocals or reading glasses to see items close.
Myopic people can simply remove the corrective lenses that are
providing them with good distance vision.
You may find this interesting:
http://www.usaeyes.org/faq/subjects..._presbyopia.htm
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 2005-06-12, 10:53 pm |
| ahh... that is ONE thing that she won't be able to do anymore. In my
case, I used to be able to focus in clearly on objects 1 inch from my
eye. Now they have to be at least 3 inches away.
That is one undeniable drawback of having your near-vision corrrected.
If she IS a jeweler, She might not want LASIK surgery. Get rigid
contacts instead.. Actually.. jewelers are unique in having to shift
from extremely near vision quite often. She might want to stick with
glasses. There are always exceptsions!
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 15:35:17 GMT, hillybilly@appalachia.org wrote:
>I don't know if this has been answered before or if its even the right
>place/time to ask, but here go's..............
>my wife wants to get the lasek surgery, and is worried about losing
>the ability to see very good really close up. Without her glasses she
>can see very well really close up, like being able to read jeweler
>marks.
| |
| Brian Plummer 2005-06-21, 5:54 pm |
| I had LASEK treatment on the 19th April and I was worried about losing my
close up vision. My glasses had varifocals which I needed from my mid 40's.
My far vision is now very good, and my near vision is not as bad as I
thought it would be. I do need reading glasses for small print, especially
in low light conditions.
<hillybilly@appalachia.org> wrote in message
news:e6loa1p09h29a7a6dpcsbvpgkhjr2l37hr@4ax.com...
>I don't know if this has been answered before or if its even the right
> place/time to ask, but here go's..............
> my wife wants to get the lasek surgery, and is worried about losing
> the ability to see very good really close up. Without her glasses she
> can see very well really close up, like being able to read jeweler
> marks.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-06-21, 5:54 pm |
| It is great to hear that your near vision was not significantly
negatively affected by refractive surgery. For most people in their
40s and beyond, near vision seems to be more limited after surgery
than before.
Are you just a little myopic (nearsighted)? You may have unintended
monovision.
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.
| |
| serebel 2005-06-21, 10:55 pm |
|
Brian Plummer wrote:
> I had LASEK treatment on the 19th April and I was worried about losing my
> close up vision. My glasses had varifocals which I needed from my mid 40's.
> My far vision is now very good, and my near vision is not as bad as I
> thought it would be. I do need reading glasses for small print, especially
> in low light conditions.
>
Brian,
If your near vision isn't so bad now, it will still improve some in the
coming months. In low light right after my lasik I couldn't read well
at all. It improved greatly in about seven months. BTW, we are approx.
the same age. I still don't need readers.
SErebel
| |
| Ragnar 2005-06-22, 8:55 am |
| It's nice to hear about the typical resuls in this newsgroup, even if
they are boring. Not boring for you though! I bet you are
thrilled to be free of glasses.
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 18:29:48 +0000 (UTC), "Brian Plummer"
<brian.plummer@btinternet.com> wrote:
>I had LASEK treatment on the 19th April and I was worried about losing my
>close up vision. My glasses had varifocals which I needed from my mid 40's.
>My far vision is now very good, and my near vision is not as bad as I
>thought it would be. I do need reading glasses for small print, especially
>in low light conditions.
>
><hillybilly@appalachia.org> wrote in message
>news:e6loa1p09h29a7a6dpcsbvpgkhjr2l37hr@4ax.com...
>
| |
| Ilana 2005-06-28, 11:08 pm |
| People need more light for almost everything after LASIK, because the
increase in aberrations that is almost universal causes more scattering. So
to focus on an image requires more light. If your pupils are large... you
are in trouble. Large pupils permit more area of the LASIK-aberrated cornea
to bring unfocused rays of light into the eye.
Some day you'll be standing in dim light without your reading glasses and
you'll be straining to see something really important that's written in
PENCIL.
Me, I can't see my cell phone very clearly unless I'm in bright light. Not
the case before LASIK. I had terrific vision with contacts or glasses. Now
my vision is utter garbage. Garbage.
