|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > April 2006 > Reading glasses after Lasik - What are people's experiences and satisfaction?
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 |
Reading glasses after Lasik - What are people's experiences and satisfaction?
|
|
|
| I'm 55, wear progressive lenses (-1.5 sphere, 2.75 x 180) and am considering
Lasik. I know that I'll need reading glasses, but I have no idea on how bad
my near vision will be and how often I'll need the reading glasses. I'm
worried that I'll have such poor near vision and need the reading glasses so
much that I'll wish I'd stayed with my glasses. I love to play tennis and
I'd like to be able to play without the bifocals. I've thought of
monovision, but seems too wierd to me.
What people's experiences in this regard? Are people my age generally
satisfied with Lasik?
Thanks,
Tom
| |
|
| I should add that my prescription has an "add" of 250 which I assume has to
do with the reading portion.
Again, thank for any advice you can give.
Tom
"Tom" <tom.quinn@adherentlabs.com> wrote in message
news:48WdnYIMTPkf1KHZnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
> I'm 55, wear progressive lenses (-1.5 sphere, 2.75 x 180) and am
> considering Lasik. I know that I'll need reading glasses, but I have no
> idea on how bad my near vision will be and how often I'll need the reading
> glasses. I'm worried that I'll have such poor near vision and need the
> reading glasses so much that I'll wish I'd stayed with my glasses. I love
> to play tennis and I'd like to be able to play without the bifocals. I've
> thought of monovision, but seems too wierd to me.
>
> What people's experiences in this regard? Are people my age generally
> satisfied with Lasik?
>
> Thanks,
> Tom
>
| |
| Ragnar 2006-04-12, 1:23 am |
| Actually.. you are a bit old for LASIK. You could have it done
though.
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 19:27:35 -0500, "Tom" <tom.quinn@adherentlabs.com>
wrote:
>I'm 55, wear progressive lenses (-1.5 sphere, 2.75 x 180) and am considering
>Lasik. I know that I'll need reading glasses, but I have no idea on how bad
>my near vision will be and how often I'll need the reading glasses. I'm
>worried that I'll have such poor near vision and need the reading glasses so
>much that I'll wish I'd stayed with my glasses. I love to play tennis and
>I'd like to be able to play without the bifocals. I've thought of
>monovision, but seems too wierd to me.
>
>What people's experiences in this regard? Are people my age generally
>satisfied with Lasik?
>
>Thanks,
>Tom
>
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2006-04-12, 1:23 am |
| Tom,
We can all speculate about how your vision would be after Lasik, but
you could try it now with contact lenses. Get fitted for contacts that
correct both your sphere and astigmatism for distance vision. Then you
will know how often you will need reading glasses. Then fit your
nondominant eye with a contact for monovision. You will know how well
monovision works.
After wearing contacts you may find that this is all the change you
need, but if you do opt for surgery you will know very well what you
can expect and what correction you want to achieve.
For more info on Lasik and monovision read
http://www.usaeyes.org/faq/subjects/monovision.htm
I highly recommend you read about an increased need for reading
glasses after Lasik at
http://www.usaeyes.org/faq/subjects..._presbyopia.htm From your
"add" it appears you are fully presbyopic and would not notice as
great of a difference as someone who was 45 years old, but the
information may be valuable for you to consider.
Also, your astigmatism is significantly more than your sphere. This is
a much more difficult refractive error to correct with Laser eye
surgery. If you have surgery, it would be reasonable to expect that
enhancement surgery will be needed at about three months after the
first surgery to "fine tune" your refractive error. Discuss this with
any potential refractive surgeon.
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.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2006-04-12, 1:23 am |
| On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 01:45:58 GMT, Ragnar <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>Actually.. you are a bit old for LASIK. You could have it done
>though.
Ouch! 55 is not to old for anything!!!
8^)
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.
| |
|
| Dear Tom.
Please ignore Ragnar.
