Happy LASIK patient? Perhaps you are unaware how much your visual function has been decreased!
southeas...@hotmail.com
Lee T. Nordan, MD:
"Happy usually means that the patient's visual function is poorer
than desired, but he isn't complaining ... today."
serebel
Completely false on every level. Totally misquoted spin.
Ace
It is faulty logic to assume all happy people are the same. Whats good
for the goose may not be for the gander. Different people have
different standards for their vision. A complication for one person may
not be a big deal for another. I have read hundreds of lasik stories
and alot of the seemly positive ones by happy lasik people still report
they have some sort of a problem, but that it was managable or livable.
Lots of people report they have dry eyes, some consider it a minor
annoyance, others a deliberating issue. There are also different levels
of happiness. Some may be extremely happy with their lasik, others just
a little happy. I dont read just bad lasik stories, but good ones too
so I can see both sides of the issue.
Just because someone may be happy with his lasik despite some
complications does *not* mean others would be. I for one would be very
unhappy if I had some of the complications described by still-happy
lasik patients. I am not a perfectionist, but even I have standards for
my vision and optical health. I do not want any of the dry eye issues
that lasik causes for everyone. Proof:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.lasik-eyes/browse_thread/thread/7f...
13. Myth
Dry eyes are temporary after Laser Vision Correction.
Fact:
With Lasik, a drier eye is common after surgery and usually permanent,
although mild for most patients. PRK however causes significant less
dryness. (See our comparison chart).
I also do not want an increase in my high order aberrations. Todays
lasers induce aberrations in all normal virgin corneas. Perhaps laser
technology a few years in the future will be refined to the point that
the average cornea ends up with *no* net increase in aberrations. Some
of you will downplay aberrations stating they dont matter. If they
didnt matter, why is wavefront being hyped(ironically, it *still*
induces aberrations!) And why is there so much reserch linking
aberrations to decreased vision, especially at night?
I *would* be happy if I was seeing thru alterego's "perfect" lasik
eyes. Serebel and Ragnar's lasik went quite well too, probably well
enough to make me happy still. But the great majority of the lasik
stories I read sound like those people had to compromise their vision
in several ways to reduce/eliminate glasses dependency. Some are *not*
happy, others a little happy, some are *still* happy, but wished
results would be perfect, but can *still* deal with what they got, not
like they have a choice anyway.
Lasik is chance, no one can predict where you will end up. You get only
one chance because lasik is irreversable. Even a good outcome does not
guarantee you wont have some lingering issues and theres always the
unknown in the long term. Let me illustrate a few stories and comment
on them:
1. "Has." It's still there and always will be. It prevent my vision
from
being "perfect," but certainly does not dimish my joy at being able to
do everything I could do with glasses or contacts, and more. It's
really sad to think that given my exact outcome on a pessimistic person
you get someone who beats themselves up daily looking at what they
don't have over what they do.
Comments: He is not picky about his vision and is just happy to rid his
"crutches" and see "well" enough to function. Would *you* be happy if
everything was a little blurry permanently, uncorrectable to pre-lasik
crisp vision. *but* your vision is much better without correction and
still functional?
2. I agree, people need to be realistic. It helps if they have a doctor
such as yours that shows them what "success" can look like. I tell
people that if they have it (after weighing all the risks) to be
prepared for it NOT to be perfect. Then if it comes out "perfect"
(whatever that means to them), great. If it doesn't, at least they
were
prepared, and as in your case and mine, less than perfect is still one
they are happy about.
Comments: Thats the whole point of lasik. To be relistic and accept
compromises and tradeoffs in your vision. Very few lasik results come
as perfect as alterego, ragnar, serebel. The odds of a "relistic"
result is high, but to expect perfecation, dont bother in the first
place.
3. I came to realize something about with my hazy night vision in one
eye,
that made me feel better about things. I realized that the good aspects
of my post-LASIK vision (e.g. the 20/20) I had begun to take for
granted, leaving me thinking only about the not-so-good.
The incident happened on a trip to Portland a few years ago. We went to
OMSI, the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry, one of those hands-on
science museums. They had an area related to disabilities, which
includes a model house where you could get in a wheelchair and wheel
around and see how it is to try to do all the daily tasks like cooking,
getting things out of high shelves, etc. while in a chair. They also
had a TDD machine to show how deaf people get phone calls.
Anyway, they also had several pairs of lenses that you put up to your
eyes to simulate various vision problems. There was one that simulated
cataracts, another tunnel vision, a few other things. Well, one simply
simulated 20/800 vision. That was the vision I had with my bad eye
pre-LASIK - I had forgotten how bad 20/800 was! Then I took that lens
away, and instant 20/20 - like having my LASIK again!
I realize I would not want to go back to that uncorrected vision, and
even though my vision now is not perfect, the LASIK tradeoff was worth
it FOR ME. I just want people to know there are tradeoffs even when the
surgery is a success, and there's a risk it won't be a success.
Comments: Not everyone would be happy with this outcome. Glasses can
also correct 20/800 vision, just as mine do. I too am 20/800 in my
worse eye, correctable with glasses. I would consider that person's
lasik outcome just barely worth the tradeoff from glasses.
4. I had monovision LASIK done a month ago (12/27), and have been
mostly happy
with the result, especally in medium to brightly lighted conditions.
My -3,1.5
eye has been corrected to 20-20 Snellen. The other eye has always
worked well
for reading.
Has anyone known of this residual result, though? In low light, or
especially
while driving in the dark, I have a ghost image to the left of the
primary
image. Like the main image, the ghost is in focus. As examples, if
there is a
square, reflective sign ahead on a dark road, at 100 yds there is an
extra half
of the sign extending from the left of the main image. It's only about
1/4 as
bright as the main image, but clear and readable. I see car taillights
with a
ghost next to them, and looking at the moon and stars has the same
effect.
By the way, covering my other, untreated eye, doesn't help(yes, I
thought of
that). At the one-week and one-month followup exams, the docs don't
know what
it is. I even simulated it for them with a PowerPoint image of a
couple of
types of highway signs. It won't go away in refraction checks. They
say
they'll do a cornea mapping next month if it's still there, but the
flap is
perfectly in place.
The ghost image is there across the color spectrum, and shows up on a
TV screen
in a dim room as well. Playing tennis under lights, I see a
ball-and-a-half.
The image is more of a distracton than anything, but I can't say I'm
entirely
happy with the LASIK result while it's there.
Any ideas? My pupil size in dim light was only 5 mm.
Thanks for your "insights."
Comments: He has good reason to be unhappy about the ghosting. He is
mostly happy in well lit conditions. This story illustrates the fact
someone can be both happy and unhappy with their lasik.
southeas...@hotmail.com
Ace, I think the issue is that since informed consent is so poor with
LASIK, some patients are 'happy' because they don't know the nature and
extent of the damage to their eyes.
A person could have a thin spot in a blood vessel and not know about it
until it causes a problem (a stroke). LASIK patients have
thinned/weakened corneas that may also pose future problems! Patients
develop ectasia from LASIK. Patients have late flap dislocations...
years after surgery.
The people who DO understand the nature and extent of the damage to the
eye caused by LASIK eye surgery didn't stop this harmful surgery from
moving forward. They supressed the nature and extent of this damage.
The FDA went along for the ride.
Now patients are having permanent, debilitating problems from an
elective surgery on a vital sensory organ. More post-LASIK problems
will develop as the years go by and patients age.
As Dr. Nordan stated... the happy patients... "aren't complaining YET".
Ragnar
conditions are.
If a consent form is short, you complain that the patient wasn't
warned.
If a consent form is long, you complain that the doctor is excluding
himself from any liability.
Personally, I would prefer either no consent form, or to have a form
that I did not have to sign. If there IS a problem with any medical
procedure, I would like to be able to sue the doctor. LVI's consent
form exonerates the surgeon from all liability including death (even
though nobody has never died from lasik - the only surgery that has
yet to have a fatatility).
It just amazes me that you malcontents attack the safest, most
predictable, most accurate, most performed surgery, with miraculous
benefits.
serebel
southeas...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Ace, I think the issue is that since informed consent is so poor with
> LASIK, some patients are 'happy' because they don't know the nature and
> extent of the damage to their eyes.
