|
| Tom Lucas said:
> You see how far you get telling a wife what to do! All the way to a
> friend's house for a couple of nights I would expect!
If me and my lady cant agree, marriage will never happen. Actually I
never want to get married, not worth the problems and loss of freedom.
> I don't think Optical Express have hard and fast limits such as -1 or
> 20/40 and it more depends on whether they think an enhancement will make
> a difference. In my case, I'm damn sure it will because if they zap in
> what my glasses are prescribed at then my vision will be near enough
> perfect, or at least as perfect as I've ever had.
Its more than that, they also calculate the risks. Surgeons often dont
feel its worth risking an enhancement on you if your just a tick away
from perfect and they will tell you about relistic expectations. I have
seen patients regret enhancement and wish they quit while they were
ahead and left well enough alone. Their initial lasik went fine but not
the enhancement. Only you and your surgeon can discuss this, good luck!
> I think that the cases of refusal of submissions are rare enough not to
> have a serious impact on the statistics. Plus there is the military
> statistics that we've already discussed - they have no motive for fudge
> the figures. Besides the risks are assessed before FDA approval is
> granted and the statistics gathered afterwards are just used to verify
> the original approval.
http://www.myopia.org/bbclasersurgery.htm An older article but at that
time, 7 out of 10 got defective vision, very bad odds. I know todays
lasers are better, but then why didnt people wait for better lasers?
> This is just one isolated case though and shouldn't be offered as
> evidence that the Lasik industry is a big conspiracy.
It makes people wonder how many other cases are being omitted. Whatever
risks the FDA or surgeon says, its higher than that. How much higher no
one knows for sure.
> There are actually very few bad Lasik stories compared to how many
> procedures have been performed. I think the risks are not widely
> advertised, as to do so is not in the industries interest, but the
> information is readily available if you want to look for it. I don't
> think the clinics will hide anything from you (a few rotten apples
> aside) because it is not in their interests to have to support a bad
> result.
Probably true, but we agree its a calculated risk. Of course surgeons
dont want to say anything bad about lasik. The only time they have to
is when you sign an informed consent form shortly before you enter the
surgury room. Many people arent even aware of the risks, half or more
the bad lasik stories I read, they had no idea. I am aware of almost
every different risk and what can go wrong. I also showed you vision
simulators of a few of the complications a couple posts above this one.
> This is what I mean about being careful with internet stories because
> they normally only present half the information because there is some
> axe to grind. The story is written to imply that Lasik will definitely
> destroy your eye and that the malcontents were right all along but any
> information which might disprove that is conveniently left out.
> Personally, if I had come across this story, I would have discarded it
> immediately as biased, of questionable origin and misleading.
Understood, but respect and regard is given to anyone with an
unfortunate experience. They are visabily upset and may have an axe to
grind and feel they are saving others by warning them away from lasik.
Malcontents exaggerate slightly and have a pessimistic view of
lasik(and refractive surgury in general) but they are the ones with
first hand experience of a lasik failure. Whenever someone reads their
disaster story, they usually feel sympathy and empathy and extend their
condolences. Whatever they want to say in the story does not undermine
the reality of the risks they took(sometimes unknowly) and lost.
> I personally know two people and know four friends of friends who have
> had it done. All had absolutely no problems except me and the
> undercorrection.
I know at least 3 people, two recently. One recent one was this 26 year
old lady who got lasik back in 2000 for -7 high myopia and she ended
20/30 with poor night vision but she said she was happy anyway. I see a
little better than her with my glasses during the day and much better
at night. She doesnt need glasses and her night vision is due to her
big pupils and aberrations which glasses wouldnt help. The other person
was my relative's husband, about 40 who got zapped in 2003 for his -3
myopia with good results save for some "spreading" of lights at night
which he said was no big deal. He will soon need readers, but his
slight monovision is buying him a few years.
> Well that was my pretty much my point. The actual dioptre/snellen link
> is individual. You can get a ball park from other people but it is
> sometimes dangerous. My eyes were -0.5 and -0.75 (I reckon they are back
> to -1 now) so by rights I should see 20/40 but I certainly do not and if
> I were to base my enhancement decision on that then I would be mistaken.
well you also have a little astigmatism which needs to be factored in.
Therefore youd see worse than 20/40. In the case, a spherical
equivalent is taken. Optometrists have a very good idea of the
correlation because they test people everyday. They say -1 sphere, no
cylindar in a healthy eye that corrects to 20/20 sees 20/40 without
correction. How well you correct is the biggest factor, someone that
corrects to only 20/30 is going to see more like 20/60 at -1 vs.
someone that corrects to 20/20 sees 20/40 at -1. I was 20/50 at -1
sphere, -.5 cylindar back when I was 12. I guess this is where you
probably are so I can see why you want enhancement for your 20/50
vision.
> I forget what is was like to be at -3.5 which I would have been when I
> was about 14 or 15 if my eyes deteriorated linearly. I can remember
> being able to see what I was doing in the swimming pool but when I
> was -5 then I could see practically nothing. I guess slightly less blind
> is OK but it really is great to be able to go about most of my day
> without glasses
I also forget but I remember being -4.25 at 17, actually much thru high
school I was in the -4 range. I got a little worse, ending at -5.5 but
thanks to vision improvement, I am seeing as "well" as I did years ago.
Because NVI is better vision for free, any improvement is welcomed,
there is nothing to lose. One perk I really like is I can now see my
digital clock, although blurry by my bed without squinting or leaning
in close. More improvement will make the digital clock much clearer and
easier to see. Funny thing but lots of people after lasik exclaim how
wonderful it is to see the clock when they wake up. NVI is letting me
achieve the same objective. Ive also noticed I can see other details as
well. I have simulated what -3.5 is and the amount of details I can see
significently improves. Most noticable is I can read from a comfortable
distance and not need to hold books close to my face  so in short,
less myopia makes your life easier and if I can achieve the goal
naturally and safely, why not?
> - I haven't put mine on since Sunday night and that was
> to drive. Even with the less that ideal result then I would still
> recommend Lasik, which I think is one of the main points we've discussed
> in this thread and one that will perhaps be of most use to the lurkers.
> The other has been the readers issue but I think that will depend on the
> individual and the trends in his/her locality.
lurkers are learning tons. They are learning that lasik reduces
dependancy on glasses and if your enhance takes you where you want,
eliminate glasses till you need readers. This also goes to show why
nearly everyone I know with 20/40 vision(prescription -.75 to -1 with
very little or no astigmatism) go without glasses most or all the time.
I went without glasses much of the time till I got to -2. I wish my
eyes were better!
> I didn't get on the PC last night because I was made to go to a barbeque
> where most of the guests were maths teachers :-( I don't think my screen
> name is particularly sensitive so I can tell you it's TomLucasB. Seeing
> as it's Friday tonight then I think I'm getting dragged somewhere by the
> girlfriend (I wanted to go to the pub) but I should find a bit of time
> to logon before I go - likely about 19:30 to 20:00 which will be 16:30
> to 17:00 your time which should fit in.
Will do, added you to my buddy list. Hope to catch you on AIM. You have
email too. Check the other threads, I replied to your posts there too
|
|