|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > October 2006 > Lasik "top-up" (or touch up, or re-do...)
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 |
Lasik "top-up" (or touch up, or re-do...)
|
|
|
| Hi all,
I had lasik(lasek?) 5+ years ago, and I've been 95% happy with it ever
since.
(no dry eyes, no problems at night, no starbursts, blablabla)
Right after having it done my eyes were obviously over corrected (I had
long sight), to allow for the slight regression during healing. During
that healing they regressed a little bit too far, and I've always had
the memory of absolutely perfectly clear vision from anything from a
book to car lights on a hill 5 miles away that I had for a couple of
weeks after surgery. Wonderful!
Now, after letting the technology progress for half a decade, I'm
wondering if Lasik (or anything else) has progressed to a stage where
they can perform the op on a patient who has previously had laser
surgery to correct the slight remaining long sight and astig that I
have left?
I'm currently 20:15ish in left, 20:20 in right eye and I suppose I was
around 20:10 during that fortnight of brilliant vision, which is what
I'm striving for.
--
frag
<stuff goes here>
| |
| southeasteyecare@hotmail.com 2006-10-14, 4:28 pm |
| Dear Frag,
You do NOT want to be overcorrected... a bit of nearsightedness is
helpful
as you reach your presbyopia years (your forties). You may be very
young
and this may seem far off, but imagine not being able to see anything
clearly
within 5 feet of you. Imagine your food being blurry, and not being
able to read
something you are holding in your hand.
Myopic regression happens for one of two reasons... you have epithelial
thickening
(usually because of dry eye) and/or your cornea is bulging forward
because it has
been thinned and weakened by the surgery.
Why would you opt for a 2nd surgery that would thin and weaken your
cornea even more?
Some patients get into a cycle of enhancement/regression until their
corneal tissue is
so depleted no further surgery is possible.
LASIK destabilizes the cornea substantially. Charles Casebeer whose
company ran
the initial clinical trials for the approval of LASIK in the US (that
study is another scary story
we can save for later) testified in a deposition that all LASIK
patients' corneas are bulging.
If you can see reasonably well now and are reasonbly free of
complications you should count
yourself lucky and leave your eyes just the way they are.
If you want the LASIK 'Cliffs notes' that will make you an informed
consumer,
read The LASIK Report at http://thelasikreport.com . You may also want
to visit
http://lasikflap.com/forum to read literature on enhancements (they are
not FDA approved
in the US, by the way - ask youself WHY).
Frag, LASIK technology will never progress because mother nature has
engineered a corneal
thickness and strength that is thin enough for visual clarity and thick
enough to support the
intraocular pressure of the eye. Robbing corneal tissue to compensate
for defects in the overall
shape of the eye was never a good idea, especially when creation of a
FLAP is involved.
Why? Loss of corneal strength can be dangerous and lead to corneal
failure, the eye after LASIK
is vulnerable to traumatic injury for life, corneal nerves are damaged
and depleted, and the surgeries
introduce corneal irregularities that cannot be corrected with glasses.
This is the short list of reasons.
Best regards!
| |
| Ragnar 2006-10-14, 4:28 pm |
| I would not go for any enhancement in your case. 20/20 and 20/15 is
about as good as it gets. 20/10 is expecting too much. Most of
your vision is determined by your brain anyway, the eyes just take in
the raw data (light). The brain filters out the bad data and does all
sorts of things which result in your final vision.
If you really want even better vision than you have, you might like to
try Z-wave contact lenses which are custom made lenses to fit the
contours of your eyes.
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 12:48:42 +0000 (UTC), "frag" <news2@ukrm.co.uk>
wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>I had lasik(lasek?) 5+ years ago, and I've been 95% happy with it ever
>since.
>(no dry eyes, no problems at night, no starbursts, blablabla)
>
>Right after having it done my eyes were obviously over corrected (I had
>long sight), to allow for the slight regression during healing. During
>that healing they regressed a little bit too far, and I've always had
>the memory of absolutely perfectly clear vision from anything from a
>book to car lights on a hill 5 miles away that I had for a couple of
>weeks after surgery. Wonderful!
>
>Now, after letting the technology progress for half a decade, I'm
>wondering if Lasik (or anything else) has progressed to a stage where
>they can perform the op on a patient who has previously had laser
>surgery to correct the slight remaining long sight and astig that I
>have left?
>
>I'm currently 20:15ish in left, 20:20 in right eye and I suppose I was
>around 20:10 during that fortnight of brilliant vision, which is what
>I'm striving for.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2006-10-14, 4:28 pm |
| The memory of vision past may be your undoing. 8^)
You say that your vision now is 20/20 and 20/15, but you want better.
20/20 means your vision is "perfect". 20/15 means your vision is
better than perfect. You want to mess around with perfect and better
than perfect?
Remember that "better" is the enemy of "good". In your case it would
be "excellent" is the enemy of "superb". It does not seem wise to risk
additional surgery.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
USAEyes.org
Patient Advocacy Surgeon Certification
"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.
