Ouch! Serious lasik complication in one of his eyes! Ghosting, double vision
Ace
March 1st 2006 had Intralase with Customvue to correct myopia L -4.25,
R -4.50. Had -.50 astigmatism in right eye.
Left eye came out perfect, 20/20, no problems. Right eye came out 20/40
with ghosting and double vision. Most noticeable complaint was seeing
multiple traffic lights at night which would converge as i approached.
June 26th, 2006 had customvue enhancement on right eye to correct
problem. I was told the surgery went well and my cornea looks clear,
however my distance vision is now much worse, about 20/60 and night
vision is horrible. Now seeing MORE multiple images of traffic lights.
There has been no improvement since.
I keep my eyes well mostened with preservative free tears several times
a day.
If any doctors can shed some light on why my vision has worsened i
would appreciate it.
my cycoplegic refraction before the rt eye enhancement was -75, -75
cylinder
i had a refraction done 2 days ago (without dilation) that showed me a
-1.50, -.50 cylinder AFTER my enhancement. I don't understand why my
distance vision regressed so much after the enhancement.
yes, as soon as dusk arrives, my rt eye vision is VERY blurry, now
worse since the enhancement from a distance one traffic light appears
as 5 or 6 circles in a blob.
Ouch! I extend my condolences! Ragnar and Serebel needs to know that
lasik is hit or miss, sometimes both. It went seemly fine in one eye
but a mess in the other. He may have to live with impaired vision
forever :( I dont know if he was properly informed of the risks but he
may have been hoping to reduce his dependancy on glasses and not aware
of the risks and compromises. Now we have another malcontent, he will
warn away everyone he sees from getting lasik and will likewise post
warnings on the internet about his damaged lasik eye(one eye so far)
Ragnar
It's intersting that this patient apparently never went to he surgeon
for followups. You are supposed to have a followup the NEXT day..
then a week later.. then a month later.. then 3 months later.. 6
months later and a year later.
One can also go MORE often than that if they wish.
This person's eyes did not get worse... and if they were one of the
extremely rare cases where it did.. the procedure can be tweaked
with another light use of the laser.
Ace
Ragnar wrote:
> That post below is fake.
>
> It's intersting that this patient apparently never went to he surgeon
> for followups. You are supposed to have a followup the NEXT day..
> then a week later.. then a month later.. then 3 months later.. 6
> months later and a year later.
> One can also go MORE often than that if they wish.
>
> This person's eyes did not get worse... and if they were one of the
> extremely rare cases where it did.. the procedure can be tweaked
> with another light use of the laser.
You think nearly every sob lasik story is fake. I dont see what he has
to gain from lying, he just posted his story in another forum and asked
for help. I assume he had folowups. He did get enhanced after 3 months
but that didnt help and even made things worse. Even if his eyes didnt
get worse, hes only 20/60 in the bad eye with his night vision a mess.
You are telling him to get a second enhancement. He may not have enough
cornea left if he keeps getting enhanced and risk ectasia too. It looks
like he may have to live with that unless he can tolerate RGP contacts
on that bad eye.
Ragnar
from lying? You are a proven liar.
The person is obviously lying. Are we to believe that this person had
their surgery and never had a followup nor any explanation?
One of my favorite expressions I use to describe certain people goes
something like this "I know the secret to tell when Keller is
lying... if you see her mouth open and her tounge and lips moving and
words coming out.. she is lying"
LASIK is so perfect, that anything unusual posted about it is almost
certainly a lie. There ARE problems with LASIK. there is a 3 month
period of temporary dryness. The results are NOT in 15 minutes as
some marketers used to claim. And there ARE idiot crooked surgeons
out there. I don't care how perfect LASIK is. If some idiot at LVI
uses a $50 blade on 2 dozen patients ... that blade is going to be
dull and create jagged flaps and put dead cells on other patients
corneas that result in DLK. Those blades are to be used only once. If
the surgeon cuts corners.. you have problems. Even then, the problems
can be easily fixed.. but they should not have been problems to begin
with. The sharper a blade is.. the thinner the edge is.. and the
faster it dulls. The blade used in making the flap is unbelievably
sharp. The cells split apart with no pressure. If you have ever
handled a scalpel, you will have experienced that.. only the
refractive surgery blades are much sharper.
If you want to be refractive surgery boy - you need to stop reading
anything at the Flap... and put Keller and the rest of the malcontents
on ignore. Do you really think some lunatic who sells disposable
sneakers for $500 weddings is the right person to be giving you
information? She is NUTS! If you don't think she is nuts, then you
are an idiot.
serebel
Ace wrote:
>
> You think nearly every sob lasik story is fake. I dont see what he has
> to gain from lying, he just posted his story in another forum and asked
> for help. I assume he had folowups. He did get enhanced after 3 months
> but that didnt help and even made things worse. Even if his eyes didnt
> get worse, hes only 20/60 in the bad eye with his night vision a mess.
> You are telling him to get a second enhancement. He may not have enough
> cornea left if he keeps getting enhanced and risk ectasia too. It looks
> like he may have to live with that unless he can tolerate RGP contacts
> on that bad eye.
You think these sob stories are real. Wanna buy a bridge in NY ?
Sandy
Serebel, was that Plan B, Plan C or Plan D? No matter--it didn't go
well either, did it?
serebel
Don't worry what someone elses plan is. Maybe it's not to whine for
the rest of his life.
