|
| *part 2 out of 2, my long reply, see part one in post above*
> I'm not convinced that that is particularly widespread. Besides, if
> there was anything to hide then the military would know about it but it
> doesn't stop them sending servicemen in their droves to have it done.
lasik is almost manditory for the military because glasses are a
liability and losing or breaking them can get you in real trouble in
combat. They give soldiers free lasik in fact. Complications do happen
and those poor soldiers become regulated to a less vision critical
sector, such as repairing weapons and machines or being a helper or
cook food for other soldiers.
> Being delighted is what it is. If you have halos and starbursts and eyes
> like raisins but you wake up with a smile every day then the surgery was
> a success. If someone has a major complication but is not bothered by it
> then it is not a major complication. Pickiness is a factor but most
> people get results good enough to please all but the very pickiest of
> people - most of whom had glasses that were too strong so they could see
> like eagles but forget they had headaches on the computer.
They may be delighted all right, but others reading the story may feel
sympathy and also think twice about lasik. I am sure no one gets lasik
expecting complications, but if they happen, some just learn to deal
with it. There is no going back after lasik so you learn to ignore the
bad and focus on the good. Of course they would be much happier if
their lasik went perfect and are jealous that some others had perfect
results.
> I certainly wouldn't be as maliciously vocal. If I can't have an
> enhancement then I'll get a pair of decent glasses and write the whole
> thing off to experience. Perhaps I'll dabble in NVI and see what that
> achieves. However, I wouldn't warn anyone away from Lasik just because
> mine is less than ideal. I explored the various outcomes before I went
> into this and thought about complications. If nothing else my dependency
> on glasses is greatly reduced.
Thats the least serious complication because glasses can fix it
completely. Many complications cant be fixed at all with glasses. Also
you knew about the risks of lasik and were informed and also prepared
to deal with any bad. Its those with NO knowlege of lasik and a mindset
that nothing could possibily go wrong, nothing bad could happen to them
that get really supprised, upset and vocal if something DOES go wrong!
> I agree. However, if the 20/20 person is not happy then I suspect there
> is something else going on. What is the stat on the number of people
> left with BCVA less than 20/40 after six months? It must be fractions of
> a percent.
Usually, if someone is 20/20 and not happy, his/her night vision is
poor with halos and starbursts or very dry eyes.
> And these are the ones doing the most damage.
You think they are being selfish by warning others away? They say they
are trying to "save" others from lasik. One lady warned over 50 of her
friends/acquaintances but two of them changed their mind, got lasik and
both have big complications, its freaky, its like a bad omen! Tom, if
your friend got damaged by lasik and warned you over and over, wouldnt
you feel uneasy about lasik and take it as an omen of sorts?
> Not at all. Knowledge will defeat the doubt. There is very little risk
> in Lasik and, as long as they don't run screaming from the first horror
> story, reading and learning about the procedure will show that Lasik can
> be the right decision.
Correct, one needs to do his research and look at all the positive
aspects and weigh them against all the negetive aspects. Listen to
every story, good or bad and get a good understanding and decide for
yourself if the benefits outweigh the risks, if you are willing to take
risks. Tom, I have heard about RK when I was young then PRK then lasik.
I started researching it seriously 2 years ago and read lasik stories.
The first bad story I read really scared me. The next few were scary as
well. Some bad lasik stories still scare me. One story was about a guy
damaged so bad by lasik he sees seven(7) moons!!!!!!!!! That is freaky!
I read a few stories of really bad lasik resulting in the need for a
cornea transplant! One lady became 20/200 BCVA after lasik and 20/40
BCVA with a new cornea(her other eye wasnt damaged as bad so she kept
her old cornea) As for lasik being the right decision, apperently those
with a good outcome agree, those with a bad outcome say it was a huge
mistake.
> I don't believe in going into anything without the relevant facts to
> hand. There was a girl getting surgery done at the same time as me who
> wasn't sure whether she was getting Lasik or Lasek or whether it would
> be wavefront guided or not. She knew nothing about the procedure and was
> perfectly happy not to - she just wanted to see well. This horrifies me
> but some people do seem to live their lives that way.
Ignorance is bliss. One of the woman damaged by lasik has a friend who
has a friend who actually said she did NOT want to read or hear
anything negetive. After she got lasik and it went good, only did she
read a few negetive stories and she said "had I read what could go
wrong with lasik, I would have been scared off and never get the nerve
to go ahead with lasik, so im glad I didnt want to know" I dont believe
in ignorance and am glad to read all the facts, both good and bad so I
can be informed, not hide behind a rosy world burying my head in the
sand. If someone is serious about lasik and intent on getting it, he
wouldnt easily be scared off anyway. Most of those with bad lasik said
they would have never done lasik had they known the true risks, others
dont care and just hope for the best. I was half serious about lasik
but my own relative contridictions(very big pupils, not yet stable
prescription, possible mild presbyopia, mild dry eyes) as well as
having read hundreds of stories on the internet of bad lasik has led to
the conclusion that lasik isnt worth the risk, especially of reducing
my ability to see well at night. I feel there will soon be better and
safer alternatives to lasik and even if not, glasses are the safe way
to go.
