|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > April 2006 > HELP!!! 2 weeks after intraLase blurry vision
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 |
HELP!!! 2 weeks after intraLase blurry vision
|
|
| beckie 2006-04-20, 6:24 pm |
| I am 2 weeks post-op intraLase surgery, I was a
-7.25 in one eye -6.75 in the other. Now I am wearing +1.0 to drive,
watch TV, clean house etc,
and a +2.5 to read, work on my computer, read labels and dirrctions
(anything within 4') I try to be patient, have followed all instructions
(antibotic drops for 1 week and steroid drops for 2 weeks) as well as
constant preservative free eye drops. My vision hasn't improved during the
2 week period. At 1 week the Dr. said I still had swelling of my cornea,
which was no cause for alarm,and to come see him at 1 month post-op. This
really sucks, I am now wearing 2 pair of glassed, and am very concerned
if/when my eyes will "settle down". I knew I would have to wear reading
glasses, but did not expect the blurry distance vision. Am I healing
normally? Has anyone experienced the same problems? At what point do I
really worry? (I envy the people who "walked out of surgery and could see
perfectly that day)because that seems so far fetched to me.
thankyou for any info you can give.
| |
|
|
beckie wrote:
> I am 2 weeks post-op intraLase surgery, I was a
> -7.25 in one eye -6.75 in the other. Now I am wearing +1.0 to drive,
> watch TV, clean house etc,
> and a +2.5 to read, work on my computer, read labels and dirrctions
> (anything within 4') I try to be patient, have followed all instructions
> (antibotic drops for 1 week and steroid drops for 2 weeks) as well as
> constant preservative free eye drops. My vision hasn't improved during the
> 2 week period. At 1 week the Dr. said I still had swelling of my cornea,
> which was no cause for alarm,and to come see him at 1 month post-op. This
> really sucks, I am now wearing 2 pair of glassed, and am very concerned
> if/when my eyes will "settle down". I knew I would have to wear reading
> glasses, but did not expect the blurry distance vision. Am I healing
> normally? Has anyone experienced the same problems? At what point do I
> really worry? (I envy the people who "walked out of surgery and could see
> perfectly that day)because that seems so far fetched to me.
> thankyou for any info you can give.
I'm sorry to hear about your woes, beckie... that sounds pretty
stressful. Something is definitely up with your eyes, I would request
another appointment as soon as possible - don't wait a month.
My experience with IntraLase surgery was pretty much the ideal - I
didn't walk out of surgery with perfect vision, but I pretty much had
it the next day.
Sorry if this is was already mentioned, but did you post the clinic you
went to, and any other relevant details about your eyes that were
exceptional in any way? If not can you?
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2006-04-20, 6:24 pm |
| My grandfather often said, "When you are up to your elbows in
alligators, it's hard to remember that you are there to drain the
swamp."
While it seems to you that you are deep in alligators, what you are
experiencing is not terribly far from what should be expected with a
higher refractive error and persistent edema.
It appears that the reason the +1.00 readers work for distance vision
is because you are slightly overcorrected into hyperopia (farsighted,
longsighted) vision. Apparently somewhere around 1.00 diopter.
The reason you need +2.50 reading glasses to see things close, like
your computer, is undoubtedly because you are presbyopic. You need
1.50 diopters more myopia (nearsighted, shortsighted) correction to
see near.
It is reasonable to expect some regression back toward the original
refractive error. Regression commonly occurs within the first few
months. Two weeks is not nearly enough time. As you/if you regress,
you will not need the +1.00 glasses for distance vision because your
corneas will move back toward plano (no refractive error). You will
still need reading glasses to see items close to you if you are over
about the age of 40.
Anxiety can be helpful, because it keeps us aware, but too much
anxiety can lead to poor decisions and other problems. People faint
because of the anxiety of speaking in public. It appears that what you
are experiencing is not, at this point, something to be overly anxious
about. It appears that your doctor is monitoring your situation and
you are following your doctor's advice. Well, everything except the
advice to not worry so much.
