"If I don't have enough cornea left for enhancement then I'll be very
annoyed because they measured the thinkness to make sure there was
enough for two shots."


I see no reason you wont have enough for at *least* one enhancement and
especially an enhancement as small as yours. When I got my own lasik
consultation, I also was told I have enough cornea for two enhancement
shots. Hypothethically if I were to get anything now, it would be PRK
and I will ask for a slight undercorrection(-1 to -1.5 diopters) to
greatly reduce the risk of overcorrection and also preserve most of my
near vision so ill never need readers. My distance vision will be very
slightly blurry, not enough to "need" glasses in my opinion except for
driving and other occasional uses.



"I would consider IOLs to be a very last resort seeing as you will end
up
with no focal capacity at all."



You can get phakic IOLs which go behind the iris and does not remove
your natural crystaline lens. Personally I would never consider IOLs
unless I was a high myope and over 40. If someone isnt a candidate for
lasik, best to just stick with glasses till cateracts develop then get
cateract surgury where IOLs are inserted.


"Perhaps not at the moment but I'm still only half way through the
process. If this time next year I still see like I do now or worse then

you can put me in the 10%."


Even if you end up not being satisfied, you still got alot out of lasik
that being you see more than 10x better than before lasik and your
glasses dependancy is reduced by at least 75% and not only that, you
can look forward to not needing readers for a long time 



"I don't expect perfection and, if you remember, I went into this
accepting that if I still had to wear glasses I'd be disappointed but
not devastated. I am undercorrected so I think I should have a shot at
going for plano if the opportunity is available. Whether I get it or
not
I am better off than I was before - although whether the cost was worth

it is arguable."


youd still need to wear glasses at some point in your life after lasik
anyway. If you were presbyopic, the only way youd not need glasses is
monovision lasik. Theres a reason why lasik is touted as "reduced
dependancy on glasses" because of regression, overcorrection and of
course presbyopia. Even plano eyes need reading glasses when they get
old(er) so in my opinion, the best pescription to have depends on your
lifestyle. Because I read alot, id say -1.5 diopters would be the best.
My distance vision will still be reasonably good and at the same time,
I wont need readers except for reading tiny fine print.


"Near perfect is not an unrealistic expectation. Perfect probably is
though."


In my opinion, I would consider near perfect 20/40 vision for myopes
less than -6 and 20/60 vision for high myopes -6 and higher.


"That is where I'm trying to get to. I'm kind of there at the moment
but
it is really not good enough for the long term."


Then you can wear your glasses whenever you feel like it. For reading,
eating and using the computer you can take them off. When you become
presbyopic you wont need readers 


"Do you want to buy my old glasses ;-)"


nah, they may be a bit off for me and with natural vision improvement
they will become too strong. Frame them on the wall and laugh at them
;)


"It's very sharp with correction but without then it is not all that
good. In very bright light then I was OK identifying aircraft at an
airshow but once the ambient light comes down or my eyes get tired it
becomes tricky to see much far away."


Sounds like high order aberrations and slight loss of contrast which
make things appear dimmer, blurrier, hazier in low light.


"I'm pretty sure I could see the 20/20 line corrected and maybe a
little
of the 20/15."


Well find out once you print your eyechart. You did get an eye exam
last month and were 20/70 -1.25 gets you to 20/40 and 20/50 -1 gets you
to 20/25.


"No it is still less than 20/40 even if I squint. Snellen is a good
indicator but it doesn't directly link prescription to the line
readable."


Squinting doesnt help me either and it just strains the eye. There is a
close relationship between pescription and uncorrected visual accuracy.
For hyperopes anything goes because of accomodation but for myopes
and/or astigmastims more diopter results in expotentionally more blur.
I know I was 20/50 correctable to 20/25 at -1 back when I was 12. Do
you have your pescription records with you, what is it exactly in each
eye, including exact amount and axis of cylindar?


"I'm pretty sure there is a loss of contrast night or day but it is not

major and I'm not concerned. At night then things are blurrier, not
necessarily darker, and light points do have halo and star bursts
extending from them. A candle at 6 yards might have about a half inch
of
halo so it is not a big deal and not much different from before."


Gotcha. I am just trying to understand what you are seeing now. I can
describe what 20/50 vision is for me with my slightly weaker
glasses(about -1) Everything is of course perfectly clear at 1 meter.
There is a very slight softness or fuziness in the distance. I can
still see and read almost anything, its just not razor sharp and black
but grayish. I can reconize faces quite a ways. All the details of the
objects I am seeing are there, just a little soft. My brother is 20/60
uncorrected and goes around without glasses. Likewise, nearly all of my
friends with 20/40 to 20/60 vision choose to go without glasses(they
didnt have lasik, were just like that) I guess you can consider them
less picky than you. I am not going to argue that, each person has a
different tolerance to blur. My tolerance to blur would be 20/50 to
20/100 depending on where I am. If im at home, I can get around easily,
including use the computer at 20/100. Your tolerance to blur may be
much less, another reason your not happy when others would be happy.