As for monovision, I can attest that it works great. I wore monovision
contacts (toric) for 10 years before my laser surgery. I was a month short
of 51 years old. (Yeah, and Ragnar told me I was too old too. But then he's
a goofball.) My pre-laser script was -10 and -9. (And Ragnar told me that
was impossible and it was too high for laser. He's an expert on everything.)
Since I had worn monovision contacts for such a long time, I had no qualms
about getting monovision laser. It worked out great and I love it. I can see
distance very good and read just fine. I do occasionally still use reading
glasses to deal with really fine print and in very low light conditions. But
not on a regular basis. I can go for days without picking them up.When the
light is good I can read the phone book with no problem. I think that's a
good benchmark. Reading labels in the grocery store is another one. No
problems.
So, get yourself some monovision contacts and wear them for at least 6
months. If you don't give yourself enough time, you might not get
comfortable with them. Don't give up too soon. A few weeks or a month is not
going to be enough time. Remember, you're trying to trick yourself into
using one eye at a time. That's over simplifying it but that's the object.
Just relax and don't try to fight it. It really does work. And it works
well.
I can appreciate your disdain for bifocals. You could kill yourself going
down stairs. Playing tennis with monovision should be no problem.
"Tom" <tom.quinn@adherentlabs.com> wrote in message
news:48WdnYIMTPkf1KHZnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
> I'm 55, wear progressive lenses (-1.5 sphere, 2.75 x 180) and am
considering
> Lasik. I know that I'll need reading glasses, but I have no idea on how
bad
> my near vision will be and how often I'll need the reading glasses. I'm
> worried that I'll have such poor near vision and need the reading glasses
so
> much that I'll wish I'd stayed with my glasses. I love to play tennis and
> I'd like to be able to play without the bifocals. I've thought of
> monovision, but seems too wierd to me.
>
> What people's experiences in this regard? Are people my age generally
> satisfied with Lasik?
>
> Thanks,
> Tom
>
>
>
| |
|
|
Bob wrote:
> Dear Tom.
>
> Please ignore Ragnar.
>
> As for monovision, I can attest that it works great. I wore monovision
> contacts (toric) for 10 years before my laser surgery. I was a month short
> of 51 years old. (Yeah, and Ragnar told me I was too old too. But then he's
> a goofball.) My pre-laser script was -10 and -9. (And Ragnar told me that
> was impossible and it was too high for laser. He's an expert on everything.)
For what its worth, Ragnar's opinion on this mirrors the information I
received from my ophthomologist. I was asked by my mother to look into
LASIK for her while I was going through the process. -10 is a high
prescription for LASIK, considered the 'outer limit' by many.
| |
|
| It might be high but it's still doable. I'm sitting here proof of that.
Ragnar makes blanket statements on a lot of things that are not always the
case.
It probably would have been better if your mother was actually examined by a
doctor or two. I know several people in the same range and it's worked out
just fine for all of us.
"Ryan" <nerfgun@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144944629.183226.136890@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Bob wrote:
short[vbcol=seagreen]
he's[vbcol=seagreen]
that[vbcol=seagreen]
everything.)[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> For what its worth, Ragnar's opinion on this mirrors the information I
> received from my ophthomologist. I was asked by my mother to look into
> LASIK for her while I was going through the process. -10 is a high
> prescription for LASIK, considered the 'outer limit' by many.
>
| |
|
| I have to agree with Ragnar. At age 51 and especially at -10, you
should have gotten clear lens extraction IOLs. You had a great amount
of cornea removed and youll be back into bifocal glasses full time when
you get cateracts and IOLs. Getting clear lens extraction means you
never have to worry about cateracts and you avoid a 2nd surgury in the
future. I hope you dont get cateracts anytime soon unlike some people I
know.
| |
| Ragnar 2006-04-15, 11:29 am |
| There is a drawback to that... the cle will rob that person of all
accomodation power... and medicare will not pay for any of a clear
lens exchange procedure.