Remember that refractive surgery is more of a six-month process than a
20-Minute Miracle. You are two weeks into that process.
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.
| |
|
| I probably would have chosen the aphakic IOL route, it works very well
for high myopes and it saves you from a 2nd surgury because youll never
get cateracts. At this point, I would just give time for your eyes to
settle down then get bifocal glasses for your pescription. Your
distance vision improved and your dependancy on glasses reduced which
is what lasik was intended for. Because of presbyopia, youll still need
bifocals unless you had chosen to be undercorrected(something I would
do to myself when I get orthoK to keep me out of bifocals)
| |
|
|
| Rev Jessie James 2006-04-21, 1:25 am |
| Did your doctor discuss regression and intentional over-correctiion prior to your surgery? Before I had lasik, I had a very detailed conversation with my doctor about what the "typical" regression was for my perscription. I decided to have him overcorrect by .5, expecting to regress back to plano.. At two weeks out I was measured to be overcorrected by 1.25. I immediately called my surgeon and asked him what the hell happened! .( I felt a .75 was a big error given the technology )
He explained that it was due to swelling and any measurements taken before 3 months were meaningless. I was lucky my old eyes ( I'm 48 now) still had enough accomadation that glasses were not necessary even for close work. Its been 3 years since lasik and I don't feel my eyes fully stabilized until the end of the second year.
At first I was very aware of my eyesight and worrying constantly. Now, I'm just as aware of my eyesight, but its because of the breathtaking clarity and detail that I see everything with.
Be patient. If your flaps are healing well at 2 weeks, there is really nothing to worry about.
"beckie" <beckiequinn@netzero.net> wrote in message news:b57eac95e2243e332e0f5b9b08b84447@localhost.talkaboutsupport.com...
I am 2 weeks post-op intraLase surgery, I was a
-7.25 in one eye -6.75 in the other. Now I am wearing +1.0 to drive,
watch TV, clean house etc,
and a +2.5 to read, work on my computer, read labels and dirrctions
(anything within 4') I try to be patient, have followed all instructions
(antibotic drops for 1 week and steroid drops for 2 weeks) as well as
constant preservative free eye drops. My vision hasn't improved during the
2 week period. At 1 week the Dr. said I still had swelling of my cornea,
which was no cause for alarm,and to come see him at 1 month post-op. This
really sucks, I am now wearing 2 pair of glassed, and am very concerned
if/when my eyes will "settle down". I knew I would have to wear reading
glasses, but did not expect the blurry distance vision. Am I healing
normally? Has anyone experienced the same problems? At what point do I
really worry? (I envy the people who "walked out of surgery and could see
perfectly that day)because that seems so far fetched to me.
thankyou for any info you can give.
| |
| serebel 2006-04-21, 1:25 am |
|
Ace wrote:
> I probably would have chosen the aphakic IOL route, it works very well
> for high myopes and it saves you from a 2nd surgury because youll never
> get cateracts. At this point, I would just give time for your eyes to
> settle down then get bifocal glasses for your pescription. Your
> distance vision improved and your dependancy on glasses reduced which
> is what lasik was intended for. Because of presbyopia, youll still need
> bifocals unless you had chosen to be undercorrected(something I would
> do to myself when I get orthoK to keep me out of bifocals)
Who cares what you would've chosen.
Beckie,
Disregard Ace's posts, he's an idiot. He just repeats the foolish rants
of some twisted people.
| |
| Ragnar 2006-04-21, 1:25 am |
| That is kind of like telling someone who has a lot of cavities in
their teeth to go ahead and get dentures and then they will never get
anymore cavities.