> I looked into all the risks and thought about how I would live with a
> serious complication. Now that I have had a minor complication then it
> is not a shock and I already had a contingency plan to deal with it.
Youd be taking a risk if you get enhancement, we already discussed
this. Good luck!
> But why go to all that effort? If your pupils are right and your cornea
> is right then get the Lasik and save yourself all the trouble. OrthoK
> only becomes an option when Lasik isn't.
The largest FDA approved laser zone is 6.5mm but theres "expermental"
oversized 8mm and I heard 9mm even in extreme cases using a special
laser! Of course with such a big zone, so much cornea is removed only
lower prescriptions can be treated. The other problem is due to the
oblate zone lasers make, this increases spherical aberrations. A huge
pupil with a huge laser zone is still going to have worse night vision
than a small pupil and a small laser zone because there is more
oblateness of the cornea with a large zone. As for orthoK, the
optometrists(in email replies) doing it did mention my big pupils may
be a problem for night vision, but they added that because orthoK is
reversable just like contacts are, there is nothing to lose but a
little money by trying anyway and if I like it, good, if not just go
back to glasses! They also said orthoK is much more forgiving than
lasik because orthoK is not surgury, no cutting, no
burning...........they can use an oversized orthoK zone of 7mm or even
8mm(which lasik is also capable of as an "expermental" procedure) From
what ive read, a standard 6mm orthoK corrects -3 to -3.5, rarely as
high as -4 while a 7mm zone corrects about -2.5 diopters and the huge
8mm zone corrects about half as much as a 6mm zone so id be looking at
-1.5 to -2 correction with 8mm. If my vision improves to -3.5 and
orthoK chops off another -1.5 ill be just -2 which is good enough to
keep me out of glasses for the computer and when im at home. If thats
still too much, I can ask for a slightly smaller 7.5mm orthoK zone to
take me down to like -1.5
> A lot of the problems are from several years ago as well. There are not
> that many recent problems coming through and it might be time to
> re-examine the statistics. I won't be able to make too much of a
> judgement on my night vision until after the enhancement. My glasses are
> a cheap nasty pair and they give plenty of starburst and halo on their
> own.
Todays lasers are an improvement and there has been a reduction in some
problems but its far from problem free or at least as safe as orthoK.
If you are having problems at night with 6.5mm pupils, imagine how bad
mine will be at 9mm!
> Barely enough is enough. Less than a dioptre is needed in each eye so it
> would fit OK. However, my corneas were 595um and the flap may not have
> been as thick as that so there is more room to play with.
Then you have enough cornea for more than one enhancement
> But that is not necessarily a problem. The low order stuff is what
> you're paying for and the high order is just tweaking.
True but once you take out the low order aberrations, all thats left is
high order aberrations and if there is a significent amount, vision is
affected, especially at night. Glasses cant correct high order
aberrations, not yet, but I heard in 20 years there will be special
designed unique wavefront glasses with thousands of tiny mirrors for
that. Expensive gadget and defeats the point of lasik if you still have
to wear glasses for your aberrations or deal with decreased uncorrected
vision.
> How many retinas are capable though? Technology is likely to advance
> quickly in this area due to the amount of money in the market.
Another reason some people wait for newer, better technology instead of
being "locked" with todays technology. Those who had RK are stuck with
an old, obsolete technology that gave inferior results compared to
lasik. When something comes out that gives BETTER(or at least equal)
vision than glasses with very low risks, itll be a big hit and ill read
all about it, both good and bad and decide if THAT would be worth
persuing.(see epithelium thinning)
> The epithelium is not an optional part. It is there for the protection
> of the eye so I wouldn't go monkeying around with it. If you've seen the
> battered look of someone who has just had Lasek then you'll see what the
> effect of interfering with the epithelium is.
One of tomorrows technology promises to offer what orthoK can but
without the hassle of inserting retainer orthoK lenses almost every
night. Ive read a little on it and it sounds as safe as orthoK with
long lasting results, yet can be reversed like orthoK can. Would be a
great, relatively safe, reversable method to "take away" -1.5 diopters
of my myopic prescription or so and improve my uncorrected vision and
reduce dependancy on glasses. It will make a difference if I am -4(-2.5
after) and a BIG difference if I am -3(-1.5 after). Right now I am
nearly -5 in the worse eye(was nearly -6 before NVI), -4 in the better
with mild astigmastim in both
Do you have an estimate of myopic diopters(-1, -2, -3, etc) and the
20/something correlation? I have done alot of research on this, but
tell me what you think!(you probably have a good idea for -1 and -5)
How bad is the following?
-.5
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
-3
-4
-5
-6
|
|