STAY AWAY FROM LASIK!
"Brian Plummer" <brian.plummer@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:d99mas$78n$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>I had LASEK treatment on the 19th April and I was worried about losing my
>close up vision. My glasses had varifocals which I needed from my mid 40's.
>My far vision is now very good, and my near vision is not as bad as I
>thought it would be. I do need reading glasses for small print, especially
>in low light conditions.
>
> <hillybilly@appalachia.org> wrote in message
> news:e6loa1p09h29a7a6dpcsbvpgkhjr2l37hr@4ax.com...
>
>
| |
| serebel 2005-06-28, 11:08 pm |
| Ilana is a poor hysterical fool. Lasik was good enough for her to have,
but not for anyone else. She only posts worst case scenerios that
happen very very rarely. Stretchng the truth is putting it mildly.
SErebel
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-06-28, 11:08 pm |
| As a (very) general rule contrast sensitivity is reduced after
refractive surgery, but not in all cases. In some instances, contrast
sensitivity actually increases and vision in low light environments
improves. This kind of result is not very predictable, but it does
occur.
Rather than blanket condemnation or blanket recommendation, what is
really needed is a detailed evaluation of the patient by a competent
doctor and a discussion of what the patient requires to consider
surgery to be a success. That will determine if there are any unusual
risks and if what is desires is reasonable.
It may be that near vision would be lost and the patient should not
have refractive surgery under any circumstances. It may be that she
has no unusual circumstances that would indicate there may be a
problem. Perhaps monovision would be more appropriate
(http://www.usaeyes.org/faq/subjects/monovision.htm).
LASIK is surgery and no surgery is perfect. There is always risk. What
every patient needs to do is evaluate the potential risk based upon
his or her unique circumstances. You would not expect to wear your
friend's and see well. Every person is different. One cannot assume
that you will get someone else's result (good or bad) anymore than one
can expect to see well with someone else's contacts.
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.
| |
| serebel 2005-06-28, 11:08 pm |
| I'm not so sure here Glenn, Ilana says it's all bad no matter what.
Even good outcomes are failures. She's the only authority to be
believed, just ask her.
SErebel
| |
| Sandy 2005-06-28, 11:08 pm |
| How can a patient evaluate their potential risk when even a
world-famous surgeon such as Robert Maloney tells his patient Kathy
Griffin that her complications were due to "bad luck"? It's a roll of
the dice, Hagele, now and always.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-06-28, 11:08 pm |
| How can a surgeon effectively treat a patient that doesn't take
advice? She had a successful lasik surgery, she then wanted it
modified for monovision. Then when a minor problem occurred with her
ingrowth, she made it a major problem by not getting it treated in
time. That reminds me of another psycho liar that made up a story of
ingrowth and didn't have it treated. Who was that psycho? Why none
other than our own Sandy Keller posing as someone else on Surgical
Eyes website which she denies having any affiliation with beyond a few
bucks of donations What a liar. I expect that in the future, some
child might pick up a dictionary, look up the word LIAR, and there
will be a picture of Sandy Keller there.
If anyone has any doubts that Keller is a liar, and if you care that
she is a liar, just ask me. So far, nobody has disputed it nor
cared.
On 27 Jun 2005 21:00:42 -0700, "Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>How can a patient evaluate their potential risk when even a
>world-famous surgeon such as Robert Maloney tells his patient Kathy
>Griffin that her complications were due to "bad luck"? It's a roll of
>the dice, Hagele, now and always.
| |
| Todd Rich 2005-06-28, 11:08 pm |
| Ilana <Ilana@aol_nospam.com> wrote:
> People need more light for almost everything after LASIK, because the
> increase in aberrations that is almost universal causes more scattering. So
> to focus on an image requires more light. If your pupils are large... you
> are in trouble. Large pupils permit more area of the LASIK-aberrated cornea
> to bring unfocused rays of light into the eye.
> Some day you'll be standing in dim light without your reading glasses and
> you'll be straining to see something really important that's written in
> PENCIL.