On 20 Apr 2006 14:54:25 -0700, "Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I probably would have chosen the aphakic IOL route, it works very well
>for high myopes and it saves you from a 2nd surgury because youll never
>get cateracts. At this point, I would just give time for your eyes to
>settle down then get bifocal glasses for your pescription. Your
>distance vision improved and your dependancy on glasses reduced which
>is what lasik was intended for. Because of presbyopia, youll still need
>bifocals unless you had chosen to be undercorrected(something I would
>do to myself when I get orthoK to keep me out of bifocals)
| |
|
| Asking to be overcorrected in antiprecation of regression is a very
risky move, much more so if you are presbyopic. The thing is many
presbyopes dont know what presbyopia is or they think lasik can somehow
fix presbyopia. I know tons of people who were expecting to see clear
at all distances after lasik and are shocked to find out they need
reading glasses immediately after lasik after removing their myopia
that was allowing them to see clear from near! They took their good
near vision for granted and thought lasik would preserve their near
vision and fix their blurry distance vision! If you end up
overcorrected, you wont see a thing from near and if you have no
accomodation left and/or significent overcorrection, even your distance
vision will be blurry! Much, much better to shoot for a slight
undercorrection. In fact some people are happy that way as it keeps
them out of reading glasses and their distance vision isnt much of a
blur at around -1 so they only need glasses to drive or watch movies
and yet they get to keep some of their near vision.
| |
|
| "That is kind of like telling someone who has a lot of cavities in
their teeth to go ahead and get dentures and then they will never get
anymore cavities."
bad analogy because dentures means losing your teeth. IOLs is no
riskier than lasik but has more benefits than lasik. I know a bunch of
people who got cateracts shortly after lasik and needed IOLs to take
care of their cateracts. They wished they were told about IOLs before
they got lasik!
| |
| Ragnar 2006-04-21, 11:28 am |
| I don't know where you are getting your ideas from.. they are
something else.
IOLs are no riskier than LASIK? False.. IOL surgery is much
riskier.. in fact, a few people have died during IOL surgery.
Basically, IOL surgery involves poking a tiny hole into the side of
one's eye.. sticking in a rod deep under the cornea to the capsule
that holds the natural lens.. pulverizing/shattering that lens with
ultrasonic vibrations, and sucking all the debris out... then
inserting a folded up lens and anchoring it.. etc. If you don't
think that is substantially more invasive and risky than LASIK, then
you must be sniffing glue.
Furtermore, after the IOLs... all accomodation is lost. There is a
world of difference between having just a single diopter's worth of
accomodation and having none at all.
The dentures analogy was an excellent one.
If anybody took your suggestions... you would be VERY dangerous.
Just where do you meet all these peole who have had refractive surgery
done? Do you ask everyone you meet about their eyes?
I suspect you just make up this garbage hoping that someone will be
naive enough to think you are credible.
On 20 Apr 2006 23:21:30 -0700, "Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"That is kind of like telling someone who has a lot of cavities in
>their teeth to go ahead and get dentures and then they will never get
>anymore cavities."
>
>
>bad analogy because dentures means losing your teeth. IOLs is no
>riskier than lasik but has more benefits than lasik. I know a bunch of
>people who got cateracts shortly after lasik and needed IOLs to take
>care of their cateracts. They wished they were told about IOLs before
>they got lasik!
| |
| Ragnar 2006-04-21, 11:28 am |
| Tons of people indeed.
On 20 Apr 2006 23:08:25 -0700, "Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Asking to be overcorrected in antiprecation of regression is a very
>risky move, much more so if you are presbyopic. The thing is many
>presbyopes dont know what presbyopia is or they think lasik can somehow
>fix presbyopia. I know tons of people who were expecting to see clear
>at all distances after lasik and are shocked to find out they need
>reading glasses immediately after lasik after removing their myopia
>that was allowing them to see clear from near! They took their good
>near vision for granted and thought lasik would preserve their near
>vision and fix their blurry distance vision! If you end up
>overcorrected, you wont see a thing from near and if you have no
>accomodation left and/or significent overcorrection, even your distance
>vision will be blurry! Much, much better to shoot for a slight
>undercorrection. In fact some people are happy that way as it keeps
>them out of reading glasses and their distance vision isnt much of a
>blur at around -1 so they only need glasses to drive or watch movies
>and yet they get to keep some of their near vision.
| |
| Linda 2006-04-21, 11:28 am |
|
Ace wrote:
> "That is kind of like telling someone who has a lot of cavities in
> their teeth to go ahead and get dentures and then they will never get
> anymore cavities."