On 14 Apr 2006 20:37:09 -0700, "Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I have to agree with Ragnar. At age 51 and especially at -10, you
>should have gotten clear lens extraction IOLs. You had a great amount
>of cornea removed and youll be back into bifocal glasses full time when
>you get cateracts and IOLs. Getting clear lens extraction means you
>never have to worry about cateracts and you avoid a 2nd surgury in the
>future. I hope you dont get cateracts anytime soon unlike some people I
>know.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2006-04-15, 11:29 am |
| At age 51 the amount of accommodation may be nil, but another and
possibly more problematic concern is retinal detachment. A person with
10.00 diopters of myopia (nearsighted, shortsighted) vision has a very
elongated eye. That elongation puts a lot of pressure on the retina,
stretching it significantly. The trauma of Refractive Lens Exchange
(RLE) can cause a retina detachment. It would be important to have an
examination by a vitreoretinal specialist before RLE with such a high
refractive error.
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.
| |
|
| The trauma of a microketerome suction cap is even worse. Insurance
doesnt pay for any elective process. He shoulda gotten aphakic IOLs. He
is going to have to anyway in the future when he gets cateracts. Waste
of lasik.
| |
| kemccx@gmail.com 2006-04-15, 6:24 pm |
| Ace - You assume everyone will eventually get cataracts. That is not
the case. My mother and father are 77 and 79 respectively, and both
are free of this condition. However, I have had cataracts in both eyes
- go figure.
| |
|
| Everyone eventually gets cataracts if they live long enough.
http://www.neec.com/pages/Cornea_&_..._Cataracts.html
Everyone eventually gets cataracts if they live long enough. The lens
can start clouding at any age
http://www.health24.com/medical/Con...-1688,17723.asp
Almost everyone reaching their mid-sixties has some form of a cataract
in one or both eyes.
Need I say more? at his age of 51, he made a mistake with lasik,
especially with his -10 pescription. He may be back in glasses with
impaired vision due to two surguries, lasik and cateract surgury both
for nothing. He may be enjoying his lasik vision now but will pay the
price later. I would have just waited till I got cateracts, have them
removed and enjoy clear vision the rest of my life.
| |
| Ragnar 2006-04-16, 6:25 pm |
| Just who are you posting to? Nobody is fooled by your ignorant posts.
People should realize that your solution to eye care is to wear
glasses, which you do, and not even wear contact lenses - let alone
have surgery done.
Your solution is NO solution.
On 15 Apr 2006 22:02:49 -0700, "Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Everyone eventually gets cataracts if they live long enough.
>
>http://www.neec.com/pages/Cornea_&_..._Cataracts.html
>
>
>Everyone eventually gets cataracts if they live long enough. The lens
>can start clouding at any age
>
>
>http://www.health24.com/medical/Con...-1688,17723.asp
>
>
>Almost everyone reaching their mid-sixties has some form of a cataract
>in one or both eyes.
>
>
>Need I say more? at his age of 51, he made a mistake with lasik,
>especially with his -10 pescription. He may be back in glasses with
>impaired vision due to two surguries, lasik and cateract surgury both
>for nothing. He may be enjoying his lasik vision now but will pay the
>price later. I would have just waited till I got cateracts, have them
>removed and enjoy clear vision the rest of my life.
| |
| Ragnar 2006-04-16, 6:25 pm |
| That's some logic...
The same kind of logic as if someone breaks their leg.. why bother
having it fixed? They are going to die eventually anyway.
On 15 Apr 2006 22:02:49 -0700, "Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Everyone eventually gets cataracts if they live long enough.
>
>http://www.neec.com/pages/Cornea_&_..._Cataracts.html
>
>
>Everyone eventually gets cataracts if they live long enough. The lens
>can start clouding at any age
>
>
>http://www.health24.com/medical/Con...-1688,17723.asp
>
>
>Almost everyone reaching their mid-sixties has some form of a cataract
>in one or both eyes.