Sad how you have to cling to a retard to justify your rants.
>
> A person could have a thin spot in a blood vessel and not know about it
> until it causes a problem (a stroke). LASIK patients have
> thinned/weakened corneas that may also pose future problems! Patients
> develop ectasia from LASIK. Patients have late flap dislocations...
> years after surgery.
>
More flappie paranoia, maybe lasik patients pinky nails will fall
off too.
> The people who DO understand the nature and extent of the damage to the
> eye caused by LASIK eye surgery didn't stop this harmful surgery from
> moving forward. They supressed the nature and extent of this damage.
> The FDA went along for the ride.
The obligitory conspiracy theory. Where did they bury the survivors?
>
> Now patients are having permanent, debilitating problems from an
> elective surgery on a vital sensory organ. More post-LASIK problems
> will develop as the years go by and patients age.
Your wish will not come true.
>
> As Dr. Nordan stated... the happy patients... "aren't complaining YET".
And they won't. Why the hell should they?
Ace
The long term effects of lasik arent fully known. Ive read that every
lasik cornea is bulging and after 20, 30, 40 years the cornea could
finally give away and become full blown ectasia. This is going to be a
very big problem when/if thousands upon thousands develop ectasia
decades after their lasik. Is corneal bulging progressive? If so, this
could eventrually led to ectasia for many! Lots and lots of people
could go blind or need corneal transplants. Ive also read that dry eyes
may be an epidemic as the lasik generation gets old. There is no such
thing as "successful" lasik. If you are lucky enough not to have
problems now, you either are in denial, are happy in spite of the
problems or will develop problems in the long term. As you put it so
well, lasik damages every eye. Lasik is pratically useless.
Tom Lucas
news:1158462380....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> southeas...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> http://www.crstoday.com/PDF%20Articles/0505/crst0505_nordan.html
>>
>> Lee T. Nordan, MD:
>>
>> "Happy usually means that the patient's visual function is poorer
>> than desired, but he isn't complaining ... today."
>
>
>
> It is faulty logic to assume all happy people are the same. Whats good
> for the goose may not be for the gander. Different people have
> different standards for their vision. A complication for one person
> may
> not be a big deal for another.
The point is that it does not matter. People get Lasik to get improved
vision not to achieve a some specification defined as Good Vision TM. If
they are happy then they got Good Vision - there is nothing else to it.
This is akin to me going out for a steak and saying that it is the best
steak I've ever eaten and you telling me that it wasn't because another
guy had a steak once and didn't really like it. There is a definition
out there of what a good steak is but I might have a steak that doesn't
match the description and absolutely love it. It doesn't matter that is
is not the officially defined steak - I am still going to leave a big
tip.
> I have read hundreds of lasik stories
> and alot of the seemly positive ones by happy lasik people still
> report
> they have some sort of a problem, but that it was managable or
> livable.
>
> Lots of people report they have dry eyes, some consider it a minor
> annoyance, others a deliberating issue.
But not _all_ people report it. It does not happen in every eye as two
members of this group can testify. You also don't distinguish between
short-term dryness, which is expected, and long term which is rare -
this is misleading for new readers.
> There are also different levels
> of happiness. Some may be extremely happy with their lasik, others
> just
> a little happy. I dont read just bad lasik stories, but good ones too
> so I can see both sides of the issue.
There are very few good Lasik stories posted which are not testimonials
on clinics web-sites because there is no reason for happy people to go
to the effort of putting their story on-line. This limited sample does
not let you see both sides of the issue and it is important to recognise
that one source of information - the internet - is insufficient to form
an informed opinion.
> Just because someone may be happy with his lasik despite some
> complications does *not* mean others would be. I for one would be very
> unhappy if I had some of the complications described by still-happy
> lasik patients. I am not a perfectionist, but even I have standards
> for
Happy is happy. Happy despite complications is happy desite
complications. Having complications that someone else is happy with does
not automatically equate happy, I agree. However, it is unimportant what
someone else has - are you happy with your own?
<snip previously debunked post with debunking conveniently removed>
Ragnar
Bassslapper
unacceptable results for one patient may be beyond expectations for
another. That is the nature of individualism.
Any kind of surgical event, however benign, will cause permanent
changes in some way. It is up to the surgeon, patient, and all other
involved parties to assess and determine if these changes are
acceptable.
Any kind of surgical event, however benign, has associated risks. It is
up to the surgeon, patient, and all other involved parties to assess
and determine if these risks are acceptable.
Pro-Lasik and Anti-Lasik camps will have agendas and will present data
in a manner that is favorable to their arguement, much like an attorney
presenting a case to a judge and jury.
When the bulk of the postings on this forum are based on heresay,
factless opinion, and altered statistical data, it lessens the
relevency of this forum as a tool for learning.
Ragnar
However.. it doesn't take into account that there are a few chronic
liars, malicious malcontents, and idiots posting misinformation here.
It's not so much an issue of opinion.. it's more an issue of obsessive
lunatics. There is no way to justify the postings of the many
aliases of Burch, Hanson, and their stooge Ace.
On 22 Sep 2006 08:41:45 -0700, "Bassslapper" <dr_g...@prodigy.net>
wrote:
Ace
Wow long time no see! How have you been doing? I agree with what you
said! You may read all my past posts for my opinions and facts on lasik.
Scott
he his.
"Ace" <acem...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1159001132.7...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
SNIP
Bassslapper
I stopped posting here and visiting all these internet forums becuase I
got tired of trying to read through all the garbage to find useful
information. All the repetitive, factless doom and gloom was getting
old.
Six years of natural vision therapy (NVI) improved my myopia, mostly
because it helped my strabismus and helped my eyes learn to work more
efficiently in tandem. At the end of the day I was still myopic and the
fact there was nothig else that could be done for it. It's like wanting
to be taller. You can stand straight and stretch but a 5'6" adult will
never be 6' just by correcting their posture.
I know oodles of people that have gotten Lasik and not one, be it
family, friends, or patients that come through my practice, and not one
has had any complications and all have been pleased with the results.
These results were more valid to me then the negative vitreole spewed
forth by many on the internet.
One day back in June I went to put my glasses on to see something and
somehow stuck myself in the eye with them. When the litany of curses
subsided, I felt enough was enough. Within 2 weeks I had Lasik
performed by a surgeon that came highly recommended by several of my
friends and colleagues who had the procedure done himself 8 years ago.
I had no complications, not even dry eyes. I can see clearly and my
up-close vision is still sharp If I end up needing reading glasses then
that isthe preferable trade off to not being able to see my infant son
make faces from across the room.
I was the biggest proponent for NVI and passionate that I would cure my
defective eyesight through hard work. Soemtimes you just have to
understand that certain things cannot be changed regardless of the
effort put forth and then a decision has to be made if the options to
correct the defect are worth the risks and potential long and short
term complcations.
Ragnar
great for strabismus (which involves the muscles of the eyes) but NVI
is not very effective for myopia.
Incidentally.. the muscles that are attached to the eye are the
strongest muscles in the body.
Watch Ace try to spin this post into some pro NVI thread.
On 24 Sep 2006 08:11:33 -0700, "Bassslapper" <dr_g...@prodigy.net>
wrote:
serebel
Bassslapper wrote:
>
> I know oodles of people that have gotten Lasik and not one, be it
> family, friends, or patients that come through my practice, and not one
> has had any complications and all have been pleased with the results.
> These results were more valid to me then the negative vitreole spewed
> forth by many on the internet.
>
Uh oh, a post like this will get one's flappie decoder ring
repossesed.
I'm glad your NVI work helped with the strabismus. Hopefully it can
work for others also.
Scott
"Ragnar" <ragna...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:v3pdh295bql1kvsgt...@4ax.com...
> One thing I would point out below that isn't obvious is that NVI is
> great for strabismus (which involves the muscles of the eyes) but NVI
> is not very effective for myopia.
> Incidentally.. the muscles that are attached to the eye are the
> strongest muscles in the body.
>
> Watch Ace try to spin this post into some pro NVI thread.
>
SNIP
Tom Lucas
news:1159110693.4...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
<snip happy tale>
Thank goodness for some good news! I've got my enhancement on Thursday
and the steady torrent of doomsaying has inevitably begun to form
doubts.