> Me, I can't see my cell phone very clearly unless I'm in bright light. Not
> the case before LASIK. I had terrific vision with contacts or glasses. Now
> my vision is utter garbage. Garbage.
> STAY AWAY FROM LASIK!
Hmmm...so when I'm reading a good book and my wife tells me to turn on a
light because it is after sunset and I didn't realize it, it isn't really
happening? It is all a dream? I was given special night vision by
fairies?
Todd
(Yes, if I'm reading a good book, I won't notice that I'm reading by the
light of the TV from across the room and the sun has set an hour or more
ago until somebody brings it to my attention...been that way for years
before I had Lasik too..)
| |
| CatmanX 2005-06-28, 11:08 pm |
| The human eye operates over 5 log units of light variance. Beats the
cra@p out of video cameras etc. Yes it possible to read with very small
amounts of light and best of all, it didn't make you go short sighted,
no matter what your mum thought.
Isn't nature a wonderful thing.
dr grant
| |
| Sandy 2005-07-03, 12:35 pm |
| What are you talking about, Christopher???? What you say is not what I
have said. I posted on SE, gave money to SE, helped coordinate the
meeting in Los Angeles because I live here. I actually missed the
entire meeting and only attended the dinner after. I helped various
patients when and how I could, such as arranging for a Boston patient
to have a cornea transplant here in California with one of my doctors,
right when she was on the brink of suicide because of her lasik
problems. I never had any official position with SE, and that is the
truth. Prove that to be a lie, or shut up about it finally. I did
post on SE with a couple of aliases during my lawsuit because I was
finding important information and articles, and didn't want my doctors'
attorneys to use my posting against me in the case. It never even
dawned on them to ask me if I was posting anywhere, and I don't think
they ever even knew about my website until after the case was settled.
They did ask me for copies of the articles I'd found on DLK, but the
case settled before I was ever called for round 2 of my deposition-- at
which I was supposed to produce the copies.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-07-03, 12:35 pm |
| Nobody else seems to care Sandy.. which is why I haven't bothered
making an issue of it. If you REALLY want me to point out what a
complete liar you are, just ask once more. I find the list of your
actions below amusing. You cleverly left out the big issue - yet you
included a load of half-baked excuses of minor activities you have
done. Why not save me the effort of proving just how tied up you are
with the Surgical Eyes people by telling us yourself?
By the way, you left off the list below that crazy story Ron fed you
about the enuculations which was a complete lie that he didn't dare
post himself. He made a real fool out of you with that one. It
amazes me how you haven't figured out that Ron has been using you as
his personal attack stooge to do his dirty work.
On 30 Jun 2005 20:18:48 -0700, "Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>What are you talking about, Christopher???? What you say is not what I
>have said. I posted on SE, gave money to SE, helped coordinate the
>meeting in Los Angeles because I live here. I actually missed the
>entire meeting and only attended the dinner after. I helped various
>patients when and how I could, such as arranging for a Boston patient
>to have a cornea transplant here in California with one of my doctors,
>right when she was on the brink of suicide because of her lasik
>problems. I never had any official position with SE, and that is the
>truth. Prove that to be a lie, or shut up about it finally. I did
>post on SE with a couple of aliases during my lawsuit because I was
>finding important information and articles, and didn't want my doctors'
>attorneys to use my posting against me in the case. It never even
>dawned on them to ask me if I was posting anywhere, and I don't think
>they ever even knew about my website until after the case was settled.
>They did ask me for copies of the articles I'd found on DLK, but the
>case settled before I was ever called for round 2 of my deposition-- at
>which I was supposed to produce the copies.
| |
| Sandy 2005-07-03, 12:35 pm |
| I guess I don't really care either, Christopher.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-07-03, 12:35 pm |
| I'm glad you don't care either. I much prefer that people behave
themselves rather than to point out their flaws. I do try to avoid
picking on people who don't need to be picked on.
On 2 Jul 2005 01:51:08 -0700, "Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>I guess I don't really care either, Christopher.
| |
| Sandy 2005-07-03, 12:35 pm |
| We'll leave that up to you, as to which people "need to be picked on".
| |
| Ragnar 2005-07-03, 12:35 pm |
| At the moment.. really nobody needs to be picked on.