>
>
> bad analogy because dentures means losing your teeth. IOLs is no
> riskier than lasik but has more benefits than lasik. I know a bunch of
> people who got cateracts shortly after lasik and needed IOLs to take
> care of their cateracts. They wished they were told about IOLs before
> they got lasik!
Ace, do you realise how ridiculous you sound when you make comments
such as these. "A bunch of people". For goodness sake, Ace, it's not
even exaggerating, it is down right lying! Most people would be
struggling to find just one person who had cataracts followed by
IOL's. Either you know a lot of people or you are just making things
up. I'll go with the latter.
Linda
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2006-04-21, 11:28 am |
| On 20 Apr 2006 23:08:25 -0700, "Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Asking to be overcorrected in antiprecation of regression is a very
>risky move, much more so if you are presbyopic.
Not necessarily.
Regression is reasonably predictable. The choice is to deliberately
overcorrect and allow regression to bring the patient back to plano
(no refractive error), or to correct to plano and do an enhancement to
resolve regression. Both techniques are valid.
With correction to plano you have the risk of a second surgery but the
benefit of little chance of permanent overcorrection into a hyperopic
state. With deliberate overcorrection you have the risk of not
regressing enough, but the benefit of possibly need of additional
surgery.
http://www.usaeyes.org/faq/subjects/enhancement.htm
and
http://www.usaeyes.org/faq/subjects...ement_rates.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.
| |
|
|
Glenn - USAEyes.org wrote:
> On 20 Apr 2006 23:08:25 -0700, "Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Regression is reasonably predictable. The choice is to deliberately
> overcorrect and allow regression to bring the patient back to plano
> (no refractive error), or to correct to plano and do an enhancement to
> resolve regression. Both techniques are valid.
This is what they did with me - i had thick corneas so perhaps this is
a deciding factor whether or not to go with overcorrection or later
enhancement.
Ace - you are no longer allowed to use the phrase 'i know a lot of
people'. You must now name names.
| |
|
|
Ragnar wrote:
> IOLs are no riskier than LASIK? False.. IOL surgery is much
> riskier.. in fact, a few people have died during IOL surgery.
> Basically, IOL surgery involves poking a tiny hole into the side of
> one's eye.. sticking in a rod deep under the cornea to the capsule
> that holds the natural lens.. pulverizing/shattering that lens with
> ultrasonic vibrations, and sucking all the debris out... then
> inserting a folded up lens and anchoring it.. etc.
I didn't know how they did IOLs before. YE GODS. That is insane. I
can't believe they ever got anyone to volunteer for that.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2006-04-21, 6:25 pm |
| On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 09:02:05 GMT, Ragnar <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>IOLs are no riskier than LASIK? False.. IOL surgery is much
>riskier.. in fact, a few people have died during IOL surgery.
>Basically, IOL surgery involves poking a tiny hole into the side of
>one's eye.. sticking in a rod deep under the cornea to the capsule
>that holds the natural lens.. pulverizing/shattering that lens with
>ultrasonic vibrations, and sucking all the debris out... then
>inserting a folded up lens and anchoring it.. etc. If you don't
>think that is substantially more invasive and risky than LASIK, then
>you must be sniffing glue.
Good heavens Ragnar, you should write children's books.
Any surgery inside the eye will be inherently more dangerous than a
surgery that is limited exclusively to the cornea. Refractive Lens
Exchange (RLE, which is exactly the same as cataract surgery) can be
an appropriate alternative to Lasik but has its own set of risks that
must be considered.
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 2006-04-22, 11:25 am |
| Actually... he knows two people who have had IOLs.. but that is
subject to dspute because they are siamese twins. Hehehe
On 21 Apr 2006 02:41:46 -0700, "Linda" <lindakendall3155@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:
>
>Ace wrote:
>
>Ace, do you realise how ridiculous you sound when you make comments
>such as these. "A bunch of people". For goodness sake, Ace, it's not
>even exaggerating, it is down right lying! Most people would be
>struggling to find just one person who had cataracts followed by
>IOL's. Either you know a lot of people or you are just making things
>up. I'll go with the latter.