"I mean that I can just about get by
for a month but any longer will require a better solution."


which you did but now that you have glasses, you can wear them whenever
you want.


"That's more or less where I am now. Whilst you're happy with that I
would say that you are exceptionally tolerant of it. I don't think I
have unrealistic expectations to ask for better vision that this."


The enemy of good is better. If you pass the plano mark and end up
hyperopic you are going to be just as unhappy if not more. You dont
even need to be presbyopic to feel the effects of farsightness. Its
like wearing glasses that are *too* strong. Gives you a headache and
eyestrain, especially from up close. I know someone in his early 20s
who ended up +.75 in each eye and while he sees 20/20 distance and
clear enough from near, hes not happy. The surgeon doesnt want to
enhance him because hes 20/20 and can even see well enough from near to
read. He told the surgeon he doesnt like being farsighted, its a strain
on the eyes when reading and in 10 years he will need bifocals so he
wants to get enhanced now.......Its easy to overshoot such a low
residual pescription and besides, enhancement has its risks, its
basically getting lasik again, giving it a second round under the
laser. There is no guarantee where youll end up or what complications
can occur. Surgeons are very reluctant to enhance better than 20/40
and/or less than -1 which you supposedly are less than -1. Why you
arent seeing good despite such a low residual pescription is very, very
puzzling. You were 20/50 when you were -1 so why are you still 20/50
now that your less than -1?



"I don't have a snellen target. It must be good enough for me to go
about
my day without having to think about my eyesight. That deosn't  require

perfection but I guess it would need to be at least 20/30 for me to
have
the confidence to pick out other aircraft when I'm gliding (I think you

guys call it soaring?). It's not an unrealistic expection for an
enhancement considering they are just fine tuning now I am a low
myope."


It would be much more simple to just wear glasses for driving, flying
or other mission critical objectives. Even I would do the same but for
anything else, no glasses needed. see above for my reply about
enhancement


"I certainly wouldn't want to force the surgeon into anything unless it

was obvious he was making a commercial decision rather than a medical
one."


I suggest you talk with him carefully reguarding the decision. ask
about possible overcorrection as well. Even if he says yes, he may tell
you theres a chance for overcorrection.


*countinued in next post*

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

"Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1152226525.129313.308000@j8g2000cwa.googlegroups.com..
>  Hypothethically if I were to get anything now, it would be PRK
> and I will ask for a slight undercorrection(-1 to -1.5 diopters) to
> greatly reduce the risk of overcorrection and also preserve most of my
> near vision so ill never need readers.

In which case I think you'd really be wasting your time. Why not just
have them done right? You're 24 and I'm 26 so there's likely to be at
least 15-20 years before presbyopia becomes a real concern and by then
there may well be technological advances to counteract it. I'd rather
have 20 years of great vision and chance the readers than spend the time
with distance glasses on.
>
> Even if you end up not being satisfied, you still got alot out of
> lasik
> that being you see more than 10x better than before lasik and your
> glasses dependancy is reduced by at least 75% and not only that, you
> can look forward to not needing readers for a long time 

If nothing else I am no longer functionally disabled without glasses and
that in itself is a success.
>
> "Near perfect is not an unrealistic expectation. Perfect probably is
> though."
>
> In my opinion, I would consider near perfect 20/40 vision for myopes
> less than -6 and 20/60 vision for high myopes -6 and higher.

I think those over -6 can expect 20/40 as well - that is what the Lasik
clinics are aiming for. It's quite a wide target to hit so it makes
sense to aim for that.

> Then you can wear your glasses whenever you feel like it. For reading,
> eating and using the computer you can take them off. When you become
> presbyopic you wont need readers 

You seem to really loathe the idea of reading glasses. I wouldn't have
much of a problem with it and very few of the older people I hang out
with consider it to be a burden either. The only time it is ever a
problem is when I'm in the pub and want to show them something on my
phone or a book/newspaper and none of them have brought their readers
with them. That is a logistics problem more than a medical one.

> Sounds like high order aberrations and slight loss of contrast which
> make things appear dimmer, blurrier, hazier in low light.

I do have an high level of spherical aberrations and quite high coma and
trefoil so that is bound to be a factor. I haven't got my prescription
to hand but my astigmatism was never particularly bad. Contrast loss is
neither here nor there and is something that doesn' t have any real
impact.

> Squinting doesnt help me either and it just strains the eye.

Squinting certainly helps me but there is good physics behind it because
it creates the pin-hole camera effect which greatly improves focus. Well
it would if your eyelids formed a pinhole. With skin and eyelashes the
effect is somewhat reduced :-)

> Gotcha. I am just trying to understand what you are seeing now. I can
> describe what 20/50 vision is for me with my slightly weaker
> glasses(about -1) Everything is of course perfectly clear at 1 meter.
> There is a very slight softness or fuziness in the distance. I can
> still see and read almost anything, its just not razor sharp and black
> but grayish. I can reconize faces quite a ways. All the details of the
> objects I am seeing are there, just a little soft.