Every now and then, some malcontent decides that they are going to try
and stir something up, and when that happens, someone needs to put out
the flames. SERebel does a fine job of doing that all by himself.
I'm surprised that he and I are not being accused of being the same
person anymore. I can't recall a time when I disagreed with him on
anything.
You know what it's like to be mislead and lied to by your own doctors,
so I'm sure you don't want other people lied to either. This reminds
me of a recent post involving "super vision". Years ago, and for only
a few months, certain lasik centers were promising "eagle vision"
(which is about 20/5) and even encouraging people with 20/20 eyesight
to have lasik done in hopes of getting 20/8 vision. Those ads were
pulled quickly. However, even today, if one does a google on super
vision, they come to a website of an optometrist promising similar
results with his contact lenses. It would be nice if someone told
that doctor to not mislead people like that. Funny thing is, that
doctor is one of the mythical "top docs" that many who post here are
familiar with. I don't see the need to dredge that issue up further
unless someone feels the need to pursue it.
Your biggest flaw - which you seem to be dealing with better - is that
in the past, you let yourself be used by people with an anti-lasik
agenda. Your own opinions are negative enough without being used as a
pawn by people who have a financial interest in scaring patients.
On 2 Jul 2005 11:05:45 -0700, "Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>We'll leave that up to you, as to which people "need to be picked on".
| |
| Sandy 2005-07-03, 12:35 pm |
| Well, here I am "behaving myself" and yet you pointed out my flaws
anyway. I think you enjoy doing it no matter how I "behave".
| |
| djken@optusnet.com.au 2005-07-03, 12:35 pm |
| Hi Sandy,
I don't post here much anymore, but I just had to reply to your post.
No one has the right to tell anyone how to "behave" on a public NG. You
have an absolute right to your opinion no matter what it is. I actually
admire the way you soldier on regardless of the criticism directed at
you. I guess I could be described as "pro" lasik having had a
successful procedure done over 2 years ago, but it is quite obvious to
me now that there are some people who have outcomes that impact in a
very negative way on their lives. I still believe that statistically
they are a tiny minority, but nonetheless, they are people and they
deserve the right to present the opposing view of Lasik. When I was
researching Lasik prior to having it done, I could only find glowing
testimonials. Your site was one of the very few that actually made me
aware that there are fairly substantial risks involved.
Regards,
Linda
| |
| Ragnar 2005-07-03, 12:35 pm |
| You won't see any criticism from me unless you post something absurd
or incorrect. The Kathy Griffin saga is an example of the absurd.
On 2 Jul 2005 21:52:01 -0700, "Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>Well, here I am "behaving myself" and yet you pointed out my flaws
>anyway. I think you enjoy doing it no matter how I "behave".
| |
| Ragnar 2005-07-03, 12:35 pm |
| I don't think anybody has the right to tell anybody how to behave
either. I was pointing out that IF they behave, they won't wind up
looking like a fool in the subsequent responses. I try to restrain my
criticisms.
I also pointed out that it's virtually impossible to make LASIK look
bad without making up fake stories and intentionally misleading
people.
I also pointed out that I'm sure that at least in some cases, Sandy
has been lied to by people she trusted. They have used her to
distribute their attacks upon LASIK.
Here's an example of what I am getting at.
If someone were to say "I don't like that 2+2=4" then I would not
bother to comment other than to maybe ask why.
If someone were to say "I don't like that 2+2=5" then I would wind up
pointing out their error and "picking" on them.
Incidentally. I happen to be a big fan of RGP lenses even though I
lost my tolerance of them. I can just imagine what would be the
content of an alt.rgp-eyes group. People complain about them a lot -
and they shouldn't. In many cases, soft lenses are a waste of time
and money.
On 3 Jul 2005 01:01:07 -0700, djken@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>Hi Sandy,
>I don't post here much anymore, but I just had to reply to your post.