Good news stories like this put it all back into perspective and I shall
remember it as I sit in the waiting room. Thanks.
Bassslapper
is that I stopped wearing glasses and contacts all together for almost
a year prior. I only wore a reduced prescription for driving. I think
this coniditoned me to not be so critical after the procedure was done.
Corrective lenses can give us such clear and crisp vision that our
expectations of a "successful" Lasik outcome becomes convoluted from
the enhanced vision created by artifical means.
So I had nothing to really compare my outcome to excpet for my natural
myopic blur. Granted, I feel I see just fine and my post-op visits have
all been without incidence.
And the greatest feeling of all after my Lasik experience was placing
my glasses on the ground and stomping the shit out of them. I felt like
I tossed free the shackles that were visually imprisoning me. Anyone
that comes on this board with an agenda to try and scare people from
considering Lasik without any really basis for their arguements should
be ashmed of themselves. My advice is research, ask questions from
people you trust that have epxerienced, shop around and get several
opinions, have a thorough exam to make sure there are no visual or
medical contraindications, and make sure your expectations are
realistic pertaining to your individual case.
Ace
Wow we didnt know you got lasik about 3 months ago! I was wondering why
you didnt post here anymore and one of my friends said maybe you got
lasik with bad results and was too ashamed to discuss it. He was right
about the lasik, but wrong about the results. Do tell us about your
lasik! What was your prescription in each eye just prior to lasik and
how long has that prescription been stable(must be at least a year)
Its highly unusual you dont know one person in real life with bad
lasik. I know a handful in real life and they *all* have some sort of
problem. I know hundreds on the internet and at least 25% of those have
problems(that they admit) Did you get specific and ask about their
night vision, their dry eyes, if they saw a clear, crisp 20/20?
You must have poked your eye with the tip of the frame. Im sure it
happens to all, just gotta be careful :) Could you have just stuck with
contacts? You didnt seem to have any problems with them except losing
them, cheap to replace anyway. What about keep doing NVI to get closer
to plano? Did you "max" out and stop seeing improvement at some point?
I know you used to be around -4!
You will need readers if you are plano in both eyes around the age 40.
Your near vision may have decreased after lasik and you find that you
cant focus so close anymore. You chose distance over near.
NVI *did* work for you, it didnt get you to plano, but got you a long
way. We have talked about this months ago and you were on the fence,
unsure about lasik, not convinced of the long term complications. What
changed your mind 3 months ago? Were you worried about the risks? How
would you have dealt with any complications?
Ace
Just go ahead with the enhancement, its tomorrow! You have thought
about it for months and already decided. I will be behind you wishing
you luck! Please post about the enhancement asap!
Tom Lucas
I'm not back at work until Monday so you'll have to wait...
Ace
If you see well enough and are allowed to use the computer x days after
lasik, maybe ill see you online on the weekend to chat by IMs.
Ragnar
vision or if your vision turns out to be a disaster?
I am sure he would jump for joy and do cartwheels if you went blind.
You don't seem to be fooled by his false empathy.
Tom Lucas
> Hey Tom... do you think Ace would be happier if you get improved
> vision or if your vision turns out to be a disaster?
> I am sure he would jump for joy and do cartwheels if you went blind.
>
> You don't seem to be fooled by his false empathy.
I don't think Ace would take pleasure in my bad luck but I suspect he
would use my example to support whichever of his theories is flavour of
the month at that time. Last month if I lost a line of BCVA it would
have been due to dirt under the flap, this month it would be due to
higher order aberrations.
From his recent posts it would appear that some particularly malicious
malcontent has his ear so I suspect that next month any problems would
be due to the industry covering up the inadequacies of the Lasers.
Bassslapper
As I said earlier, I felt I went as far as I could with NVT and made a
decision after weighing the risks vs. rewards.
When I poked myself in the eye with the glasses, it was with the part
of the arm that goes over the ear. I got so mad I threw them across the
room and left them on the floor. The next day my wife accidently
stepped on them and broke them. I did not care. I was tired of being a
visual cripple. IMO, there is no therapy better or worse when it comes
to soft contacts, glasses, ortho-K, hard contacts, or any form other
form of corrective removeable device. I wanted to not rely on any
artificial removeable means to correct my vision.
I have been in situations where I lost or tore a contact or broke
glasses and the gamut of emotions felt (angst, anger, anxiety) was
something I refused to continue delaing with. I remember saying to you
before that if the world ended tomorrow, I did not want to worry about
where to get fluids for my contacts. A more realistic reference would
be if a disaster such as hurricane Katrina hit, I do not want to worry
about being able to see. If you drop your glasses into 8 feet of
contaminated water, forget it. They're gone.
Now I can see the TV, see the clock in the mroning, and see my 20 month
old son's faces from across the room. I can drive without correction.
No more dry eyes or scratches from contacts or limited visual field
from glasses. If I need readers in a few years then that is a trade off
I am willing to accept. Better to need readers occasionaly then
distance correction all the time.
The bottom line is I had a profound aversion to any form of removeable
visual corrective device so my options were whittled down to Lasik if I
wanted to see without the use of visual aids. I felt the short and long
term reisks were worth it. I do not dwell on my vision anymore or
obscess like I did when I had glasses and contacts. My quality of life
has improved, both physically (I can see) and mentally (I am not
obscessed/depressed/angry anymore).
My Lasik experience went over without any complications but I made sure
to thoroughly research and review all the pros and cons. I also made
sure to find a surgeon I felt comfortable with. No one can predict with
certainty how a procedure will turn out but by taking it upon yourself
to be thoroughly versed in your case, the likelihood of a successful
outcome is increased.
Ace
Bassslapper said:
> Ace,
>
> As I said earlier, I felt I went as far as I could with NVT and made a
> decision after weighing the risks vs. rewards.
I understand.
> When I poked myself in the eye with the glasses, it was with the part
> of the arm that goes over the ear. I got so mad I threw them across the
> room and left them on the floor. The next day my wife accidently
> stepped on them and broke them. I did not care.
That must have weighed in your decision for lasik.
> I was tired of being a
> visual cripple. IMO, there is no therapy better or worse when it comes
> to soft contacts, glasses, ortho-K, hard contacts, or any form other
> form of corrective removeable device. I wanted to not rely on any
> artificial removeable means to correct my vision.
That would be impossible because of presbyopia. Everyone who isnt
myopic will need
a device to enable them to see clear from near. Monovision itself is a
tradeoff and I personally hate it. Myopia is both good and bad, good in
you see from near, bad in you blur from distance.
> I have been in situations where I lost or tore a contact or broke
> glasses and the gamut of emotions felt (angst, anger, anxiety) was
> something I refused to continue delaing with. I remember saying to you
> before that if the world ended tomorrow, I did not want to worry about
> where to get fluids for my contacts. A more realistic reference would
> be if a disaster such as hurricane Katrina hit, I do not want to worry
> about being able to see. If you drop your glasses into 8 feet of
> contaminated water, forget it. They're gone.
You arent "blind" without glasses. Youll see less but enough that youll
escape any disaster that doesnt require you to read tiny text or see
tiny details from a mile away. Ive broke my glasses before, just fell
back on my spare pair and ordered a new one. Ive even forgotten my
glasses on rare occasions and I was able to get around fairly well.
Perhaps I left my glasses at home when my dad drove us somewhere. I see
far worse than you do and I could easily function in just about any
emergency.
> Now I can see the TV, see the clock in the mroning, and see my 20 month
> old son's faces from across the room. I can drive without correction.
> No more dry eyes or scratches from contacts or limited visual field
> from glasses. If I need readers in a few years then that is a trade off
> I am willing to accept. Better to need readers occasionaly then
> distance correction all the time.