Faces become tricky for me at about 20 feet unless it is so in bright
light and less if it's darker. Things are quite clear for me up to 4 to
6 feet, although small text is a probelm (but that has always been the
case). The distance I can read license plates from has pushed out very
slightly from when we last discussed it but I can now tell the time on
the Windows XP clock from about 4 feet which is better than a few weeks
back. My blur at distance is more than what you're describing though.
Looknig at the edge of a wall 10 feet a way then the edge blurs to about
a quarter inch either side of where it should be.

> "That's more or less where I am now. Whilst you're happy with that I
> would say that you are exceptionally tolerant of it. I don't think I
> have unrealistic expectations to ask for better vision that this."

> The enemy of good is better. If you pass the plano mark and end up
> hyperopic you are going to be just as unhappy if not more. You dont
> even need to be presbyopic to feel the effects of farsightness. Its
> like wearing glasses that are *too* strong.

As I say, I'm not being unrealistic. The equipment should be able to
consistently achieve 20/40 on nearly all patients so I'd be very unlucky
not to get there after an enhancement. The cahnce of overcorrection is
as high as it was on my first zap.

> Its easy to overshoot such a low
> residual pescription and besides, enhancement has its risks, its
> basically getting lasik again, giving it a second round under the
> laser.

The equipment is accurate and an overshoot is not very likely and would
only be small anyway. I could live with a little hyperopia while my eye
is young enough to accommodate it. Good 'ol regression will probably
take care of it long term. A lot of the risks are reduced on the second
time round. The flap is already cut so they can't make a mess of cutting
it and the big correction has already been applied and found to have few
side effects.

> I also am used to glasses but isnt it nice to depend less on them?
> Yea I can understand having to think if glasses should be worn or not
> when your vision is not terrible. Doesnt it feel good when you take
> your glasses off that everything is only a little blurry instead of
> just disapearing into a blob of colors? 

It is nice to be free of glasses but it would be better if I could be
truly free of them.

> I was under the impression if you exercised your eyes and improved
> them
> enough, you could avoid an enhancement.

You seem very against my enhancement but you were against me going for
the surgery in the first place. There are risks in the enhancement but
they are low and I have come to terms with them. I've had so much
improvement from the original surgery that I have every reason to hope
that an enhancement will go well too. I do appreciate your concern and
understand that you have reservations about all RS but the statistics
are in my favour and I have already thought about how I might live with
certain complications.

> Probably more like a lifetime of good vision(in my opinion)
> nonwithstanding a long term complication. Either way, you will never
> have eyes anywhere near as bad as it was before lasik, that much you
> can agree. 

Yes, in terms of reducing my dependency on glasses then the Lasik was a
huge success. However, I have a chance to make it even better with the
enhancement.

>
> This is an interesting discussion about lasik and vision. Try to make
> time to check out your own vision with and without glasses using the
> eyechart to print.(page 3 of 5, 100% actual size) and also find out
> exactly what pescription is in each eye both myopia and astigmastim. I
> wish you luck on improvement :D

I'll see if I get a chance this weekend but my dad is coming down to
stay so we'll have to go and do the touristy thing around London. I
spend three hours a day travelling there and back so I'm sick of the
place but the relations always want to see the sights and at least it
makes a change to be there without having to go to work :-)

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

You are wasting your time trying to drum any sense into Ace..   but
good luck trying.

His other alias has had lasik performed.  Maybe chat with that alter
ego of his.


On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 10:09:47 +0100, "Tom Lucas"
<news@REMOVEautoTOflameREPLY.clara.co.uk> wrote:

