|
|
Tom Lucas:
> But that is not explicit so let's not take it as a fact until the
> meaning is known. Plus, for the short term then a lot of these
> complications are debilitating - I couldn't drive for 6 weeks until I
> got a pair of glasses. It doesn't automatically mean these people have
> smoking holes in their heads wheere eyes used to be.
Lasik complications can have a duration of a day to lifetime. Short
term complications are still annoying and may cause weeks of missed
work. Lasik isnt always the 15 minute miracle but can be a lengthy
tenderous process.
> 20/30 is better than the 20/40 which Lasik has as a (subjective) lower
> success limit. If she can see OK with glasses on at night (which I'm
> sure she can) then her night vision is not ruined and her dependency on
> glasses is reduced. Job done, break out some champagne.
The bigger issue at hand is *what* is causing the slight blur. If its
high order aberrations and/or complex irregular astigmatism, its quite
a big deal and quality of vision would be much reduced. The fact she
complains of huge halos and starbursts at night indicates HOAs. I have
never seen her with glasses, but her vision before lasik with
glasses/contacts was much better. She did eliminate her dependency on
glasses but made several tradeoffs. Not everyone wants those tradeoffs.
> The real question is has she said she considers it a failure or are you
> assuming that she is not happy? Would she have the surgery again? I'll
> bet she would.
That I didnt ask if she would do it again knowing what she knows. If
its a yes, she would rather see worse and tradeoff to not need glasses.
If its a no, then shes not satisfied with lasik at all. From her
indicators, its both. Shes "kinda" satisfied but could do without the
decrease in vision.
|
|