I can see my digital clock too without even squinting, granted its very
blurry. I always wear glasses for TV and driving. I see fine for
reading and eating without glasses(much better without than with!) If
you tolerated contacts, they would not bother you one bit except the
part of inserting/removing them. Ive tried contacts and they dry my
eyes and give a general achiness to my eyes. I havent really noticed
the increased field of vision. The thing I do notice is no minification
and no weight on my ears and nose. You must not do much reading. Dont
forget youll see everything blurry from near which will get worse as
your presbyopia worsens. You may need readers for brushing your teeth,
eating meals, using the computer, telling time on your watch, seeing
someone's face clearly at closer range, everything within about 5 feet
will be blurry. I have simulated this with my old -5.5 glasses(am now
-4.5 due to NVI) and things to about 3 feet were blurry. I placed +1
readers over -5.5 glasses and was amazed to see all the details in the
table 3 feet away from me! Near vision may be less important than
distance for you, but for me, near is much more important. When I get
orthoK, I wont mind being -1 to -2 and probably, ill end up there
anyway as my prescription is a little high for a full correction(will
be getting an oversized zone) which I dont care in the least. Ill take
glasses for driving/movies anyday over reading, eating, computers,
everything nearby.
> The bottom line is I had a profound aversion to any form of removeable
> visual corrective device so my options were whittled down to Lasik if I
> wanted to see without the use of visual aids. I felt the short and long
> term reisks were worth it. I do not dwell on my vision anymore or
> obscess like I did when I had glasses and contacts. My quality of life
> has improved, both physically (I can see) and mentally (I am not
> obscessed/depressed/angry anymore).
There was PRK, a popular alternative, especially for low(er) myopes
like you. Even intacs would have worked and they are considerabily
safer and also reversable via extraction. You may read about them, do a
google search. There also will be other options in the future such as
epithelial thinning, myopic CK, long lasting orthoK, etc. Only you can
decide if the risks are worth it. From what I know about lasik, I
consider it far too risky. I will be trying orthoK once I have the
money for it(you were a success and gave up after losing a lens rather
than buying another) OrthoK sounds simple enough and far less of a
hassle than glasses. What would *you* have done if your lasik didnt go
well? What if complications occur in the future? How would you deal
with it?
> My Lasik experience went over without any complications but I made sure
> to thoroughly research and review all the pros and cons. I also made
> sure to find a surgeon I felt comfortable with. No one can predict with
> certainty how a procedure will turn out but by taking it upon yourself
> to be thoroughly versed in your case, the likelihood of a successful
> outcome is increased.
This is a risk I refuse to take. I am much more tolerant of glasses
than you are and there is orthoK for me to try. I will have a spare
lens for each eye in case of breakage/losage. I can and will deal with
the very slight hassles of inserting, sleeping and removing them every
other night. If for some unlikley reason id rather wear glasses because
orthoK didnt satisfy me, ill stick with glasses till something better
and safer comes out in the future as an alternative or replacement to
lasik.
How long ago exactly did you get lasik? Has it been 3 months yet? What
was your exact prescription before lasik in each eye? You said about
-2.5 but didnt know for sure. What is your prescription now and are you
20/20 or how close?
Thanks sir for your time reading and replying! Keep in touch on the
progress of your lasik. Good luck!
Ragnar
Basslapper is at all interested in your stupid opinions.
BTW.. you are still completely wrong about presbyopia.
One other thing you mention which your are also completely wrong about
is monovision. People tend to love monovision. I personally don't
think I would like monovision.... but the people I know of who have
had it done love it.
Frankly, until you have experienced it.. you don't really know what
you are talking about..and you should not attempt to even offer an
opinion. I know of eye doctors who have perfect vision.. which for
them is actually not good.. because they have no first hand experience
with what it is like to be dependant upon glasses or to wear contact
lenses.
It doesn't seem to matter toyou that you have no experience other than
glasses.. yet you attempt to post as if you think you know what you
are talking about.
One example I can think of that illustrates the value of experience is
Glenn's refractive surgery. The quality of his posts increased quite
a bit after he had his surgery. He didn't necessarily change his
opinions.. but he now expresses his opinions in a far more realistic
way without dwelling upon trivial points that are not very relevant.
In short.. you remind me of my grandmother who has never driven a car
in her life.. yet she thinks she is the world's expert about driving.
Bassslapper
complications, not even dry eys. My vision is 20/15. Night vision is
fine. I can see/read/drive fine.
Ace, no offense, but ot insist that everyone will become
symptomatically presbyopic in their mid-40's to 50 is a little extreme.
And I do lots of reading and my profession requires acute, clear close
vision. And who the hell really needs to see to brush their teeth? What
are you looking for? Are your glasses so powerful that they allow you
to discern microscopic plaque build-up?
On those occasions that I lost one contact and had to go around with
one I hated it so I doubt monovision would have been a viable
alternative for me. Poking myself in the eye with my glasses was the
icing on the cake.
Since I found ortho-K to be an inconvenience and annoying, I would
hardly label it a success even though I could see during the day. Also,
by evening my cornea was already reverting back to it's natural myopic
form so I was having blurry distance vision by evening. And I may not
have been "blind" but my vision was poor enough that it affected my
life in an adverse and negative way.
The bottom line is after 23 years of visual prison, I can see close,
far, up, down, sideways, and at whatever distance without corrective
eyeware. Isn't that enough? This constant barrage of negativity is
getting old. This is why I have not logged onto this forum in a month.
I have been liberated, thrown away my visual crutches and embraced the
world with my newfound vision. My family and friends have noticed a
change in my attitude because I am not obsessing over my crappy vision
anymore. I am not throwing money away on glasses, contacts, solutions,
and optometrists anymore. I CAN SEE!!!! That which was taken away from
me at age 14 was returned to me at age 37.
When you can take your glasses and smash them under foot or with a
sledgehammer, it is the most exhilerating, liberating feeling out
there. Gotta go, football is on and I want to enjoy watching it clearly
from across the room ;)
Bassslapper
Ace
Sorry but presbyopia is a fact. You knew about this and by getting
lasik, was prepared to end up in readers in a few short years if you
want crisp near vision. You did say distance is more important and the
tradeoff would be worth it(to the tune of $4000 and risks)
You were -4 when you got orthoK. This is the limit of what orthoK can
treat(with a 6mm zone) so its no supprise the results lasted only 8
hours before starting to revert. But then its still far better than no
correction! You hate glasses and contacts much more than me, so much in
fact you went around without correction! Yes you did free yourself of
distance glasses and ended up dead on plano. There is alot of
negatively on lasik. Even you werent convinenced of the safety and long
term results.(neither am I) But I guess you just had enough with
glasses and slightly blurry UCVA when not wearing glasses that you just
didnt care anymore and decided to take your chances with lasik. I am
not a risk taker and all the negatively on lasik makes me wonder why
some still are willing to risk lasik, especially if they are informed
as I am. Im sure something better is due in the near future that will
displace or replace lasik. In the meantime, I will give orthoK a shot
that will nearly eliminate my glasses dependency(without needing
readers) I am 24 so ill still not be old when something better and
safer comes out. I guess you are at a different point in life that you
just want to enjoy what is out *now* before you get so old nothing will
matter anymore.
You still havent answered what your prescription was at the time of
getting lasik
Bassslapper
not 100% certain. MY vision was more then "slightly blurry." It was
blurry to where I could not recognize faces nor function well so do not
assume you know what it was like for me, as I do not do the same
regarding your perception of your uncorrected vision.
And thank you, doctor, for settling the issue of presbyopia once and
for all. Death and taxes are unavoidable facts. Presbyopia is a highly
certain probability but not a definitive symptomatic malady for all
people over 50.
I hope you get the opportunity to try Ortho-K and that you share your
experience honestly. I guarantee after the intital honeymoon is over
you will be spewing venom at how annoying, inconvenient, and basically
a waste it is. IMO, the rewards do not justify the hassles inherent
with Ortho-K. Also, following your logic, if your were age 54 instead
of 24 and did Ortho-K, you would need readers due to the correction of
your distance vision with the Ortho-K. So that makes one stand to
reason, again based on your logic, that anyone that has any form of
distance correction to plano will need readers, regardless of the
method of said correction. Ask an older myope to read something close
with their glasses on and you will find it is more difficult, if not
impossible to do.
There probably will be improvements on Lasik in a few years, just like
ther have been improvements over thte past few years. Maybe after a few
more years of aggrevation you will change your mind. Different people
have a different balance of risk vs. reward. I finally made the
decision after becoming as informed as possible so as to put myslef
into the best position for success.