>
>"Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1152226525.129313.308000@j8g2000cwa.googlegroups.com.. 
>
>In which case I think you'd really be wasting your time. Why not just
>have them done right? You're 24 and I'm 26 so there's likely to be at
>least 15-20 years before presbyopia becomes a real concern and by then
>there may well be technological advances to counteract it. I'd rather
>have 20 years of great vision and chance the readers than spend the time
>with distance glasses on. 
>
>If nothing else I am no longer functionally disabled without glasses and
>that in itself is a success. 
>
>I think those over -6 can expect 20/40 as well - that is what the Lasik
>clinics are aiming for. It's quite a wide target to hit so it makes
>sense to aim for that.
> 
>
>You seem to really loathe the idea of reading glasses. I wouldn't have
>much of a problem with it and very few of the older people I hang out
>with consider it to be a burden either. The only time it is ever a
>problem is when I'm in the pub and want to show them something on my
>phone or a book/newspaper and none of them have brought their readers
>with them. That is a logistics problem more than a medical one.
> 
>
>I do have an high level of spherical aberrations and quite high coma and
>trefoil so that is bound to be a factor. I haven't got my prescription
>to hand but my astigmatism was never particularly bad. Contrast loss is
>neither here nor there and is something that doesn' t have any real
>impact.
> 
>
>Squinting certainly helps me but there is good physics behind it because
>it creates the pin-hole camera effect which greatly improves focus. Well
>it would if your eyelids formed a pinhole. With skin and eyelashes the
>effect is somewhat reduced :-)
> 
>
>Faces become tricky for me at about 20 feet unless it is so in bright
>light and less if it's darker. Things are quite clear for me up to 4 to
>6 feet, although small text is a probelm (but that has always been the
>case). The distance I can read license plates from has pushed out very
>slightly from when we last discussed it but I can now tell the time on
>the Windows XP clock from about 4 feet which is better than a few weeks
>back. My blur at distance is more than what you're describing though.
>Looknig at the edge of a wall 10 feet a way then the edge blurs to about
>a quarter inch either side of where it should be.
> 
> 
>
>As I say, I'm not being unrealistic. The equipment should be able to
>consistently achieve 20/40 on nearly all patients so I'd be very unlucky
>not to get there after an enhancement. The cahnce of overcorrection is
>as high as it was on my first zap.
> 
>
>The equipment is accurate and an overshoot is not very likely and would
>only be small anyway. I could live with a little hyperopia while my eye
>is young enough to accommodate it. Good 'ol regression will probably
>take care of it long term. A lot of the risks are reduced on the second
>time round. The flap is already cut so they can't make a mess of cutting
>it and the big correction has already been applied and found to have few
>side effects.
> 
>
>It is nice to be free of glasses but it would be better if I could be
>truly free of them.
> 
>
>You seem very against my enhancement but you were against me going for
>the surgery in the first place. There are risks in the enhancement but
>they are low and I have come to terms with them. I've had so much
>improvement from the original surgery that I have every reason to hope
>that an enhancement will go well too. I do appreciate your concern and
>understand that you have reservations about all RS but the statistics
>are in my favour and I have already thought about how I might live with
>certain complications.
> 
>
>Yes, in terms of reducing my dependency on glasses then the Lasik was a
>huge success. However, I have a chance to make it even better with the
>enhancement.
> 
>
>I'll see if I get a chance this weekend but my dad is coming down to
>stay so we'll have to go and do the touristy thing around London. I
>spend three hours a day travelling there and back so I'm sick of the
>place but the relations always want to see the sights and at least it
>makes a change to be there without having to go to work :-)
>

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

"Ragnar" <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:djrsa2dj8ojir75llf9tl5bhu3oktmtcgn@4ax.com..
> You are wasting your time trying to drum any sense into Ace..   but
> good luck trying.

I'm not trying to drum anything into anyone. This thread may be useful
to others as a discussion of the pros and cons of enhancement and hasn't
been too polluted with turfwars and point scoring. There are some
unecessary insults though :-(

> His other alias has had lasik performed.  Maybe chat with that alter
> ego of his.

With a bit of luck Malcontent has seen the error of his ways and won't
be troubling this group any more.

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

You don't seem to realize that Ace and Malcontent are the same person.


On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 16:04:59 +0100, "Tom Lucas"
<news@REMOVEautoTOflameREPLY.clara.co.uk> wrote:

>"Ragnar" <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:djrsa2dj8ojir75llf9tl5bhu3oktmtcgn@4ax.com.. 
>
>I'm not trying to drum anything into anyone. This thread may be useful
>to others as a discussion of the pros and cons of enhancement and hasn't
>been too polluted with turfwars and point scoring. There are some
>unecessary insults though :-(
> 
>
>With a bit of luck Malcontent has seen the error of his ways and won't
>be troubling this group any more.
>

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

"In which case I think you'd really be wasting your time. Why not just
have them done right? You're 24 and I'm 26 so there's likely to be at
least 15-20 years before presbyopia becomes a real concern and by then
there may well be technological advances to counteract it. I'd rather
have 20 years of great vision and chance the readers than spend the
time
with distance glasses on."


Theres a risk of overcorrection with laser surgury. Because I spend
much of my time at the computer, a slight undercorrection isnt going to
matter for using the computer. I read about ways to combat presbyopia
and it seems the only real way is a bifocal design. I read that bifocal
lasik was in clinical trials where they undercorrect a part of your
cornea so you see clear from near thru that part and clear from
distance thru the other part. There is already bifocal and multifocal
IOLs but some people complain vision isnt very clear and looks strange
thru those IOLs. whatever tricks they find to counteract presbyopia
will require additional surgury or monovision. Keeping some myopia
sounds like the most efficient way to counteract presbyopia in my
opinion. From the looks of it, any bifocal design has some compromise,
you see blurry in a part of your vision at all times. I know a bunch of
people who were annoyed with bifocals and would rather have two pairs
of glasses instead.



