LASIK mono vision

[Just Jack]

I am considering LASIK surgery.

I am 50 years old, have worn glasses or contacts since I was about 8 or
years old. I currently wear toric contact lenses, monovision style and they
suit me well. I have mild to moderate astigmatism in both eyes. My contact
prescription is -6.50 -.75x160 left eye, my reading eye and -7.0 -.75x020 in
my right, distant eye.

For my glasses they tell me I'm a -10 in my left eye and -9 in my right eye.

I'm considering going monovision with LASIK surgery. I have no difficulties
with the monovision contact lens setup. I've been wearing them for about 10
years. My contact prescription has not changed in the last 3 years.

Any opinions? What, for me would be a realistic goal? What would be the
limitations on my expectations after surgery.

Thanks.

[CatmanX]

The numbers don't add up. Your glasses or CL Rx is wrong or you have
been given the wrong data. For the same cost as Lasik, you can get RLE.
This gives binocular vision for distance and near with better image
quality and saves the need to get cataract surgery down the track.

dr grant

[Glenn - USAEyes.org]

I agree that you should investigate Refractive Lens Exchange (RLE,
http://www.usaeyes.org/faq/subjects/rle.htm), however there are some
additional considerations.

RLE will not correct your astigmatism. Your level of astigmatism is
small enough that you many not find vision with astigmatism to be a
problem. You could try non-toric contacts to see what life would be
without astigmatic correction. If you require astigmatic correction,
then you would need a cornea-based correction for the astigmatism in
additional to RLE. I would recommend that you investigate PRK, LASEK,
or Epi-LASIK rather than LASIK or IntraLASIK if all you need to
correct is a small amount of astigmatism or myopia and astigmatism
after RLE.

Do not assume that RLE will give vision both distance and near. There
are multifocal intraocular lenses (IOL), however they have a nasty
habit of causing halos and poor vision quality. There is the
Crystalens accommodating IOL, but it does not work for everyone. You
could have monovision correction with RLE, but not true distance and
near vision.

Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
USAEyes.org

"Consider and Choose With Confidence"

Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org

http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org

I am not a doctor.

[serebel]

My wife's aunt had RLE and PRK (for her astig) three years ago and from
there on she is lens free(even for reading) since. She is now 74 years
of age.

SErebel

[Robert Kopp]

"Glenn - USAEyes.org" <glenn.hage...@USAEyes.org> wrote in message
news:vuj6i1heq66rbnsra...@4ax.com...

>I agree that you should investigate Refractive Lens Exchange (RLE,
> http://www.usaeyes.org/faq/subjects/rle.htm), however there are some
> additional considerations.
>

I recently had cataract surgery, and while there have been no serious
complications, I would not have done it solely to obtain a change in
refraction. For one thing, the risk of retinal detachment is probably not
negligible, especially with a moderately high degree of myopia.

--
Robert T. Kopp
http://analytic.tripod.com

[Glenn - USAEyes.org]

Risk of serious complication including loss of vision due to infection
or retina detachment is much greater with RLE (same as cataract
surgery) than LASIK and needs to be evaluated/considered as a part of
the process.

[serebel]

Does the risk of retinal detachment = the certainty of loss of vision
of a fully formed cataract? Not to me. Food for thought.

SErebel

[Glenn - USAEyes.org]

The risk of retinal detachment is correlated to the degree of myopia.
Myopia is when the eye is elongated. The elongation stretches the
retina and creates a greater risk of detachment from the back of the
eye. Add to that the stress of RLE or cataract surgery and the retina
has an even higher probability of detachment.

Much of this can be evaluated before surgery by the cataract surgeon
or by a retina specialist, but some risk will always be present.

[serebel]

Glenn, I think you missed my point. If you had cataracts and you
couldn't see, wouldn't you have the surgery regardless of the retinal
detachment risk?

SErebel

[Glenn - USAEyes.org]

I did miss the point. Yes, surgery to resolve vision limitations is
very different than surgery to reduce the need for glasses and the
tolerance of risk is equally different.

[Robert Kopp]

"serebel" <ser...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1126836775.2...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> Glenn, I think you missed my point. If you had cataracts and you
> couldn't see, wouldn't you have the surgery regardless of the retinal
> detachment risk?
>

I did have cataracts and I accepted this risk. I wanted to advise someone
else who did not have cataracts of the risk, since in his case it could be
avoided by using another method of vision correction. In my case no other
method would work.

According to my understanding, about 90% of retinal detachments can be
repaired, though vision will usually never be as good as it was before.