>No one has the right to tell anyone how to "behave" on a public NG. You
>have an absolute right to your opinion no matter what it is. I actually
>admire the way you soldier on regardless of the criticism directed at
>you. I guess I could be described as "pro" lasik having had a
>successful procedure done over 2 years ago, but it is quite obvious to
>me now that there are some people who have outcomes that impact in a
>very negative way on their lives. I still believe that statistically
>they are a tiny minority, but nonetheless, they are people and they
>deserve the right to present the opposing view of Lasik. When I was
>researching Lasik prior to having it done, I could only find glowing
>testimonials. Your site was one of the very few that actually made me
>aware that there are fairly substantial risks involved.
>Regards,
>Linda
| |
| CatmanX 2005-07-03, 12:35 pm |
| Yes, the expert speaks again. You would know about a waste of time and
money. What you don't know about is contact lenses. In most cases soft
lenses are the preferred option. In some, RGP are. What you have no
knowledge of is the requirements of a given patient who walks through
the door. The design, modality and type of lenses are determined by the
needs of the patient, not what some malcontent in this NG demands.
dr grant
| |
|
| Hi Linda,
Thanks for writing. If I had been the only one to suffer what I did
post-lasik, I wouldn't have developed the feelings that I have, but I
have seen so many lives damaged by complications and bad results that
it makes me feel sick, angry, depressed and more. Currently, I am
corresponding with a lady who wants God to take her because she is in
so much agony with post-lasik dry eye pain. She tried to overdose
last week, but her husband broke in through a window and saved her
life. She hates being a burden to him and sees no purpose in living
now.
I had my own reasons for having lasik, mainly that RGP contacts were
becoming less comfortable with time (if I'd known it was due to dry
eyes and that the surgery would only worsen them, I could have decided
not to have it done). I had tried soft lenses and my eyes were too dry
to support them. Before I had lasik done, and for a few hours that
first morning after, I though lasik was truly a miracle. Now that I
know what it really does to the cornea, I am against it. Hopefully,
you will do fine for the rest of your life and remain happy with your
result. Thousands are not, and ectasias are occurring years out. The
way I see it now, our eyes are our most important sense---way, way more
important than smell or hearing. They are just not meant to be fooled
with. Some people will do fine longterm, and some will not. But for
an elective procedure that is not medically necessary, too many people
are suffering.
| |
| serebel 2005-07-03, 10:53 pm |
| Here we go again, "I know this one who wants to be taken.........".
Just more made up crap from Keller to make her feel self important.
Ectasia occuring years out is just out and out bull.
SErebel
| |
| Ragnar 2005-07-04, 8:59 am |
| Back to your classic style I see.
With all your suffering from soft contacts, hard contacts, lasik, and
everything else, you should contact Mel Gibson so he can make an epic
about the torture you have endured.
Seriously though, I hope you made sure that your nutso friend got to a
psychiatrist - even if Tom Cruise objects. If she is into religion,
you might remind her that under religious guidelines, suicide makes
one ineligible for the Pearly Gates. Attempting suicide probably
negates her ticket to heaven also. She must really be a very
selfish and inconsiderate person to try and cash in her chips when she
has a husband and probably kids.
From your track record, this story is either your invention, or a
story someone invented and is feeding to you. However, just in case
it has a shred of truth to it, I will suggest something. By now even
you should realize that LASIK has nothing to do with the condition
known as dry eye. The temporary dryness following lasik is common and
goes away typically after 3 months. If she has true dry eye (which
by the way is not related to LASIK), then she should give Restasis a
try.
Something just occurred to me.. her husband broke in through a window?
Hmm.. doesn't this guy have a key to his own house? And just how did
he know she was in the house with a stomach full of drugs? And just
what kind of drugs did she take, and where did she get them from?
If she doesn't want to be a burden on her husband. Divorce the man
and let him free! Don't stick him with a lifetime of guilt. The way
courts work, if she did die, there is a good chance the husband would
be found guilty of murdering her.