"If nothing else I am no longer functionally disabled without glasses
and
that in itself is a success."


Thats the biggest perk by far. Not only that, the many hours a day you
spend on the computer can now be done without glasses.


"I think those over -6 can expect 20/40 as well - that is what the
Lasik
clinics are aiming for. It's quite a wide target to hit so it makes
sense to aim for that."


If theres enough cornea, if enhancement is decided, if regression
doesnt reoccur. In my opinion, if someone is that myopic, he should be
happy not to be "blind" without glasses. Would you get lasik if you
were say a -9 and were told youll end up a little shy of 20/40? If -5
is rather bad vision, -9 is downright terrible.


"You seem to really loathe the idea of reading glasses. I wouldn't have

much of a problem with it and very few of the older people I hang out
with consider it to be a burden either."


Were they nearsighted and got lasik or always had good vision
naturally? You see, been nearsighted much my life, I have taken my
ability to see perfect from near for granted. Reading glasses is still
glasses and without them you see blurry from near and not just for
reading, everything is blurry from near. Low myopes depend on glasses
as much as those who are plano do from what ive seen and if you spend
most of your time doing near work, mild myopia is actually an asset. No
one knows for sure what the future will bring in terms of presbyopia
correction, but for someone looking at that, he may need two surguries,
one to correct myopia then an additional one to correct presbyopia and
if it doesnt go exactly right, he may still need glasses for some
activities.


"The only time it is ever a
problem is when I'm in the pub and want to show them something on my
phone or a book/newspaper and none of them have brought their readers
with them. That is a logistics problem more than a medical one."


someone else would have to read it for them. However when they talk to
you or others, they see a blurry face. When they drink their beer, its
all blurry. For someone like me whos nearsighted, I dont tolerate any
blur from near. I am used to seeing blurry in the distance so it has
become a normal thing. Funny I know 


"I do have an high level of spherical aberrations and quite high coma
and
trefoil so that is bound to be a factor. I haven't got my prescription
to hand but my astigmatism was never particularly bad. Contrast loss is

neither here nor there and is something that doesn' t have any real
impact."


When you find out your exact pescription, lemmie know. So far you
believe it to be between -.5 and -.75 with less than -1 astigmastim.
Thats a spherical equivalent of -1 at most. No matter, I bet it is
still improving. If its not stable by the time its time for
enhancement, give it more time


"Squinting certainly helps me but there is good physics behind it
because
it creates the pin-hole camera effect which greatly improves focus.
Well
it would if your eyelids formed a pinhole. With skin and eyelashes the
effect is somewhat reduced :-)"


What I do is take my thumb and index finger and look thru the tiny hole
I make between the two fingers. Works far better than squinting and
lets me read at 20/70 without my glasses!


"Faces become tricky for me at about 20 feet unless it is so in bright
light and less if it's darker. Things are quite clear for me up to 4 to

6 feet"


Seeing clear at more than 1 meter would mean your less than -1 by now.
With my computer glasses, I can see clearly up to 3 feet. I see 20/80
on the snellen chart and see fairly clear in real world. I think I can
see faces to 40 feet in good light. Is it true people see differently
in the real world reguardless of their snellen vision score? I consider
my real world vision fairly good actually despite 20/80 snellen with my
computer glasses. This could be why im tolerant of an undercorrection
and how much itll reduce glasses dependancy.


"Looknig at the edge of a wall 10 feet a way then the edge blurs to
about
a quarter inch either side of where it should be."


ditto with my computer glasses. without them theres a huge 2 inch blur.



"As I say, I'm not being unrealistic. The equipment should be able to
consistently achieve 20/40 on nearly all patients so I'd be very
unlucky
not to get there after an enhancement. The cahnce of overcorrection is
as high as it was on my first zap."


I wouldnt be supprised if you improve to 20/40 at the time of
enhancement. If not you will be better than 20/40 after enhancement and
hopefully see clear in the real world too. There is more chance of
overcorrection when your so close to plano from what ive read. But if
your willing to accept.



"The equipment is accurate and an overshoot is not very likely and
would
only be small anyway. I could live with a little hyperopia while my eye

is young enough to accommodate it. Good 'ol regression will probably
take care of it long term."


Good point. I think the best analogy is golfing and you overshoot the
hole. I can be 3 feet from the hole and swing a bit too hard and
overshoot by 3 feet. You could be +.5 to +1 which you could accomodate
but itll be a real strain for near work. You might not be happy with
overcorrection either, especially when reading.


"A lot of the risks are reduced on the second
time round. The flap is already cut so they can't make a mess of
cutting
it and the big correction has already been applied and found to have
few
side effects."


Theres still risks of the flap not setting right. Also youll need to go
thru healing again.


"It is nice to be free of glasses but it would be better if I could be
truly free of them."


Of course, but not always possible for everyone. I could consider
myself free of glasses if I ignore a slight myopic blur or if plano,
hold things away at arms length and read blurry. I would still want to
wear readers if plano to make things really, really clear from near.