>
>
>Need I say more? at his age of 51, he made a mistake with lasik,
>especially with his -10 pescription. He may be back in glasses with
>impaired vision due to two surguries, lasik and cateract surgury both
>for nothing. He may be enjoying his lasik vision now but will pay the
>price later. I would have just waited till I got cateracts, have them
>removed and enjoy clear vision the rest of my life.
| |
| serebel 2006-04-17, 1:25 am |
|
Ace wrote:
>
>
> Need I say more? at his age of 51, he made a mistake with lasik,
> especially with his -10 pescription. He may be back in glasses with
> impaired vision due to two surguries, lasik and cateract surgury both
> for nothing. He may be enjoying his lasik vision now but will pay the
> price later. I would have just waited till I got cateracts, have them
> removed and enjoy clear vision the rest of my life.
Who the Fu.. is Ace to decide whether this was a mistake? Ace is the
last place to go for anything. How many times and how many different
people on this BB and others, does it take for Ace to realize what an
idiot he is?
| |
|
| "People should realize that your solution to eye care is to wear
glasses, which you do, and not even wear contact lenses - let alone
have surgery done."
You didnt read me talk about natural vision improvement, a very good
solution or orthoK, another solution. If you can tolerate contacts and
dont mind them, fine. I cant so its glasses for me and natural vision
improvement.
"The same kind of logic as if someone breaks their leg.. why bother
having it fixed? They are going to die eventually anyway."
itll fix itself but a cast will let it heal better. You need your legs
to walk just as you need glasses to see.
"Who the Fu.. is Ace to decide whether this was a mistake?"
just my opinion. If he thinks the lasik was well worth it, more power
to him. I only hope it goes well and holds up and that he doesnt get
cateracts anytime soon. I know people who were very happy with lasik
till it backfired or they developed cateracts. Time will tell but the
truth is, theres much debate on lasik for old people as Ragnar pointed
out.
"Actually.. you are a bit old for LASIK------------quoted by Ragnar.
| |
| Ragnar 2006-04-17, 1:25 am |
| On 16 Apr 2006 19:19:43 -0700, "Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"The same kind of logic as if someone breaks their leg.. why bother
>having it fixed? They are going to die eventually anyway."
>
>
>itll fix itself but a cast will let it heal better. You need your legs
>to walk just as you need glasses to see.
>
>
Glasses to vision are like a walker is to leg mobility.
I have a better example... surgery to have a hip replacement vs using
a walker. That is analogous to LASIK vs glasses.
My theory is that you don't have the funds available to afford surgery
and you are frustrated. I do sympathize with people about this
issue... in the LONG run, the surgery is cheaper than the contacts or
glasses.. but in the short run.. OUCH.
The prices of laser systems is outrageous.. they start at about half a
million. It is also outrageous that frames for glasses which cost at
most $12 wind up being sold for ten times that or more.
| |
|
|
Bob wrote:
> It might be high but it's still doable. I'm sitting here proof of that.
>
> Ragnar makes blanket statements on a lot of things that are not always the
> case.
>
> It probably would have been better if your mother was actually examined by a
> doctor or two. I know several people in the same range and it's worked out
> just fine for all of us.
This is in fact the case - she was rejected for LASIK.
| |
|
|
"Ryan" <nerfgun@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145281334.699407.306590@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> Bob wrote:
the[vbcol=seagreen]
by a[vbcol=seagreen]
out[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> This is in fact the case - she was rejected for LASIK.
That's too bad for her. She'd probably love it. But your original post
implied that she wasn't examined. Only that you asked about it for her.
I was examined by three different places prior to choosing my surgeon. None
of them expressed any concern about my prescription or my age, 51 at the
time.
Perhaps in your Mom's case there were other factors involved.
| |
| Ragnar 2006-04-18, 1:26 am |
| That's why people are screened for LASIK.. so the ones with certain
conditions are rejected. For instance, if someone has glaucoma, they
should be rejected as a lasik patient. They would probably still
benefit from the procedure, but glaucoma is too dangerous to fool
with.
On 17 Apr 2006 06:42:14 -0700, "Ryan" <nerfgun@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Bob wrote:
>
>This is in fact the case - she was rejected for LASIK.
| |
|
|
Bob wrote:
> That's too bad for her. She'd probably love it. But your original post
> implied that she wasn't examined. Only that you asked about it for her.
