I had the laser surgery back in around 199, before there was Lasik (or before it was widespread). I went from 20/400 to around 20/15 to 20/20+ in both eyes, and that's still holding. I've had essentially zero side effects, except a slightly elevated sensitivity to shampoo in the eyes. However, my ophthalmologist told me to use baby shampoo. That solved the problem, plus it's way, way cheaper than normal shampoo anyhow.
Anybody have Lasik eye surgery ?
- Thread starter Dave Hess
- Start date
- Status
I've been kicking the idea around myself. Mainly because i hear about this touchless laser stuff that more or less recently came out.
you guys talk about 20/200 or 20/15, why is it that my info on my vision is -2.75/-3.25?
you guys talk about 20/200 or 20/15, why is it that my info on my vision is -2.75/-3.25?
20/20 is kind of an imprecise, different way of stating a visual aberration. The -2.75/-3.25 is an actual measure of the prescription in diopters. Those numbers indicate light/moderate myopia. I have heard of using those numbers to say something like, "My vision is 20/275 in this eye and 20/325 in that eye."
For myopic (nearsighted) people it means that what a normal eye sees at 20 feet looks like it's 200 feet away to you. 20/20 is "normal." Something like 20/15 would be better than this norm.
A negative correction is for nearsightedness and a positive correction would be for farsightedness. There are other numbers that are part of glasses prescriptions that indicate correction for various types of astigmatism.
For myopic (nearsighted) people it means that what a normal eye sees at 20 feet looks like it's 200 feet away to you. 20/20 is "normal." Something like 20/15 would be better than this norm.
A negative correction is for nearsightedness and a positive correction would be for farsightedness. There are other numbers that are part of glasses prescriptions that indicate correction for various types of astigmatism.
I have watched the procedure demo films, read pros and cons etc. I am in the end a huge chicken when it comes to my eyes. I am not too squeamish about other things either.
My vision is not so bad from my point of view and the risk factor was just too great for me. Like someone said you don't get a do over on this. That flap they peel off to get at the material underneath doesn't ever heal. Even though it stays in place for the most part there have been reports of it coming un-suctioned while swimming or other and the result can be alarming until it finds its way back in place.
May parents had it done and extolled its virtues, but after a few years they were back in glasses. One suffers from dry eyes now and he either puts in drops every couple of hours or it feels like sandpaper in there.
For those reasons and many more I will continue to wear contacts.
My vision is not so bad from my point of view and the risk factor was just too great for me. Like someone said you don't get a do over on this. That flap they peel off to get at the material underneath doesn't ever heal. Even though it stays in place for the most part there have been reports of it coming un-suctioned while swimming or other and the result can be alarming until it finds its way back in place.
May parents had it done and extolled its virtues, but after a few years they were back in glasses. One suffers from dry eyes now and he either puts in drops every couple of hours or it feels like sandpaper in there.
For those reasons and many more I will continue to wear contacts.
I guess you'll get varying opinions on this type of eye surgery......I swim a lot and a lot of it is underwater and have never had an issue. I also have the dry eyes but it doesn't bother me to the point where I feel I need eye drops although I do have a friend who continually uses drops....everyone is different.
As I said and will say again; I'd do it again without a minutes worth of thought but only because I didn't suffer any ill effects.....it could be much different next time. As for now, I don't use any eyeglasses except for reading glasses at times....not always and the funny part is and probably just a coincidence but I didn't need reading glasses until after open-heart surgery....approximately six years after my eye surgery. While recuperating from the surgery I noticed I couldn't read comfortably without them.
As I said and will say again; I'd do it again without a minutes worth of thought but only because I didn't suffer any ill effects.....it could be much different next time. As for now, I don't use any eyeglasses except for reading glasses at times....not always and the funny part is and probably just a coincidence but I didn't need reading glasses until after open-heart surgery....approximately six years after my eye surgery. While recuperating from the surgery I noticed I couldn't read comfortably without them.
Originally Posted By: DBMaster
^That is what most do say. I guess since millions have had it done even a very small percentage still represents a lot of people.
It will be interesting to see how things are looking 20, 30, or 40 years after the fact.
My dad had it done in the early 90's, he was the worst one the doctor had done at the time. He was corrected for nearsightedness. The last few years hes needed reading glasses (hes over 60) but his long distance vision is still good.
I had many of the same concerns most people had on here, but his experience convinced me to go for it.
There's risk involved of course.
^That is what most do say. I guess since millions have had it done even a very small percentage still represents a lot of people.
It will be interesting to see how things are looking 20, 30, or 40 years after the fact.