"You seem very against my enhancement but you were against me going for

the surgery in the first place."


I am like that in general, its my nature not to take elective risks.
Thats one reason I havent gotten lasik. I read about all the risks and
its irreversable, if your unhappy there is no going back. Also when
new, safer technologies come out to reduce myopia, ill be able to
consider those instead of being locked with lasik. Also some people
dont have a good reason or relistic expectations regarding lasik. I
know a story of a lady with low myopia who asked if she should get
lasik. Based on what she said, others said it was a bad idea and that
she wouldnt be happy. They were right. I also know people who ended up
worse after enhancement.


"There are risks in the enhancement but
they are low and I have come to terms with them. I've had so much
improvement from the original surgery that I have every reason to hope
that an enhancement will go well too."


Same here. But if you and/or your surgeon feels you dont need an
enhancement or that it wouldnt be worth it, then one wont be granted.
It feels like im trying to talk you out of one, but again thats my
opinion and only YOU and your surgeon can decide the facts. It would
suck if your still not happy after enhancement or end up with a
complication.


"I do appreciate your concern and
understand that you have reservations about all RS but the statistics
are in my favour and I have already thought about how I might live with

certain complications."


Your welcome. Only you can decide for yourself what action to take. All
I provide is opinions of what I think.


"Yes, in terms of reducing my dependency on glasses then the Lasik was
a
huge success. However, I have a chance to make it even better with the
enhancement."


The odds are in your favor, but its a risk netherless. Ive seen people
end up worse.


"I'll see if I get a chance this weekend but my dad is coming down to
stay so we'll have to go and do the touristy thing around London. I
spend three hours a day travelling there and back so I'm sick of the
place but the relations always want to see the sights and at least it
makes a change to be there without having to go to work :-)"


Ive been there before! Have fun!

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

"Ragnar" <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4ucta2trs8delp4h0mpt83n21iqjn4m53e@4ax.com..
> You don't seem to realize that Ace and Malcontent are the same person.
>

Nowhere in that post did I say that they weren't. I would hate to be as
vulgar as to accuse someone outright and I would hope that anyone using
sock puppets may take the hint from this post.

[vbcol=seagreen]
> On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 16:04:59 +0100, "Tom Lucas"
> <news@REMOVEautoTOflameREPLY.clara.co.uk> wrote:
> 

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

"Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1152318944.235657.57560@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com..
> I read that bifocal
> lasik was in clinical trials where they undercorrect a part of your
> cornea so you see clear from near thru that part and clear from
> distance thru the other part.

Are you sure it wasn't early April when you heard this? I'm not sure how
you could choose to see out of the top of your cornea verus the bottom
and the glare and halo would encroach onto either half from the other. I
guess this is why it's only a trial at the moment, however, if they can
crack dual focus then I would imagine that the big pupil problem will be
solved by the same mechanism as well.

> Would you get lasik if you
> were say a -9 and were told youll end up a little shy of 20/40? If -5
> is rather bad vision, -9 is downright terrible.

I would say that to get from -9 to -3 doesn't really achieve anything
other than allow the person to function in an emergency. If it got you
to -1 then it would be a personal choice really. You would still need
glasses for some of the time but it would be immeasurably better
than -9, I guess it would depend on whether you personally thought it
was worth the money.

> much of a problem with it and very few of the older people I hang out
> with consider it to be a burden either."
>
>
> Were they nearsighted and got lasik or always had good vision
> naturally?

No these are just ordinary old crumblies. They need their readers just
like most older folk but mypint is that they don't seem to be worried by
it and accept it as a fct of life.

> "The only time it is ever a
> problem is when I'm in the pub and want to show them something on my
> phone or a book/newspaper and none of them have brought their readers
> with them. That is a logistics problem more than a medical one."
>
>
> someone else would have to read it for them.

As a rule, they all borrow the landlady's magnifying glass and try to
squint it out in turn. I've found it's easier just to not bring in
anything small :-)

> When they drink their beer, its all blurry.

Which is the desired effect of course ;-)

> When you find out your exact pescription, lemmie know. So far you
> believe it to be between -.5 and -.75 with less than -1 astigmastim.
> Thats a spherical equivalent of -1 at most. No matter, I bet it is
> still improving. If its not stable by the time its time for
> enhancement, give it more time

Well it seems to have been pretty stable for the last 4 weeks now. My
next appointment is the middle of August so by giving it that longer
period then the stability will be easier to judge.

> Well
> it would if your eyelids formed a pinhole. With skin and eyelashes the
> effect is somewhat reduced :-)"
>
> What I do is take my thumb and index finger and look thru the tiny
> hole
> I make between the two fingers. Works far better than squinting and
> lets me read at 20/70 without my glasses!

With a clean well cut hole it is suprising what a difference it can
make.

> Seeing clear at more than 1 meter would mean your less than -1 by now.