Copyright 2006
All Rights Reserved
| |
|
| southeasteyecare@hotmail.com banged the rocks together and they said :
> Dear Frag,
>
> You do NOT want to be overcorrected... a bit of nearsightedness is
> helpful
As I said in my original post I am LONGsighted. So if they
overcorrected I would be a little bit short sighted, which as you say
is a good thing.
> as you reach your presbyopia years (your forties). You may be very
> young
> and this may seem far off
Teehee, I wish.
> Myopic regression happens for one of two reasons... you have
> epithelial thickening
> (usually because of dry eye) and/or your cornea is bulging forward
> because it has
> been thinned and weakened by the surgery.
I remember all my research from years ago, these two are only valid if
the regression happens over months, not in the few weeks straight after
surgery.
Anyway thanks, but nothing you've said addresses my original question.
(I did all the research years ago, including reading this group, and I
know all the risks, hazards, etc, I'm not after opinions on eye surgery
in general, just want to know if the latest wavefront Lasik can further
improve existing lasered eyes)
--
frag
<stuff goes here>
| |
|
| Ragnar banged the rocks together and they said :
> I would not go for any enhancement in your case. 20/20 and 20/15 is
> about as good as it gets. 20/10 is expecting too much.
But I had it for a couple of weeks. And *if* technologys moved on
enough from what was around 5 years ago (which gave me 20/20 & 20/15),
it should be able to produce better results.
> Most of your vision is determined by your brain anyway
Doesn't matter how much you photoshop a blurry image, you can't remove
the blurring!
--
frag
<stuff goes here>
| |
| Ragnar 2006-10-14, 4:28 pm |
| I find it interesting that a couple of people bash lasik constantly..
while some other people expect that their 20/15 vision can be improved
to 20/10 with it.
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 18:03:24 +0000 (UTC), "frag" <news2@ukrm.co.uk>
wrote:
>Ragnar banged the rocks together and they said :
>
>
>But I had it for a couple of weeks. And *if* technologys moved on
>enough from what was around 5 years ago (which gave me 20/20 & 20/15),
>it should be able to produce better results.
>
>
>Doesn't matter how much you photoshop a blurry image, you can't remove
>the blurring!
| |
| southeasteyecare@hotmail.com 2006-10-14, 4:28 pm |
|
"Better" is the enemy of "good" is actually something a LASIK surgeon
said to a patient with a poor outcome. Problem was, the vision after
LASIK wasn't good. And glasses and contacts ARE typically very good at
providing excellent visual quality. Was it a CRSQA surgeon who said
this horrible thing to a patient? I'll have to check.
| |
|
| Glenn - USAEyes.org banged the rocks together and they said :
> The memory of vision past may be your undoing. 8^)
Nah, if the technologys not definitely there to do what I want then
I'll wait another 5 years, etc, etc.
> You say that your vision now is 20/20 and 20/15, but you want better.
> 20/20 means your vision is "perfect". 20/15 means your vision is
> better than perfect. You want to mess around with perfect and better
> than perfect?
20/20 means your vision is "average". At 20 feet (from a chart) you can
see what the average person can see at 20 feet.
Its certainly not "perfect". Its like having an IQ of 100, its the
human average (well, maybe not now, with TV and junk radio and junk
food!!).
To work out what "perfect" vision would be you'd have to work out the
maximum resolution determinable by the rods and cones in your eyes, the
minimum resolution needed to read the text, and work out how far away
the text could be so that the image on your eye (assuming perfect
optics) was just big enough to produce the minimum resolution required
to resolve the text.
(I've ignored the fact that the rods&cones are a lot more concentrated
towards the middle of your eyes, having two eyes and having the eyes
moving or scanning an "image", and the brains processing all increase
the perceived resolution)
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedet...resolution.html
and
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archive...46241.Ph.r.html
Going on the figure of the human eye at best can resolve 0.0167
arc/degrees, that means we *should* be able to differentiate lines that
are 6mm (actually 5.82939968mm) wide with the same space between them,
at a distance of 20 meters.
Assuming the same vertical and horisontal resolution, that means we can
see 6mm square pixels, so say we need a 3 wide x 4 high matrix to form
letters we should be able to read text that is 18mm high x 24mm wide.
Anyone want to work out what point font that it? 
How far are we supposed to stand away from a eye sight chart?
Formula to work it out is:-
Y^2 = (2 x X^2) - ((cos 0.0167) * (2 x X^2))
where Y is the min size 'line' we can see and X is the distance to the
chart. (all in the same unit, i.e. mm or cm or meters)
Of course that lot all uses the 0.0167 arc/degrees number, which I
suspect is derived from the 20/20 average vision fact, it'll take a lot
longer to track down any research on the density of rods/cones and work
out the number purely from that.
--
frag
<stuff goes here>
| |
|
| Ragnar banged the rocks together and they said :
> I find it interesting that a couple of people bash lasik constantly..
> while some other people expect that their 20/15 vision can be improved
> to 20/10 with it.
Maybe cause some people go to the cheapest to get it done, and some go
to the best, regardless of cost?
Me, I don't have a spare pair in my wallet so you can guess where I
went.
