| Bassslapper 2006-10-18, 8:33 am |
| I believe my prescription pre-Lasik was -4.00 OS & -3.25 OD but I am
not 100% certain. MY vision was more then "slightly blurry." It was
blurry to where I could not recognize faces nor function well so do not
assume you know what it was like for me, as I do not do the same
regarding your perception of your uncorrected vision.
And thank you, doctor, for settling the issue of presbyopia once and
for all. Death and taxes are unavoidable facts. Presbyopia is a highly
certain probability but not a definitive symptomatic malady for all
people over 50.
I hope you get the opportunity to try Ortho-K and that you share your
experience honestly. I guarantee after the intital honeymoon is over
you will be spewing venom at how annoying, inconvenient, and basically
a waste it is. IMO, the rewards do not justify the hassles inherent
with Ortho-K. Also, following your logic, if your were age 54 instead
of 24 and did Ortho-K, you would need readers due to the correction of
your distance vision with the Ortho-K. So that makes one stand to
reason, again based on your logic, that anyone that has any form of
distance correction to plano will need readers, regardless of the
method of said correction. Ask an older myope to read something close
with their glasses on and you will find it is more difficult, if not
impossible to do.
There probably will be improvements on Lasik in a few years, just like
ther have been improvements over thte past few years. Maybe after a few
more years of aggrevation you will change your mind. Different people
have a different balance of risk vs. reward. I finally made the
decision after becoming as informed as possible so as to put myslef
into the best position for success.
Since you mention cost, let's disect that as well. You say $4000. I
paid $2300 net (insurance covered about $400). What do you think the
cost of glasses, contacts, optometric visits, cleaning solutions and
devices, and whatevere else required comes to over a long period of
time? Ortho-K cost me $3600 by itself so I'd say an average cost of a
$4000 investment is nothing compared to the cost of corrective eyeware
and accessories over a lifetime. Assuming the need for readers, that
cost is still much less then maintaining any form of contact lense.
> Sorry but presbyopia is a fact. You knew about this and by getting
> lasik, was prepared to end up in readers in a few short years if you
> want crisp near vision. You did say distance is more important and the
> tradeoff would be worth it(to the tune of $4000 and risks)
> You were -4 when you got orthoK. This is the limit of what orthoK can
> treat(with a 6mm zone) so its no supprise the results lasted only 8
> hours before starting to revert. But then its still far better than no
> correction! You hate glasses and contacts much more than me, so much in
> fact you went around without correction! Yes you did free yourself of
> distance glasses and ended up dead on plano. There is alot of
> negatively on lasik. Even you werent convinenced of the safety and long
> term results.(neither am I) But I guess you just had enough with
> glasses and slightly blurry UCVA when not wearing glasses that you just
> didnt care anymore and decided to take your chances with lasik. I am
> not a risk taker and all the negatively on lasik makes me wonder why
> some still are willing to risk lasik, especially if they are informed
> as I am. Im sure something better is due in the near future that will
> displace or replace lasik. In the meantime, I will give orthoK a shot
> that will nearly eliminate my glasses dependency(without needing
> readers) I am 24 so ill still not be old when something better and
> safer comes out. I guess you are at a different point in life that you
> just want to enjoy what is out *now* before you get so old nothing will
> matter anymore.
>
> You still havent answered what your prescription was at the time of
> getting lasik
|