>Linda
| |
| Ragnar 2006-04-22, 11:25 am |
| Actually... the cataract removal process has been around for
centuries. Thousands of years ago they used to hit people on the head
with a blunt object to knock the natural lens out of position so that
light (unfocused) could reach the retina.
The first "doctor" - the ancient Greek Aechylus - would use brass
tubes to break up the lens and litterally suck it out with his own
mouth like a soda straw.
On 21 Apr 2006 09:37:59 -0700, "Ryan" <nerfgun@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Ragnar wrote:
>
>
>I didn't know how they did IOLs before. YE GODS. That is insane. I
>can't believe they ever got anyone to volunteer for that.
| |
|
| IOLs is risky surgury, I am not denying this. But the fact everyone
eventrually needs IOLs underscores the point of getting them now or
getting them down the road. High pescriptions dont yield as good
results after lasik. Lasik may not even be an option for very high
myopes. If IOLs is not acceptable then just stick to glasses till you
get cateracts then you can either leave the cateracts in and get worse
and worse vision or remove those cateracts and correct your myopia at
the same time.
| |
| blindedbylaser@yahoo.com 2006-04-22, 6:24 pm |
| Becky,
Go read in the Intralase section on htttp://lasikflap.com/forum
and you'll find all sorts of information explaining delayed healing and
corneal swelling after intralase.
beckie wrote:
> I am 2 weeks post-op intraLase surgery, I was a
> -7.25 in one eye -6.75 in the other. Now I am wearing +1.0 to drive,
> watch TV, clean house etc,
> and a +2.5 to read, work on my computer, read labels and dirrctions
> (anything within 4') I try to be patient, have followed all instructions
> (antibotic drops for 1 week and steroid drops for 2 weeks) as well as
> constant preservative free eye drops. My vision hasn't improved during the
> 2 week period. At 1 week the Dr. said I still had swelling of my cornea,
> which was no cause for alarm,and to come see him at 1 month post-op. This
> really sucks, I am now wearing 2 pair of glassed, and am very concerned
> if/when my eyes will "settle down". I knew I would have to wear reading
> glasses, but did not expect the blurry distance vision. Am I healing
> normally? Has anyone experienced the same problems? At what point do I
> really worry? (I envy the people who "walked out of surgery and could see
> perfectly that day)because that seems so far fetched to me.
> thankyou for any info you can give.
| |
| blindedbylaser@yahoo.com 2006-04-22, 6:24 pm |
| For many, regression keeps happening. I regressed to the point of
needing glasses full time, a friend regressed half her prescription,
another is MORE hyperopic than he was before surgery, and a woman I
recently met started regressing 5 years after her surgery... right into
ectasia. LASIK is the gift that KEEPs on giving. You never know what
calamity will befall you next.
| |
| serebel 2006-04-23, 1:26 am |
| This one sounds like Ace with the "I know everyone" with a bad result.
Hey I know somone who fully regressed when they took off their
glasses!!!!!
| |
|
| "For many, regression keeps happening. I regressed to the point of
needing glasses full time, a friend regressed half her prescription,
another is MORE hyperopic than he was before surgery, and a woman I
recently met started regressing 5 years after her surgery... right into
ectasia. LASIK is the gift that KEEPs on giving. You never know what
calamity will befall you next."
well becky is +1 now so regression to plano or back to mild myopia
would be good as long as ectasia doesnt develop of course. Regression
can happen in two ways, one is your cornea bulges. Two is your eyeball
lengthens more and you get more axial myopia. What was your pescription
before lasik and whats it now? If you need glasses full time, you may
be more than +1 or more than -4.
| |
| Ragnar 2006-04-23, 1:26 am |
| You are overlooking that IOLs result in a total loss of accomodation.
Also.. medicare doesn't pay for that procedure unless you have
cataracts.
Let's end this IOL thread. IOL's are pretty much the last resort.