Well that ties up with the prescription.

> Is it true people see differently
> in the real world reguardless of their snellen vision score?

I'm certain of it. I also think that vision is a highly personalised
thing anyway. Who's to say that the "blue" signal your eye sends to your
brain isn't the same as my "red" signal. Describe "blue" to me as if I'd
never seen it before. Perhaps this goes part of the way to explaining
why people have different favourite colours.

> I wouldnt be supprised if you improve to 20/40 at the time of
> enhancement.

I would certainly hope that would be the case or something will have
gone wrong. I'd like to hope for 20/30 or 20/20 seeing as it's only a
little touch up now.

> There is more chance of
> overcorrection when your so close to plano from what ive read. But if
> your willing to accept.

That it something to be considered. I'll have to see what the surgeon
says.

> Theres still risks of the flap not setting right. Also youll need to
> go
> thru healing again.

My healing response hasn't been to much of a big deal. A few drops every
so often and that damn mask at night for a month. There is the flap risk
but much of the risk lies in the cutting and that has already gone OK.
There are risks in the setting but the surgeon got it right once so I
see no reason why he couldn't do it again.

> "You seem very against my enhancement but you were against me going
> for
> the surgery in the first place."
>
> I am like that in general, its my nature not to take elective risks.
> Thats one reason I havent gotten lasik. I read about all the risks and
> its irreversable, if your unhappy there is no going back.

Well that is not strictly true. There are a lot of things that can be
done to control or fix a bad outcome, mainly with glasses and contacts,
but I do accept that ultimately there is a very small risk that you'll
end up with worse vision with no way to fix it.

> Also when
> new, safer technologies come out to reduce myopia, ill be able to
> consider those instead of being locked with lasik.

You can't really say that Lasik isn't safe. Plus you could wait a long
time for the new technology - they are not likely to spend much money on
it until they can think of anything that will be as profitable as Lasik.

> "There are risks in the enhancement but
> they are low and I have come to terms with them. I've had so much
> improvement from the original surgery that I have every reason to hope
> that an enhancement will go well too."
>
> Same here. But if you and/or your surgeon feels you dont need an
> enhancement or that it wouldnt be worth it, then one wont be granted.

As I've said, I wouldn't do anything the surgeon didn't want to do
unless it was obvious that the decision was commercial and not medical.
The surgeon is a consultant so I wouldn't imagine he has to toe the
Optical Express political line overly and leaves it up to the
councellors to handle that.

> "I'll see if I get a chance this weekend but my dad is coming down to
> stay so we'll have to go and do the touristy thing around London. I
> spend three hours a day travelling there and back so I'm sick of the
> place but the relations always want to see the sights and at least it
> makes a change to be there without having to go to work :-)"
>
>
> Ive been there before! Have fun!

We went to Kew gardens which was good if anyone is in town for a few
days. Don't put it above the other sights though, if time is limited,
and don't bother with the palace because there are much better ones
around. They also have the world's rarest tree there which was rescued
from a gorge in Australia (if you're into that sort of thing). It has a
cage all round it to protect it from people but it's more fun to tell
small children that the cage is to stop it chasing and eating small
children and then come up behind them and put a leafy branch on their
shoulder :-D

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

OK.. I was just making sure that Ace wasn't fooling you.



On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 09:13:37 +0100, "Tom Lucas"
<news@REMOVEautoTOflameREPLY.clara.co.uk> wrote:

>
>"Ragnar" <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:4ucta2trs8delp4h0mpt83n21iqjn4m53e@4ax.com.. 
>
>Nowhere in that post did I say that they weren't. I would hate to be as
>vulgar as to accuse someone outright and I would hope that anyone using
>sock puppets may take the hint from this post.
>
> 
>

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

"Are you sure it wasn't early April when you heard this? I'm not sure
how
you could choose to see out of the top of your cornea verus the bottom
and the glare and halo would encroach onto either half from the other.
I
guess this is why it's only a trial at the moment, however, if they can

crack dual focus then I would imagine that the big pupil problem will
be
solved by the same mechanism as well."


http://www.revoptom.com/index.asp?A..r />
ro323.htm


Theres several more articles. The above article also talks about
"curing" presbyopia by working around it. However it may compromise
some aspects of vision. There is bifocal IOLs and even the surgeons are
saying monofocal IOLs give better vision. I still say good old myopia
is the best workaround for presbyopia anyday.


"I would say that to get from -9 to -3 doesn't really achieve anything
other than allow the person to function in an emergency."


-3 isnt that good vision but -9 is so much worse. It wouldnt hurt to be
-3 if you are presbyopic then youll never need readers. But for younger
people, they might still not be happy at -3 even though thats 20/200 to
20/300 vision which is as much as ten times better/clearer than -9! I
dont know anyone that got lasik to go from -9 to -3. I did hear stories
of very, very high myopes of -10, -11, -12, as high as -15 getting
lasik for a partial correction. The reason is their cokebottle glasses
are so thick its unpleasent and heavy. If they ever drop or lose their
glasses, they might as well be blind.(I read a story of one woman who
was a -10 something who couldnt count the doctor's fingers held two
feet away from her face/eyes!) so in other words, its a liability to be
blind without cokebottles.