Since you mention cost, let's disect that as well. You say $4000. I
paid $2300 net (insurance covered about $400). What do you think the
cost of glasses, contacts, optometric visits, cleaning solutions and
devices, and whatevere else required comes to over a long period of
time? Ortho-K cost me $3600 by itself so I'd say an average cost of a
$4000 investment is nothing compared to the cost of corrective eyeware
and accessories over a lifetime. Assuming the need for readers, that
cost is still much less then maintaining any form of contact lense.
Ace
> I believe my prescription pre-Lasik was -4.00 OS & -3.25 OD but I am
> not 100% certain. MY vision was more then "slightly blurry." It was
> blurry to where I could not recognize faces nor function well so do not
> assume you know what it was like for me, as I do not do the same
> regarding your perception of your uncorrected vision.
Reading below, you last believed it to be at -2.5 which was low enough
that you only wore glasses for driving. You *did* used to be -3.75 and
-4.25 but NVI reduced your prescription. You should have your
prescription records you got at your lasik clinic. Do you feel your
vision got worse between the time you used NVI and the time you got
lasik?
My prescription is -5 and -4.5, worse than yours has ever been. If it
was -2.5
id be much happier. I know exactly what -2.5 vision is and for the
matter, most other prescriptions. I have several pairs of older glasses
to test this out. I am not sure if ill even be talking about orthoK if
I was only -2.5 my dependency on glasses wouldnt be very high. At -1.5
id only depend on glasses to drive and maybe watch movies.
> And thank you, doctor, for settling the issue of presbyopia once and
> for all. Death and taxes are unavoidable facts. Presbyopia is a highly
> certain probability but not a definitive symptomatic malady for all
> people over 50.
I know what presbyopia is like and even more so under cycloplegia. It
becomes a problem for most people around the age 40 and I dont know a
single 50 year old at plano that could see squat from near. I am glad I
know what presbyopia is like, it puts me in the mindset and relization
how valuable my near vision is. I can simply take my distance glasses
off to read and eat. Yes im only 24 but presbyopia can happen well
before 40 and I know a bunch of people like that. One college
woman(about 20) wears progressives so she can see clearly to read, she
said her doctor prescribed them to her when she begin to have trouble
seeing from near. I told her I just take my glasses off to read rather
than get progressives.
> I hope you get the opportunity to try Ortho-K and that you share your
> experience honestly. I guarantee after the intital honeymoon is over
> you will be spewing venom at how annoying, inconvenient, and basically
> a waste it is. IMO, the rewards do not justify the hassles inherent
> with Ortho-K. Also, following your logic, if your were age 54 instead
> of 24 and did Ortho-K, you would need readers due to the correction of
> your distance vision with the Ortho-K. So that makes one stand to
> reason, again based on your logic, that anyone that has any form of
> distance correction to plano will need readers, regardless of the
> method of said correction. Ask an older myope to read something close
> with their glasses on and you will find it is more difficult, if not
> impossible to do.
If I can physically tolerate orthoK, the inconvinences is much
preferred to full time glasses wear. Its either glasses or orthoK with
todays techology. I would *not* need readers after orthoK because I
will still be mildly myopic. I however will need glasses for driving. I
read about 20x more than I drive so you can "see" its a good tradeoff.
Mild myopia will keep me out of glasses at least 90% of the time like
it did for you when you were -2.5(did your eyes get worse than that
prior to your lasik?) I was supprised when you first mentioned you got
lasik but I can see your reasons why, one of them comparing your UCVA
vs. whatever lasik gave you. In my case, ill be comparing against
orthoK and no I dont want to lose my near vision but orthoK cant and
wont fully correct me and(so) its a nonissue.
> There probably will be improvements on Lasik in a few years, just like
> ther have been improvements over thte past few years. Maybe after a few
> more years of aggrevation you will change your mind. Different people
> have a different balance of risk vs. reward. I finally made the
> decision after becoming as informed as possible so as to put myslef
> into the best position for success.
Lasik has a very long way to go. Theres 34 challenges to wavefront
lasik that need to be met for lasik to be good for "prime time"
Probably something else entirely will be out long before and lasik will
just get abandoned alltogether like RK did. Being informed does not
change the risks of lasik, it just lets you know and be aware of the
risks. I dont accept the risks of lasik, if this means I must deal with
glasses(or orthoK) for many, many more years, then be it. Way, way too
much to risk with lasik to the point glasses look very good in
comparsion. I guess you hate glasses ten times more than I do and you
are far more tolerant of risks.
> Since you mention cost, let's disect that as well. You say $4000. I
> paid $2300 net (insurance covered about $400). What do you think the
> cost of glasses, contacts, optometric visits, cleaning solutions and
> devices, and whatevere else required comes to over a long period of
> time? Ortho-K cost me $3600 by itself so I'd say an average cost of a
> $4000 investment is nothing compared to the cost of corrective eyeware
> and accessories over a lifetime. Assuming the need for readers, that
> cost is still much less then maintaining any form of contact lense.
Lasik here costs $4000 to $6000 for the "best" discount lasik would be
$1000 to $2000 but at higher risk and more damage to the eyes, you cant
place a price on your eyes. OrthoK is gonna cost around $1500 to $2000
initally plus $300 a year or every other year for new retainer lenses
because they wear out and my eyes may change a bit in that time.
I can get glasses on the net very cheap. I already know orthoK is gonna
end up costing more, but this is a fair price to pay for reduced
glasses dependency. When I have the money, why not? Even the price of
lasik doesnt dissaude me, its the risks and damage that does.
The below is what you said in previous posts before you got lasik.
Again I am supprised as you had expected to improve to -2 with NVI and
only need glasses for driving.
You should know your own prescription and your lasik surgeon(probably
one of his technicians/optometrists) should have told you when he
tested you prior to getting lasik. I have dug back in your posts and
found this:
I have done the same things you have and my behavioral OD thinks with
persistence we can get to -2.0 diopters. BTW, my clear point using a
ruler is about 15 inches. I am down to -2.50 and only wear glasses to
drive.
My vision flaots around -3.50 OS and -2.75 OD. My original
prescriptions for lenses had me -4.25 OS and -3.75 OD so something
positive has happened since I stopped wearing all forms of vision
correction back in May of 2005. I do exercises and attend therapy to
help with strabismus and focusing and maybe that has helped some with
myopia. My mindset without my glasses is that I can still see, just not
clearly at distances.
Bassslapper
really had no need to go out of my way to contact my surgeon or eye
doctor regarding what my prescriptions are. I give guestimates because
I am not going to jump on the phone and call to verify the exact
prescription just to post it here. They did tell me but, again, I
cannot with 100% certainty quote it exactly. Next time I get checked
out I'll obtain a copy.
Vision can fluctuate and I am sure the times I was faithful to NVI
showed me th most improvements but when I backed off things may have
regressed. It's like training for peak competition, that ideal may only
be temporairly attainable before regression to a more homeostatic
position occurs.
Your point of not getting Lasik because of potential complications vs.
cost are correct and dulely noted. My point was there is a cost
associated with any form of eye correction and anyone can present the
numbers in a light favorable to their arguement.
You need to experience Ortho-K firsthand to really get a feel for all
the pros and cons. It is not the utopia you seem to believe but I hope
it works for you. If you can tolerate Ortho-K it will be less of a
hassle then glasses but unfortunately there are a lot of "ifs" involved
and you won't know until you try it.
You prefer distance glasses to readers, I prefer the potential for
readers over distance. We agree to disagree. I do lots of things thaqt
require distance vision to where it is profoundly inconvenient and
annoying to wear glasses, more so then things I do up close. Given
that, I did what I felt I neede to do to rid myself of the
inconvenience of corrective eyeware.
The fact that you have the time to research previous posts to find out
what my quote vision was on a given day makes me wonder if you are
independently wealthy and have too much time on your hands :) Your
resilience and passion are comendable but, speaking from personal
experience, after banging your frustrated head against the wall there
is only so much you can take before you finally give in. That is how it
was for me with myopia and Lasik. 6 years of NVI and 23 of myopia were
enough. I still do NVI for my strabismus but now I can see the beads on
the string.
serebel
Bassslapper wrote:
.