On 22 Apr 2006 12:35:23 -0700, "Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote:
>IOLs is risky surgury, I am not denying this. But the fact everyone
>eventrually needs IOLs underscores the point of getting them now or
>getting them down the road. High pescriptions dont yield as good
>results after lasik. Lasik may not even be an option for very high
>myopes. If IOLs is not acceptable then just stick to glasses till you
>get cateracts then you can either leave the cateracts in and get worse
>and worse vision or remove those cateracts and correct your myopia at
>the same time.
| |
| Ragnar 2006-04-23, 1:26 am |
| That isn't true at all.
There is a bit of regression in PRK which is predictable and stablizes
after a year.
LASIK has virtually no regression.
On 22 Apr 2006 18:23:57 -0700, "Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"For many, regression keeps happening. I regressed to the point of
>needing glasses full time, a friend regressed half her prescription,
>another is MORE hyperopic than he was before surgery, and a woman I
>recently met started regressing 5 years after her surgery... right into
>
>ectasia. LASIK is the gift that KEEPs on giving. You never know what
>calamity will befall you next."
>
>
>well becky is +1 now so regression to plano or back to mild myopia
>would be good as long as ectasia doesnt develop of course. Regression
>can happen in two ways, one is your cornea bulges. Two is your eyeball
>lengthens more and you get more axial myopia. What was your pescription
>before lasik and whats it now? If you need glasses full time, you may
>be more than +1 or more than -4.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2006-04-23, 1:26 am |
| On 22 Apr 2006 13:29:18 -0700, blindedbylaser@yahoo.com wrote:
It may be valuable to review this person's other posts, and the
researched responses in those threads, before accepting any advice
from this source.
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 2006-04-23, 1:26 am |
| On 22 Apr 2006 13:27:08 -0700, blindedbylaser@yahoo.com wrote:
>Becky,
>Go read in the Intralase section on htttp://lasikflap.com/forum
>and you'll find all sorts of information explaining delayed healing and
>corneal swelling after intralase.
And consider the source, accuracy, and completeness of the
information.
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.
| |
|
| "That isn't true at all.
There is a bit of regression in PRK which is predictable and stablizes
after a year.
LASIK has virtually no regression."
then explain why more than half the people regress and are no longer
20/20 years post lasik?
| |
| serebel 2006-04-24, 1:29 am |
|
Ace wrote:
> "That isn't true at all.
> There is a bit of regression in PRK which is predictable and stablizes
> after a year.
> LASIK has virtually no regression."
>
>
> then explain why more than half the people regress and are no longer
> 20/20 years post lasik?
Hey flappie wannabe (Ace), that does not happen. Very few people
regress post lasik. Very few.
| |
|
| Why dont you prove it? The people I know, about 60% have regressed
since they got lasik and many are -.5 to more than -2 diopters myopic.
Some of those would experience the same with with glasses or contacts
anyway so lasik isnt always at fault. I know this guy whos a department
manager whos 28 and wears -8(?) glasses and his eyes are still getting
worse. One of the reasons he isnt interested in lasik is his
pescription isnt stable and if he gets lasik he would be back in
glasses in about 3 years. So this is some credit where its deserved and
where lasik isnt always to be blamed. If your eyes are getting worse
with glasses, lasik wont stop them from getting worse unless you want
enhancements every 2-3 years
| |
| serebel 2006-04-24, 1:29 am |
| First, the "people" you know don't exist. Since I've had lasik, i've
met several people who have had the same.
No regression at all.
| |
| Rev Jessie James 2006-04-24, 1:29 am |
|
The only explanation for his increasing myopia would be the minus lenses are causing stair step myopia, as he continues close work with such a perscription. It sounds like the manager that is at -8 needs to wear some plus lenses for close up work ( or at least take his -8 off when reading ). I would recommend RK and constant use of plus lenses and palming to prevent further myopia or regression! This has been proven to be quite effective on both monkeys and chickens.
By the way, what is your sample size for the 60%? Ever hear of anecdotal evidence?
"Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1145842883.718830.91660@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Why dont you prove it? The people I know, about 60% have regressed
since they got lasik and many are -.5 to more than -2 diopters myopic.