>
> I was examined by three different places prior to choosing my surgeon. None
> of them expressed any concern about my prescription or my age, 51 at the
> time.
>
> Perhaps in your Mom's case there were other factors involved.
Sorry - I should have been clearer in my original post. She did go in
for an evaluation, but not knowing the right questions to ask, she
trusted her doctor's advice. The key reason given was thin corneas,
although my mother has had a history of tear duct problems, and
possibly other things I don't know about. So I mentioned to her that
there were in fact solutions for thin corneas that have been developed
(like PRK) and that's when she asked me to look into it a bit more.
So the short answer is, you're right, I also think 'other factors' were
likely involved, and the doc gave her the simple answer. (You try
asking your mother about pupil measurments, diopters and ablation
zones!)
Anyways my original point was just that -9 to -10 refractive error is
on the high side for LASIK, and Glenn put the reasons better than I
could (retinal detachment, accomodation, etc).
| |
|
| many people with -8+ pescriptions are now getting IOLs as they are
safer and more effecient and the biggest benefit is youll never have to
get a 2nd surgury when you get cateracts. I know lots of people in
their 50s and 60s who got lasik for nothing just to end up needing
cateract surgury a few years down the road!
| |
| serebel 2006-04-19, 1:25 am |
|
Ace wrote:
> many people with -8+ pescriptions are now getting IOLs as they are
> safer and more effecient and the biggest benefit is youll never have to
> get a 2nd surgury when you get cateracts. I know lots of people in
> their 50s and 60s who got lasik for nothing just to end up needing
> cateract surgury a few years down the road!
Ace is full of shit !! He doesn't know any -8s who are getting IOLs,
and does not know people in their 50s and 60s who've had lasik. He
lives in a fantasy basement.
| |
|
| I know a few -8s who got IOLs. I know some older people who got lasik,
usually with bad results due to their age. Their eyes heal differently
than the eyes of younger people for one. Another reason is older eyes
are more dry than young eyes. A most compelling reason is IOLs can kill
two birds with one stone, both remove your cateracts(or prevent it from
ever happening) and correct your pescription! I will never understand
why older people choose lasik over IOLs, they will need IOLs
eventrually as everyone gets cateracts(if they live long enough, ie not
dying at 40 from disease or accident) If your young, you have decades
before cateracts and by the time you get cateracts, technology will be
so much better. Young people also still have accomodation, another
reason IOLs arent usually used except in very high myopia where lasik
wouldnt help enough anyway.
| |
| serebel 2006-04-19, 1:25 am |
| Ace wrote:
"I know a few -8s who got IOLs. I know some older people who got lasik,
usually with bad results due to their age"
You really should stop with the "I know these people" bull, it's not
even remotely believable.
| |
| Ragnar 2006-04-19, 1:25 am |
| Your post below is complete nonsense.
On 18 Apr 2006 14:27:50 -0700, "Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote:
>many people with -8+ pescriptions are now getting IOLs as they are
>safer and more effecient and the biggest benefit is youll never have to
>get a 2nd surgury when you get cateracts. I know lots of people in
>their 50s and 60s who got lasik for nothing just to end up needing
>cateract surgury a few years down the road!
| |
| Ragnar 2006-04-19, 1:25 am |
| More garbage.
On 18 Apr 2006 17:44:10 -0700, "Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I know a few -8s who got IOLs. I know some older people who got lasik,
>usually with bad results due to their age. Their eyes heal differently
>than the eyes of younger people for one. Another reason is older eyes
>are more dry than young eyes. A most compelling reason is IOLs can kill
>two birds with one stone, both remove your cateracts(or prevent it from
>ever happening) and correct your pescription! I will never understand
>why older people choose lasik over IOLs, they will need IOLs
>eventrually as everyone gets cateracts(if they live long enough, ie not
>dying at 40 from disease or accident) If your young, you have decades
>before cateracts and by the time you get cateracts, technology will be
>so much better. Young people also still have accomodation, another
>reason IOLs arent usually used except in very high myopia where lasik
>wouldnt help enough anyway.
|
| |
|
|