On 3 Jul 2005 11:35:05 -0700, "Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>Hi Linda,
>
>Thanks for writing. If I had been the only one to suffer what I did
>post-lasik, I wouldn't have developed the feelings that I have, but I
>have seen so many lives damaged by complications and bad results that
>it makes me feel sick, angry, depressed and more. Currently, I am
>corresponding with a lady who wants God to take her because she is in
>so much agony with post-lasik dry eye pain. She tried to overdose
>last week, but her husband broke in through a window and saved her
>life. She hates being a burden to him and sees no purpose in living
>now.
>
>I had my own reasons for having lasik, mainly that RGP contacts were
>becoming less comfortable with time (if I'd known it was due to dry
>eyes and that the surgery would only worsen them, I could have decided
>not to have it done). I had tried soft lenses and my eyes were too dry
>to support them. Before I had lasik done, and for a few hours that
>first morning after, I though lasik was truly a miracle. Now that I
>know what it really does to the cornea, I am against it. Hopefully,
>you will do fine for the rest of your life and remain happy with your
>result. Thousands are not, and ectasias are occurring years out. The
>way I see it now, our eyes are our most important sense---way, way more
>important than smell or hearing. They are just not meant to be fooled
>with. Some people will do fine longterm, and some will not. But for
>an elective procedure that is not medically necessary, too many people
>are suffering.
| |
| Denise 2005-07-04, 11:52 am |
| Ragnar is lying about dry eye and he knows it.
Even the FDA website admits that LASIK dry eye can be permanent. Studies
show all patients have corneal nerve damage that persists to the 3 year
point, the end of the longest study. The scary part is that the nerve loss
was INCREASING. SERebel must wear artificial plastic plugs in his tear ducts
because of his LASIK-induced corneal nerve damage and resulting dry eye. It
is not normal for young males to have dry eye. They are not in a risk
group... extremely rare unless they have had LASIK.
One doctor told me all LASIK patients get permanent dry eye. He said they
fall into three categories... slightly drier, dry enough to be a problem and
require intervention such as plugs and dependency on drops, and, I quote,
"tragic dry eye" where the patient is debiliated by the condition.
Ragnar and SERebel would like you to believe that the people who are
suffering from these conditions are not real people or are making things up.
It's real. It is well documented in the medical literature (sadly, Ragnar
isn't smart enough to read this stuff, and SERebel isn't smart enough and
can't see very well because of LASIK).
Readers, don't believe a word of what these morons have to say. Believe
Sandy Keller. She's a real person who had problems, like so MANY and had the
guts to speak out and keep fighting.
"Ragnar" <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ubaic15courissoj9vtvve9vl7dpqcrtqk@4ax.com...
> Back to your classic style I see.
> With all your suffering from soft contacts, hard contacts, lasik, and
> everything else, you should contact Mel Gibson so he can make an epic
> about the torture you have endured.
>
> Seriously though, I hope you made sure that your nutso friend got to a
> psychiatrist - even if Tom Cruise objects. If she is into religion,
> you might remind her that under religious guidelines, suicide makes
> one ineligible for the Pearly Gates. Attempting suicide probably
> negates her ticket to heaven also. She must really be a very
> selfish and inconsiderate person to try and cash in her chips when she
> has a husband and probably kids.
>
> From your track record, this story is either your invention, or a
> story someone invented and is feeding to you. However, just in case
> it has a shred of truth to it, I will suggest something. By now even
> you should realize that LASIK has nothing to do with the condition
> known as dry eye. The temporary dryness following lasik is common and
> goes away typically after 3 months. If she has true dry eye (which
> by the way is not related to LASIK), then she should give Restasis a
> try.
>
> Something just occurred to me.. her husband broke in through a window?
> Hmm.. doesn't this guy have a key to his own house? And just how did
> he know she was in the house with a stomach full of drugs? And just
> what kind of drugs did she take, and where did she get them from?
>
> If she doesn't want to be a burden on her husband. Divorce the man
> and let him free! Don't stick him with a lifetime of guilt. The way
> courts work, if she did die, there is a good chance the husband would
> be found guilty of murdering her.
>
>
> On 3 Jul 2005 11:35:05 -0700, "Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>
>
|
| |
|
|