>
> The fact that you have the time to research previous posts to find out
> what my quote vision was on a given day makes me wonder if you are
> independently wealthy and have too much time on your hands :) Your
> resilience and passion are comendable but, speaking from personal
> experience, after banging your frustrated head against the wall there
> is only so much you can take before you finally give in. That is how it
> was for me with myopia and Lasik. 6 years of NVI and 23 of myopia were
> enough. I still do NVI for my strabismus but now I can see the beads on
> the string.
>
>
>
Independantly wealthy? The retard is sucking dry what should be the fun
years for his parents. He's got time on his hands because he's just
friggin' lazy.
Ace
> Since I had the Lasik procedure done and have had much success, I have
> really had no need to go out of my way to contact my surgeon or eye
> doctor regarding what my prescriptions are. I give guestimates because
> I am not going to jump on the phone and call to verify the exact
> prescription just to post it here. They did tell me but, again, I
> cannot with 100% certainty quote it exactly. Next time I get checked
> out I'll obtain a copy.
No problem, this is fine. Do you remember your 20/xxx before lasik? Was
your UCVA measured? Do you believe you could have been around -3
perhaps?
> Vision can fluctuate and I am sure the times I was faithful to NVI
> showed me th most improvements but when I backed off things may have
> regressed. It's like training for peak competition, that ideal may only
> be temporairly attainable before regression to a more homeostatic
> position occurs.
Then whats not to say those who regress after lasik should just do NVI
than get enhancements? If its pseudomyopia, youll just end up hyperopic
and when you can no longer accomodate well, youll need bifocals.
> Your point of not getting Lasik because of potential complications vs.
> cost are correct and dulely noted. My point was there is a cost
> associated with any form of eye correction and anyone can present the
> numbers in a light favorable to their arguement.
The monitary costs pale in comparsion to the cost of risks. Something
we agree on.
> You need to experience Ortho-K firsthand to really get a feel for all
> the pros and cons. It is not the utopia you seem to believe but I hope
> it works for you. If you can tolerate Ortho-K it will be less of a
> hassle then glasses but unfortunately there are a lot of "ifs" involved
> and you won't know until you try it.
You are the one with experience so I cant argue much. From the sounds
of it, its less a hassle than glasses and im fine with this. Even if im
not happy with orthoK, I have glasses to "fall back" on. I guess the
fact you hate glasses a hundred times more than me has played into your
decision why you risked lasik and why in my opinion I think people are
crazy to risk lasik.
> You prefer distance glasses to readers, I prefer the potential for
> readers over distance. We agree to disagree. I do lots of things thaqt
> require distance vision to where it is profoundly inconvenient and
> annoying to wear glasses, more so then things I do up close. Given
> that, I did what I felt I neede to do to rid myself of the
> inconvenience of corrective eyeware.
I use my eyes for near 80% of the time and for distance 20% of the
time. Therefore it is logical to me that its a very bad tradeoff and is
why I prefer an undercorrection even with orthoK as this will achieve
the greatest reduction in glasses dependency. Not only that, my
distance vision will be to the point I can go without distance glasses
much of the time as well. So overall im looking at 90-95% reduced
glasses *without* needing readers nor straining to see something up
close. I guess my lifestyle is different than yours.
> The fact that you have the time to research previous posts to find out
> what my quote vision was on a given day makes me wonder if you are
> independently wealthy and have too much time on your hands :) Your
> resilience and passion are comendable but, speaking from personal
> experience, after banging your frustrated head against the wall there
> is only so much you can take before you finally give in. That is how it
> was for me with myopia and Lasik. 6 years of NVI and 23 of myopia were
> enough. I still do NVI for my strabismus but now I can see the beads on
> the string.
Took me one minute to find them. I have a high IQ(sorry Serebel) and by
memory, I could easily search out your posts. I remember your poking
your eye with the glasses frame was the final straw that broke the
proverbal camels back. Im sure alot went thru your mind at that time.
You just didnt care anymore and lasik begin to look good and you were
prepared to deal with whatever lasik gives you rather than countinue
wearing glasses. I hope you dont hate reading glasses as much when the
time comes. I hate readers much more than distance and it is the grace
of my myopia that I can take my glasses off to read. I will retain
between -1 and -2 with orthoK(doubt a full correction is possible
anyway and I dont care. Ragnar thinks orthoK isnt for me but ive told
him I dont care for a full correction!) -1 is a nonissue and -2 is
hardly a big deal. I dont drive much but I read everyday.
cg_aust
Ace wrote:
I hope you dont hate reading glasses as much when the
> time comes. I hate readers much more than distance and it is the grace
Why have you got reading glasses at 24 y.o.? If you haven't, how do you
know how much you'll hate them ? Just curious.
Ace
Yes I have several pairs of them but mostly use them as a magnifying
glass. They did come in handy when I wore contact lenses. Made a big
difference in the clarity of the newspaper. I will not lose this crisp
near vision with orthoK because the slight(-1 to -2) undercorrection
has enough "give" to put me in focus from near. May need readers for
really tiny print but so do most plano people, they just cant see
something this tiny!
Ragnar
Ace tends to be a liar. Let us not forget that he has also posted as
being a post-lasik patient.
Ragnar
I can just picture you sitting there reading the comics with a shoebox
filled with various glasses.
Ace
Ragnar wrote:
> I can just picture you sitting there reading the comics with a shoebox
> filled with various glasses.
Nah wont need any of them courtesty of my myopia
cg_aust
just wearing contacts for situations where you don't want to deal with
glasses - eg sports, being out with friends etc. So, maximum time you'd
be in contacts would be 3-4 hours. You may find you tolerate contacts a
lot better this way.
I never wore contacts full time - just as above, so I'd have them in
for a few hours, then out again till next time. Sometimes in and out a
few times in one day. I found this meant my eyes weren't irritated by
them, they way they were if I tried wearing them 8-12 hours straight.
Ace
They start to become uncomfortable after an hour. I dont play sports
and I am not so vain id put up with discomfort of contacts when going
out. OrthoK will take care of that with pratically no discomfort as its
been the case for you.
cg_aust
Ace wrote:
>
> "I dont play sports"
>
You should play sports - burn off some of this energy and anxiety
you're building up by worrying about lasik all day. Orthok is great for
sports too, I've found. I'm sure lasik is too. Go for a run or
something, get some fresh air, you'll feel great.
Ace
Too hot in Florida for that. But im sure ill take advantage once I get
orthoK and try to be more active :)
Bassslapper
Ace, the bottom line becomes you feel the risk vs. rewards given your
particular visual situation do not merit Lasik. For me, it finally did.
Somehting else you should consider. There are lots of myopes that also
require readers. I have several patients who require bifocals that got
Lasik so they would only need readers and could eschew the need for
distance correction. Just because you are myopic does not guarantee you
will not need readers and the fact that you used readers when you wore
contacts makes me wonder if you will need readers regardless of your
myopia.
Bassslapper
active in martial arts and doing forms or sparring with glasses is not
too prudent. I also am an avid weightlifter and it's no fun when you
are sweating trying to plow through a set with uncomfortable glasses on
your face. For these activities Ortho-K is an improvement over glasses.
IMO, Lasik is even better because of not having to deal at all with
corrective lenses.
The future may include readers for me but all I know is I need nothing
now. That, to me, is more valuable and important then arguing over
which procedure is better then which. There is no right or wrong answer
here, only what makes each individual happy.
Ace
Agreed, but what if something went wrong now or in the future? How
would you deal with it? Would you wish you still had those "horrible"
glasses or is even a complication with impaired vision better than
glasses? Myopes can take their glasses off to read or peak under them.
Those that wear bifocals probably for convinence or because they are
highly myopic and can only see a few inches without em which makes
reading inconvinent when you cant see the whole page at once! Contacts
make me plano and in focus for infinity. I dont have enough
accomodation to see so well from up close. Being myopic is like having
built in readers. Monovision works by leaving one eye myopic, but its
not for me.
Bassslapper
would you deal with it? Would you wish you still had those "horrible"
glasses or is even a complication with impaired vision better than
glasses? Myopes can take their glasses off to read or peak under them.