My dad had it done in the early 90's, he was the worst one the doctor had done at the time. He was corrected for nearsightedness. The last few years hes needed reading glasses (hes over 60) but his long distance vision is still good.
I had many of the same concerns most people had on here, but his experience convinced me to go for it.
There's risk involved of course.
I had the old Radial Kerototomy blade surgery in 1985. Corrected from 20/400 and 20/600 to 20/20 and 20/30. Good until about 2002, when age started to get the better of me. I had LASIK in 2004, again, great correction in both eyes. Fast forward to 2013. I'm now almost 58. I went to see the same doctor that did the LASIK in 2004, this time he did a PRK procedure which is different but still uses a laser. Recovery time is much longer with PRK. My close up vision in both eyes in now excellent when before I was getting headaches from squinting at my computer all day at work. Right eye distance is good, left eye distance is poor. The doctor assures me that the left eye will settle down in another month or 2, I am 2 months past the date of the surgery now. My night vision is very bad, but the doctor wrote me a prescription which I took to Lenscrafters and had them make an inexpensive pair of glasses with anti-reflective coating to wear at night while driving, I should not need them much longer according to my doctor. I recommend the surgery to anyone who hates wearing glasses. But shop around, don't go with the places that advertise $999 per eye. Spend the money, find the best in your area and someone that you feel comfortable with. My doc is one of the best in the country and I trust him implicitly.
I was tempted to ask the previous poster which laser procedure his dad had. PRK, instead of using a flap of cornea cut with a blade (or laser) actually involves scraping away the outer layer of cornea, lasering the underlying tissue, and the waiting for the outer (epithelial) cells to grow back. Yes, longer healing time and more pain. But, supposedly, the long term outcomes are better. Also, it is just about the only laser option for former RK patients. I am no doctor. I just did a good bit of research on this about ten years ago.
There is also a process called "corneal molding." It has gone by a variety of names over the years, but it uses hard contact lenses, worn at night, to shape the cornea itself into a corrective lens. After some period of time one would not have to wear the lenses every night. The process costs about the same as any of the surgical procedures but offers the benefit of being, more or less, reversible. I only know one person (personally) who went through this. He was pleased with the results.
Add to this "clear lens replacement." This is basically cataract surgery when you don't have cataracts. Your natural lens is removed and replaced with an artificial corrective lens. This procedure is quite invasive, but surgeons have lots of experience with it (think cataract surgery) and it doesn't alter the cornea.
I guess the gist of all this is that there is no perfect solution.
There is also a process called "corneal molding." It has gone by a variety of names over the years, but it uses hard contact lenses, worn at night, to shape the cornea itself into a corrective lens. After some period of time one would not have to wear the lenses every night. The process costs about the same as any of the surgical procedures but offers the benefit of being, more or less, reversible. I only know one person (personally) who went through this. He was pleased with the results.
Add to this "clear lens replacement." This is basically cataract surgery when you don't have cataracts. Your natural lens is removed and replaced with an artificial corrective lens. This procedure is quite invasive, but surgeons have lots of experience with it (think cataract surgery) and it doesn't alter the cornea.
I guess the gist of all this is that there is no perfect solution.
Originally Posted By: DBMaster
PRK, instead of using a flap of cornea cut with a blade (or laser) actually involves scraping away the outer layer of cornea, lasering the underlying tissue, and the waiting for the outer (epithelial) cells to grow back. Yes, longer healing time and more pain.
Yep, that's what I had, PRK. I didn't find a lot of discomfort, really. My ophthalmologist had stated that a good deal of my success was attributable to my youth at the time of the procedure. Young people heal faster, plus I was able to have many years of clear vision before reading glasses eventually will catch up to me.
I've known a few people who did have problems a lot of years back. They were, unfortunately, at the upper age limits for the procedure. If I never had it done before and was offered the choice at my current age, I'd probably refuse, given that I'm entering reading glasses age territory anyhow.
I've always been fascinated by the lens replacement surgery.
PRK, instead of using a flap of cornea cut with a blade (or laser) actually involves scraping away the outer layer of cornea, lasering the underlying tissue, and the waiting for the outer (epithelial) cells to grow back. Yes, longer healing time and more pain.
Yep, that's what I had, PRK. I didn't find a lot of discomfort, really. My ophthalmologist had stated that a good deal of my success was attributable to my youth at the time of the procedure. Young people heal faster, plus I was able to have many years of clear vision before reading glasses eventually will catch up to me.
I've known a few people who did have problems a lot of years back. They were, unfortunately, at the upper age limits for the procedure. If I never had it done before and was offered the choice at my current age, I'd probably refuse, given that I'm entering reading glasses age territory anyhow.
I've always been fascinated by the lens replacement surgery.
- Status