--
frag
<stuff goes here>
| |
| Ragnar 2006-10-14, 9:34 pm |
| Something somebody said to someone... you should work for Fox News.
On 14 Oct 2006 12:18:12 -0700, southeasteyecare@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>"Better" is the enemy of "good" is actually something a LASIK surgeon
>said to a patient with a poor outcome. Problem was, the vision after
>LASIK wasn't good. And glasses and contacts ARE typically very good at
>providing excellent visual quality. Was it a CRSQA surgeon who said
>this horrible thing to a patient? I'll have to check.
| |
| serebel 2006-10-14, 9:34 pm |
|
southeasteyecare@hotmail.com wrote:
> "Better" is the enemy of "good" is actually something a LASIK surgeon
> said to a patient with a poor outcome. Problem was, the vision after
> LASIK wasn't good. And glasses and contacts ARE typically very good at
> providing excellent visual quality. Was it a CRSQA surgeon who said
> this horrible thing to a patient? I'll have to check.
That's two posts where you've said nothing. Go do your checking and
then ask yourself, who cares?
| |
| Tom Lucas 2006-10-16, 8:27 am |
| "frag" <news2@ukrm.co.uk> wrote in message
news:egqmba$nhp$1@server.localdomain...
> Hi all,
>
> I had lasik(lasek?) 5+ years ago, and I've been 95% happy with it ever
> since.
> (no dry eyes, no problems at night, no starbursts, blablabla)
>
> Right after having it done my eyes were obviously over corrected (I
> had
> long sight), to allow for the slight regression during healing. During
> that healing they regressed a little bit too far, and I've always had
> the memory of absolutely perfectly clear vision from anything from a
> book to car lights on a hill 5 miles away that I had for a couple of
> weeks after surgery. Wonderful!
>
> Now, after letting the technology progress for half a decade, I'm
> wondering if Lasik (or anything else) has progressed to a stage where
> they can perform the op on a patient who has previously had laser
> surgery to correct the slight remaining long sight and astig that I
> have left?
>
> I'm currently 20:15ish in left, 20:20 in right eye and I suppose I was
> around 20:10 during that fortnight of brilliant vision, which is what
> I'm striving for.
I'm not sure you'd find a surgeon that would be prepared to take you on
if you already 20/20 or better. Perhaps you might like to get a cheap
pair of glasses or a month of contacts to ensure that you still could
correct to what you want. That will give you an idea of how fine an
adjustment the enhancement would have to be.
| |
|
| Tom Lucas banged the rocks together and they said :
> "frag" <news2@ukrm.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:egqmba$nhp$1@server.localdomain...
>
> I'm not sure you'd find a surgeon that would be prepared to take you
> on if you already 20/20 or better. Perhaps you might like to get a
> cheap pair of glasses or a month of contacts to ensure that you still
> could correct to what you want. That will give you an idea of how
> fine an adjustment the enhancement would have to be.
Good suggestion, and definitely cheaper than ?100+ for a consultation
at the Moorfields Eye hospital.
Thanks
--
frag
<stuff goes here>
| |
|
| No competent surgeon in the *world* is gonna touch 20/20 eyes and very
few will even touch 20/30 eyes. I know a few who were 20/30 and wanted
lasik or enhancements and the surgeon said nope you dont need. If they
still complain, the surgeon will suggest glasses and remind you about
relistic expectations and that lasik reduces glasses dependency.
Tom is right, go get a thin pair of glasses(which you dont need anyway)
| |
| Ragnar 2006-10-20, 2:30 am |
| Seems to me that some idiot named Ace was saying that one should not
have lasik and wait for retinas grown in labs to provide 20/5 vison...
You don't think removing a paper thin layer off the outer surface of
the eye should be done.. but you think people evein with 20/15 vison
should have laboratory grown retinas implated deep into one's head
directly wired into the brain to achieve 20/5 vision. Just how much
crack do you smoke Ace?
On 19 Oct 2006 17:47:11 -0700, "Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote:
>No competent surgeon in the *world* is gonna touch 20/20 eyes and very
>few will even touch 20/30 eyes. I know a few who were 20/30 and wanted
>lasik or enhancements and the surgeon said nope you dont need. If they
>still complain, the surgeon will suggest glasses and remind you about
>relistic expectations and that lasik reduces glasses dependency.
>Tom is right, go get a thin pair of glasses(which you dont need anyway)
| |
|
|
Ragnar wrote:
> Seems to me that some idiot named Ace was saying that one should not
> have lasik and wait for retinas grown in labs to provide 20/5 vison...
>
> You don't think removing a paper thin layer off the outer surface of
> the eye should be done.. but you think people evein with 20/15 vison
> should have laboratory grown retinas implated deep into one's head
> directly wired into the brain to achieve 20/5 vision. Just how much
> crack do you smoke Ace?
Someone with 20/20 or better shouldnt be touched, period unless its
pratically risk free like glasses(make it adaptive optics wavefront,
courtesty of the year 2020)
A normal human retina is theoratically capable of 20/5, why mess with
it? Its the high order aberrations we need to correct them all! (no,
lasik cant do it)
|
| |
|
|