Those that wear bifocals probably for convinence or because they are
highly myopic and can only see a few inches without em which makes
reading inconvinent when you cant see the whole page at once! Contacts
make me plano and in focus for infinity. I dont have enough
accomodation to see so well from up close. Being myopic is like having
built in readers. Monovision works by leaving one eye myopic, but its
not for me."
I am willing to take the risk of potential future complicaitons and
will deal with them accordingly. I cannot predict the future and I was
so miserable that potential future issues were worth dealing with my
problems in the present. I am also not going to sit here and worry
about "what ifs." It is a waste of time.
I never had a problem accomodating up close, even when I wore soft
contact lenses up to my early 30's. Hours of close work with contacts
never bothered me and even after Lasik I have no problems accomodating
close.
Bassslapper
and deal with it does not mean the rest of us do. To sit there and try
and make myopia seem like some sort of boon becuase the need for
readers may be lessened is a really morphed way of thinking. Sitting
there trying to heap doom and gloom on people based on unpredictable
probabilities, heresay, and conjecture is wrong. If you want to
champion anti-Lasik and NVI that's fine but if you want more people to
give your arguements more credence you need to chill out with the "what
if your eyes explode from the Lasik you had 20 years ago!" The Lasik is
done and I have no regrets and have moved on. The only issue I have now
is figuring out why I bother coming onto this forum and continue with
these arguements (maybe I am self-sadistic)
Ragnar
from. Here's some problems that come to mind
Slip down nose
Irritate flesh (cancer risk)
Chipping
Smearing
Fogging up/getting wet, steaming up
Hair, dust, debris
Frequent cleaning
Minification of objects, anisometropia due to thickness of lenses
Awkward and unnattractive
A temporary crutch
Block 15% of light from entering eye
Poor correction for astigmatism
Ineffective for peripheral vision
Interfere with sun protection (sunglasses)
Require frequent replacement, adjustments, and eye exams
Leave one visually impaired - even effectively blind when not on.
Impractible for an outdoor lifestyle in the sun or in the water
Impractible for vigorous physical activity of any kind.
Ace
Bassslapper wrote:
> I am willing to take the risk of potential future complicaitons and
> will deal with them accordingly. I cannot predict the future and I was
> so miserable that potential future issues were worth dealing with my
> problems in the present. I am also not going to sit here and worry
> about "what ifs." It is a waste of time.
>
> I never had a problem accomodating up close, even when I wore soft
> contact lenses up to my early 30's. Hours of close work with contacts
> never bothered me and even after Lasik I have no problems accomodating
> close.
This is what makes you different. Your a risk taker, I am not. As long
as someone is fully informed of the risks, its his choice. The problem
is most people hardly know what they are getting into when they get
lasik and its not fair for them. I would be alot less against lasik if
every single person was as informed as you and I were. Of course much
fewer people would get lasik. Alot of people decide not to get lasik
when they are fully informed, this included me. Good luck in the
future. Take it one day at a time and enjoy your new 20/15 vision.
Your accomodation is probably better than mine. How close can you
accomodate without any blur or strain? With full power glasses, id say
about 2 feet is as close without any blur or strain. This is not
sufficient for reading, especially not fine print. Therefore I take my
glasses off(or peak under) to read. I will never need readers as long
as I keep some myopia(yes there might be a presbyopia cure by then but
why risk it when my myopia is a complete work around to presbyopia?) I
am also very, very picky with my near vision. I demand razor-sharp
effortless seeing up close. I *could* read with my full power glasses
on but glasses are worse than useless for near. They give me good
distance vision but take away some of the clarity at near. Lasik would
do the same for any presbyope and the tradeoff would be up to the
individual. Are they willing to lose some crispness of near vision in
order to gain better distance vision?
How someone accepts myopia is up to the individual. To be honest id
rather be less myopic, maybe even plano but -4.5 is what I am and I
have to face the reality. I am not gonna deny that myopia has a good
side. Think of it as taking lemons and making lemonade. I take my
myopia and use it to my advantage for super crisp near vision without
ever needing readers. So myopia is not 100% bad, there is some good
that comes out with myopia. I dont need -4.5 diopters of myopia, -2 is
easily enough to preserve almost all my near vision and yet distance
vision will be many times sharper than at -4.5
I know we have different opinions but we can learn alot from them.
Ace
Ragnar wrote:
> I don't know where the idea that glasses have no complications comes
> from. Here's some problems that come to mind
> Slip down nose
> Irritate flesh (cancer risk)
> Chipping
> Smearing
> Fogging up/getting wet, steaming up
> Hair, dust, debris
> Frequent cleaning
> Minification of objects, anisometropia due to thickness of lenses
> Awkward and unnattractive
> A temporary crutch
> Block 15% of light from entering eye
> Poor correction for astigmatism
> Ineffective for peripheral vision
> Interfere with sun protection (sunglasses)
> Require frequent replacement, adjustments, and eye exams
> Leave one visually impaired - even effectively blind when not on.
> Impractible for an outdoor lifestyle in the sun or in the water
> Impractible for vigorous physical activity of any kind.
Ragnar has a point about the inconvinences of glasses but until a low
risk alternative gets invented, I am sticking with glasses in the
forseeable future. Lasik is way too much of a gamble for most people.
Just because your lasik went fine Ragnar doesnt mean it will for
everyone. For those whos lasik went bad, they really wish they could go
back to glasses. I have it much easier than all those with bad lasik
results. Those with good lasik results have it a little easier than me,
as long as their lasik holds up.
Tom Lucas
news:1161364553.0...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Being physically active is another reason I went with Lasik. I am
> active in martial arts and doing forms or sparring with glasses is not
> too prudent. I also am an avid weightlifter and it's no fun when you
> are sweating trying to plow through a set with uncomfortable glasses
> on
> your face. For these activities Ortho-K is an improvement over
> glasses.
> IMO, Lasik is even better because of not having to deal at all with
> corrective lenses.
Do you recieve many blows near the eyes with your martial art of choice?
I've been contemplating taking up Karate but I worry that having the
flap will leave me vulnerable to eye injury. I was going to leave it a
year to ensure that the flap had had a good chance to heal but, as a
beginner, would I expect to be getting slapped upside the head much
anyway?
I've tried to get into exercise before but it is so inconvenient for me
because I work long hours and also havea long commute. However, there is
a dojo very close to my house and it could be a real option for me.
Tom Lucas
news:1uflj2tlnj0040vc5...@4ax.com...
>I don't know where the idea that glasses have no complications comes
> from. Here's some problems that come to mind
> Irritate flesh (cancer risk)
Glasses cause cancer!!?? I think you've spent to long listening to the
malcontents' way of thinking!
Ragnar
Not the lenses... the frames. Any long-term area of skin irritation
is a significant risk of skin cancer - which is quite deadly and quite
common. Cancer risk or not.. the irritation of the frames of my
glasses was VERY annoying.
blde...@comcast.net
> as long as their lasik holds up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
still with the parting shots..............
for someone who has not had any substantive eye proceedure done other
than to accomodate with eyeglasses (your attempts with contacts are
laughable, NVI, give me a break) your credibility is so highly suspect,
even you should see that (i mean, consider the hostile replys, you seem
to be leading the pack, and seemingly blissfully unaware) , at least,
one could hope......
must be rather strange in your world on a daily basis.
feather one
Bassslapper
> Do you recieve many blows near the eyes with your martial art of choice?
> I've been contemplating taking up Karate but I worry that having the
> flap will leave me vulnerable to eye injury. I was going to leave it a
> year to ensure that the flap had had a good chance to heal but, as a
> beginner, would I expect to be getting slapped upside the head much
> anyway?
>
> I've tried to get into exercise before but it is so inconvenient for me
> because I work long hours and also havea long commute. However, there is
> a dojo very close to my house and it could be a real option for me.
I take Tang Soo Do and have rarely gotten whacked in the head and I am
almost to my black belt. Let your instructor know your concerns and
they should be able to accomodate until you are comfortable with full
contact.
Tom Lucas
It only takes one unlucky hit though. Or so I've been led to believe - I
think it is more likely that you would need some serious trauma to
dislodge the flap. However, I should think that the impacts in martial
arts are much more controlled than, say, in rugby. You also probably
have a better chance of a squash ball or tennis ball hitting your eye
than a stray punch but the risk is still there.
