| Tom Lucas 2006-08-31, 8:31 am |
| "Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1156962216.836987.59660@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> Tom Lucas:
<reinstate context>
>
>
> 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.
Not sure what you mean by "tenderous". No matter, the original point was
what is meant by "debilitating" complications because that is critical
to the debate. A short term problem is life inconveniencing but not life
ending even if it's severe for a while and it is misleading and
deceitful to group the long term and short term problems together.
>
>
> The bigger issue at hand is *what* is causing the slight blur.
I suspect that she simply didn't quite get to plano - that is far more
likely than some nefarious HOA disaster.
> If its high order aberrations and/or complex irregular astigmatism,
> its quite
> a big deal and quality of vision would be much reduced.
No it's not and is correctable by glasses. You don't say what her BCVA
is or what it was before - there is too much information missing here to
make many inferences.
> 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.
She signed the form and knew that halo and starburst was possible.
However, if she is still slightly mypoic then she is bound to have
problems looking at spots of light which are not Lasik induced problems
and are simply blur.
>
>
> 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.
If she put on a thin pair of glasses then all will be well I suspect but
she would rather do without. No one promised her that she could throw
away her glasses only that her dependency would be reduced. Which it
has.
|