Some of those would experience the same with with glasses or contacts
anyway so lasik isnt always at fault. I know this guy whos a department
manager whos 28 and wears -8(?) glasses and his eyes are still getting
worse. One of the reasons he isnt interested in lasik is his
pescription isnt stable and if he gets lasik he would be back in
glasses in about 3 years. So this is some credit where its deserved and
where lasik isnt always to be blamed. If your eyes are getting worse
with glasses, lasik wont stop them from getting worse unless you want
enhancements every 2-3 years
| |
| Ragnar 2006-04-24, 11:28 am |
| If they are no longer 20/20... that would be due to presbyopia,
cataracts, and the fact that people with 20/20 vision tend to not have
yearly eye exams. People tend to go to their doctor only when there
is a problem.
On 23 Apr 2006 15:56:47 -0700, "Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"That isn't true at all.
>There is a bit of regression in PRK which is predictable and stablizes
>after a year.
>LASIK has virtually no regression."
>
>
>then explain why more than half the people regress and are no longer
>20/20 years post lasik?
| |
|
|
Ace wrote:
> Why dont you prove it? The people I know,
BZZZZZZZTTTT
Attention user, you have been banned fron using this phrase in all
future posts. Please report to the Office of Truthfulness in Anecdotes
to pay your karmic fine.
Thank you,
The Management
| |
| Jake Rivington 2006-04-24, 11:28 am |
| Ace's sample size is 3. His brother, his sister, and his mother.
BTW, I also know the the guy in the department store. He tells me he is
going to get Ortho-K to reduce his Rx to -6. Then He's going to do NVI
to get himself down to -5.75. He's decided to skip RK and go straight
for the IOLs. He knows he's only 28, but he's planning on living to 107
years and 4 months and a couple of hours. He's pretty sure he'll get
cataracts, so there's no point in going for corneal RS. He doesn't care
that he'll lose accommodation. He thinks he looks sexy in readers and
the magnification makes his eyes look dreamy. And anyway, he likes
wearing glasses. He just wants to mess with his eyes for the hell of it.
| |
| Trulytelling@yahoo.com 2006-04-29, 1:22 pm |
| Gee, I looked at the Intralase information on
http://lasikflap.com;forum and it seems to be backed up with solid
references. AND the information was provided there by individuals who
were NOT trying to market a medically unneccessary and harmful surgery
for personal profit.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2006-04-29, 6:24 pm |
| As I said Burch, consider the source.
| |
| Ragnar 2006-04-29, 6:24 pm |
| Anything on The Flap is almost certain to be crap.
"Get your Crap at the Flap!"
Sir Rebel is going to have a field day with your nonsense.
And someone was asking today why I post.. whoo boy. Do you honestly
think that you can post such utter garbage without someone pointing
out that you are nuts?
On 29 Apr 2006 11:15:47 -0700, Trulytelling@yahoo.com wrote:
>Gee, I looked at the Intralase information on
>http://lasikflap.com;forum and it seems to be backed up with solid
>references. AND the information was provided there by individuals who
>were NOT trying to market a medically unneccessary and harmful surgery
>for personal profit.
| |
| Ragnar 2006-04-29, 6:24 pm |
| Burch?
You mean Trulytelling is the fired Duke geneticist that was developing
a strain of lethal fungus and testing it on mice?
Pardon me.. I might be mistaken... it was either fungus or mold.
How's the anthrax project going Burch? You got another batch ready?
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 18:49:15 GMT, Glenn - USAEyes.org
<glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote:
>As I said Burch, consider the source.
| |
| serebel 2006-04-30, 1:25 am |
| Burch tries here:
"Gee, I looked at the Intralase information on
http://lasikflap.com;forum and it seems to be backed up with solid
references. AND the information was provided there by individuals who
were NOT trying to market a medically unneccessary and harmful surgery
for personal profit."
I consulted the "flap" too, oops never mind, it was my tent flap. Must
be all that Duke mold in the air again.
|
| |
|
|