Perhaps I'm just finding justification for laziness ;-)
Bassslapper
be of a concern. I was told 1 week post-op I would be fine to resume
exercising and 3 weeks I could swim and spar. I was back to heavy
weight lifting after 1 1/2 weeks and back to karate after 3. I have not
had any issues with blows to the head and/or any other situations where
trauma could potentially dislodge the flap.
I have found that Lasik has given me the freedom to advance in martial
arts because I can see what I am doing better and react quicker. It's
easier to read an opponent's subtleties and be able to prepare to
counter with clear vision. With blurry vision you lose that edge. Soft
contacts are a fine alternative but there are risks with those. Glasses
are cuimbersome and incnonvenient and hard contacts are contraindicated.
cg_aust
month ago. I was sick of fussing before & after class with contacts.
Orthok has been great for that, and the convenience of lasik would be
even better. When I had my lasik tests, they said I could've got back
to karate after about 3 weeks to a month - same as Bassslapper said.
As for safety, in the time I've done karate (6 years), I had contacts
pop out maybe 3 times, and have never been hit really hard to the eye
(or head). The odd blow here and there, but flap problems from the very
occasional hit I've received would be long odds. It really depends on
the type of school (or dojo) you go to - the atmosphere and way it's
run should tell you if control and respect are important to them, or if
it's just a place for idiots to belt crap out of each other. The school
I attend trains hard and realistically but contact is always
controlled, and to the head, avoided as far as possible.
I'd encourage you to give kakrate a go, I've loved every minute of it.
I also run - no set up costs, no gym or classes required. Running is
proabably the most efficient way to get fit, as long as you've no pre
existing injuries preventing you from doing it.
Ace
This is why I dont take Ragnar seriously. I may be wrong at times, but
Ragnar says the most ridiculous things!
Lasik and contact sports dont go together well. If you must, then
please wear safety goggles over your eyes!
Ragnar
glasses is a high risk of skin cancer.
While we are at it... the irritation of contact lenses often resutls
in watery eyes, conjuctivitis, corneal ulcers, styes, and more.
You just keep wearing your glasses Ace...and enjoy them. You have
our condolences.
Tom Lucas
news:1161676583.1...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Tom Lucas wrote:
>> "Ragnar" <ragna...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1uflj2tlnj0040vc5...@4ax.com...
>> >I don't know where the idea that glasses have no complications comes
>> > from. Here's some problems that come to mind
>>
>> > Irritate flesh (cancer risk)
>>
>> Glasses cause cancer!!?? I think you've spent to long listening to
>> the
>> malcontents' way of thinking!
>
>
> This is why I dont take Ragnar seriously. I may be wrong at times, but
> Ragnar says the most ridiculous things!
What he said is not strictly wrong I suppose but it is a bit of a
stretch just to reinforce his point.
> Lasik and contact sports dont go together well. If you must, then
> please wear safety goggles over your eyes!
That somewhat defeats the purpose of getting Lasik. I went clay pigeon
shooting at the weekend and was pretty good so maybe I'll take that up
instead. Much more sedate :-)
Tom Lucas
news:1161637508....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> I'm actually into karate also (shukokai) and finally made black belt a
> month ago. I was sick of fussing before & after class with contacts.
> Orthok has been great for that, and the convenience of lasik would be
> even better. When I had my lasik tests, they said I could've got back
> to karate after about 3 weeks to a month - same as Bassslapper said.
That's reasuuring then. I might wait 'til my three months are up just
out of paranoia.
> As for safety, in the time I've done karate (6 years), I had contacts
> pop out maybe 3 times, and have never been hit really hard to the eye
> (or head). The odd blow here and there, but flap problems from the
> very
> occasional hit I've received would be long odds. It really depends on
> the type of school (or dojo) you go to - the atmosphere and way it's
> run should tell you if control and respect are important to them, or
> if
> it's just a place for idiots to belt crap out of each other. The
> school
> I attend trains hard and realistically but contact is always
> controlled, and to the head, avoided as far as possible.
I believe they are pretty professional at the place near me - admittedly
I always thought the point of martial art was about control and
responsibility.
> I'd encourage you to give kakrate a go, I've loved every minute of it.
> I also run - no set up costs, no gym or classes required. Running is
> proabably the most efficient way to get fit, as long as you've no pre
> existing injuries preventing you from doing it.
I live halfway up a steep hill so I either take the punishment starting
out or coming home but either way I get it! My main handicap to running
is my laziness, which should be recognised as the disability that it is!
Ace
Ragnar wrote:
> Nothing ridiculous about it. The irritation of extensive wear of
> glasses is a high risk of skin cancer.
> While we are at it... the irritation of contact lenses often resutls
> in watery eyes, conjuctivitis, corneal ulcers, styes, and more.
>
> You just keep wearing your glasses Ace...and enjoy them. You have
> our condolences.
Look whos talking! You wore RGP contacts for several years! You dont
practice what you preach! Yes contacts do irritate me more than glasses
so I stick to glasses. You chose to put up with contacts instead!
Tom Lucas wrote:
> That somewhat defeats the purpose of getting Lasik. I went clay pigeon
> shooting at the weekend and was pretty good so maybe I'll take that up
> instead. Much more sedate :-)
As long as nothing can get in contact with your eyes, you should be
fine.
Ragnar
Ace should realize that poor vision and contact lenses are a bad mix.
If someone is significantly myopic, they sure can't do something like
boxing wearing glasses nor contacts. At least with lasik.. that
mypopic person CAN box or do other contact sports.
Ragnar
Yes I wore RGPs for many many years. At the time, they were the best
option available. They sure beat glasses. RK was available, but not
appropriate for someone with -8 eyes. Glenn would know this.. but
as I recall, RK is only intended for -6 or less
Tom Lucas
Contact sport maybe but I'm not sure I would recommend boxing
considering how frequently boxers have virgin eyes damaged. If you are
receiving blows sufficient to detach retinas then the flap begins to
look pretty vulnerable - even with a long healing period it must still
remain a weak point.
Perhaps with amateur boxing and head guards it is possible but
professional is a different story.
Ace
Ragnar wrote:
> I don't know what drugs you are on Ace.. but they are not working.
>
>
> Yes I wore RGPs for many many years. At the time, they were the best
> option available. They sure beat glasses. RK was available, but not
> appropriate for someone with -8 eyes. Glenn would know this.. but
> as I recall, RK is only intended for -6 or less
RK would have seriously messed your eyes. By the way even -6 would be
pushing it. Youd need like 12 incisions(instead of the standard 8) I
guess its either glasses or RGP contacts. You didnt like glasses and
they didnt give you the vision RGPs did. My eyes arent as bad so
glasses work fine till something better comes.
Ragnar
<news@REMOVE_auto_THIS_flame_TO_REPLY.clara.co.uk> wrote:
Hmm... I didn't think about the head gear guards. But.. with head
guards, I suspect that boxers tend to allow more head shots because
they have guards on. It might be that 5 relatively undefended shots
to the head with headgear on could be more damaging than 1 shot
without headgear on.
Whatever the case.. without correction, that person can forget about
boxing to begin with.
Ragnar
Glasses not only did not work well for my vision, they were also
extremely cumbersome.
Your solution for your -4.75 eyes is glasses. Enjoy those glasses.
You are going to bitch about anything you have done, so please don't
have lasik - ever. If you ever have cataract surgery, you will be
bitching about that also.
Tom Lucas
>>
>>Perhaps with amateur boxing and head guards it is possible but
>>professional is a different story.
>>
>
> Hmm... I didn't think about the head gear guards. But.. with head
> guards, I suspect that boxers tend to allow more head shots because
> they have guards on. It might be that 5 relatively undefended shots
> to the head with headgear on could be more damaging than 1 shot
> without headgear on.
I've taken a shot with headgear on and I'm not going to do it again! I
don't think boxers tend to encourage head shots but the headgear is
there in amatuer because the combatants have to go back to normal jobs
when the bout is over. Professionals can afford to take a battering
because they can recover afterwards but also the crowd want to see some
KOs and that is not going to happen in protection.