"If it got you
to -1 then it would be a personal choice really. You would still need
glasses for some of the time but it would be immeasurably better
than -9, I guess it would depend on whether you personally thought it
was worth the money."


Not just money, also worth taking a chance, a risk. You shouldnt really
need glasses at -1 except for driving at night perhaps. Feel free to
disagree but I have friends who are -1 that wear their glasses very
seldom, some not at all. I wouldnt really bother with glasses if I
improved to a -1 except perhaps for driving. The hassles of glasses is
more than a very slight blur.


"No these are just ordinary old crumblies. They need their readers just

like most older folk but mypint is that they don't seem to be worried
by
it and accept it as a fct of life."


I guess its different if you are myopic.


"Well it seems to have been pretty stable for the last 4 weeks now. My
next appointment is the middle of August so by giving it that longer
period then the stability will be easier to judge."


If its stable, there would be no improvement, no change in your myopia
and astigmastim. If theres a change, its not yet stable and more
waiting may be needed. Try not to rush an enhancement. I know someone
that rushed and got it two weeks after lasik. He got impatient and
didnt wait, hes now farsighted.


"With a clean well cut hole it is suprising what a difference it can
make."


Gets me from 20/600 to 20/60! I do have pinhole glasses but I see a
dragon eye effect thru them and im much happier and see better with
real glasses 


"I'm certain of it. I also think that vision is a highly personalised
thing anyway. Who's to say that the "blue" signal your eye sends to
your
brain isn't the same as my "red" signal. Describe "blue" to me as if
I'd
never seen it before. Perhaps this goes part of the way to explaining
why people have different favourite colours."


Color is different than visual accuracy. Even I see a subtile color
difference between my eyes. Some people have more of one color cones
than others so they see that color better. Do you know anyone thats
colorblind? My bro is a protanope. Where I see six colors in a
rainbow(red, orange, yellow, green, blue, purple), he sees only
three!(brown, yellow, blue)



"I would certainly hope that would be the case or something will have
gone wrong. I'd like to hope for 20/30 or 20/20 seeing as it's only a
little touch up now."


Yea, at least 20/30 would be nice as far as distance goes. Quality of
vision is much more important.


"There are risks in the setting but the surgeon got it right once so I
see no reason why he couldn't do it again."


Theres some independant variables when getting lasik and enhanced. Its
both skill and chance.


"Well that is not strictly true. There are a lot of things that can be
done to control or fix a bad outcome, mainly with glasses and contacts,

but I do accept that ultimately there is a very small risk that you'll
end up with worse vision with no way to fix it."


Logic tells me if someone tolerates contacts fine, there really isnt
much of a reason to get lasik. He would also be alot pickier than a
glasses wearer. I know I would be if I wore contacts then I would
accept nothing less than 20/30. With glasses the benefits are much more
cause this means thinner glasses, less dependancy and able to take your
glasses off to read. Glasses dont always fix a bad outcome. They can
only fix refractive errors and not other complications. If you already
read this here, youd see he had a complication in one eye. Its all part
of the risk.


http://groups.google.com/group/alt..c339d69b79e65dd


"You can't really say that Lasik isn't safe. Plus you could wait a long

time for the new technology - they are not likely to spend much money
on
it until they can think of anything that will be as profitable as
Lasik."


relativately speaking, but no absolutes. The anti lasik crowd considers
lasik a dangerous, un-neccessary elective surgury that gives you worse
vision than glasses. They speak of all those horrible complications. I
dont know how long the wait is, but its not like I cant see as long as
my glasses are on(or off when reading, eating) Its not just about the
money, its about benefiting society. Ive read of several new
alternatives to lasik being proposed. No guarantee when/if they will
manifast into a reality. I read about contacts that can be glued to the
eyes. That was shot down and buried under the rug. Intacs was another
alternative that has fallen out of favor but I liked the idea of Intacs
and it sounds as good, if not better than lasik for low myopes less
than -3. Theres natural vision improvement and even atropine therapy
that will reduce your myopia if you have any tonic accomodation. Almost
every young guy under 30 has .5 to 1 diopter of tonic accomodation. I
suspect I have 1 to 1.5 diopters, possibly more. Then theres orthoK
which is based on contacts but are much more convinent than regular
contacts. I belive I mentioned some of those options to you before you
got lasik and you werent interested since your myopia was too high.
Mine is also high but im reducing it with natural vision
improvement(costs nothing, no risk) What would you say to someone like
me with huge 9mm pupils? Thats one reason I havent gotten lasik, would
hurt my night vision.

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]