Ace
Plan B is enhancement, if vision still blurry, plan C is usually going
back to glasses. If this doesnt work, plan D is RGP contacts. A cornea
transplant is plan Z and normally only done if you end up legally blind
due to severe corneal damage or ectasia.
lasikrollette
clarabel one and the same.Can two different people be as
miserable,nasty,and venimous?
Of course nobody ever gets injured by your little pet surgery.We're all
just a bunch of crazy lunatics,yeah,that's the ticket.
Do they still tar and feather people?These two need it bad.Or maybe we
could just tell their mothers what little jerks they've grown into.You
are sick puppies.
Ragnar
<klaatu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Of course nobody ever gets injured by your little pet surgery.We're all
>just a bunch of crazy lunatics,
You finally got it right. congratulations!
Ace
Id call sarcasm on that one ;)
serebel
lasikrollette wrote:
> >
> > Plan B is enhancement, if vision still blurry, plan C is usually going
> > back to glasses. If this doesnt work, plan D is RGP contacts. A cornea
> > transplant is plan Z and normally only done if you end up legally blind
> > due to severe corneal damage or ectasia.
> Looks like this site has a new resident asshole or are ragnar and
> clarabel one and the same.Can two different people be as
> miserable,nasty,and venimous?
> Of course nobody ever gets injured by your little pet surgery.We're all
> just a bunch of crazy lunatics,yeah,that's the ticket.
> Do they still tar and feather people?These two need it bad.Or maybe we
> could just tell their mothers what little jerks they've grown into.You
> are sick puppies.
Look at your "venImous" post above stupid. Who's miserable?
I guess your plan IS to whine for the rest of your life. Oh boo hoo for
you.
Sandy
Gosh, and I thought that all of those old complications of ghosting,
multiple images, dry eye and all were the ghost of lasik past. The
technology is supposedly SO much better. Same old same old....
serebel
Wake up Keller. Those complications are so far fewer and you know it.
It's just you and the same few people who seem to have to whine on and
on for the rest of your days.
The technology is so much better now as all technology evolves.
Ragnar
One thing people seldom consider is that with poor vision, you see
mostly blurs of cloudy images. When their vision is corrected to see
focused images.. THEN they can see starburst, floaters, etc.
Ace
Ragnar wrote:
> The complications of the past were not that big of a deal either.
>
> One thing people seldom consider is that with poor vision, you see
> mostly blurs of cloudy images. When their vision is corrected to see
> focused images.. THEN they can see starburst, floaters, etc.
>
then explain why most people dont see as well after lasik as they did
with glasses?
Ragnar
That is completely false. Where did you get that idea from? Burch
the Btich? or perhaps Keller the Witch?
HOWEVER... the best vision is with RGP lenses that are worn.. this
doesn't mean that ortho K is good since ortho k involves NOT wearing
the lenses.
Ace
Ragnar wrote:
> That is completely false. Where did you get that idea from? Burch
> the Btich? or perhaps Keller the Witch?
>
> HOWEVER... the best vision is with RGP lenses that are worn.. this
> doesn't mean that ortho K is good since ortho k involves NOT wearing
> the lenses.
perhaps from the lasik review articles I find online. Usually, after
lasik you are left with a tiny residual pescription. I read successful
lasik testimonals and most people appear to have something like -.25,
+.5 sphere and/or -.25 to -1 astigmastim. Not really a big deal as most
of them are still able to resolve the 20/20 line, but its just a little
off from what they saw with glasses which corrected them to plano. Yet
the tiny residual pescription is too low for enhancement and not worth
going back to glasses for(unless your super picky) another reason for
worse vision is due to an oblate cornea and induced high order
aberrations. This is especially evident at night.
You are being honest for once when you mention RGPs are superior. So as
long as the person can tolerate them or it becomes a moot point. If
someone is going to consider lasik, it should be a last resort. RGPs
are the first thing that should be tried then orthoK then soft
contacts. Natural vision improvement will help some but not get you to
plano if you have more than -2 diopters and even that, no guarantees
but it doesnt hurt to try, most people under 40 will improve at least a
tiny bit. I know orthoK isnt as good as RGPs but I want improved
uncorrected vision and not to have to deal with anything in my eyes
when im awake.
What im gonna do very soon is get atropine which will eliminate all
tonic accomodation and my cycloplegic refraction is the true amount of
axial myopia I have. Once the atropine wears off, ill exercise my eyes
to ensure my manifast refraction is equal to my cycloplegic refraction.
Then ill get an orthoK consultation. Other options should be discovered
in the near future such as epithelial thinning which will take out
another -1.5 diopters. I wont have much myopia left and therefore wont
"need" glasses.
serebel
Ace wrote:
>>
>
> then explain why most people dont see as well after lasik as they did
> with glasses?
That's a crock. Speaking of myself and actually knowing people in
real life, it's unanimus, we see much better after lasik than with
glasses.
Ace
You think so but youve forgotten what vision was like with glasses.
Also dont forget your vision is blurry for two hours after you wake up.
Your quality of vision isnt as good, especially at night and indoors.
If you dont believe me, try some RGP contacts and youll see
improvement. I know you are happy with lasik but dont go around saying
your vision is perfect because it isnt quite. Your lasik results
however is better than the results of most people I know. Its a good
thing you are happy and have decent vision, even if not 100% perfect.
There are many reasons why you usually see a little(or alot) worse
after lasik than you did with glasses but youll deny those. The
instances lasik can give better vision than glasses is because of high
pescriptions(lots of minifiation) and/or lots of astigmastim
serebel
Ace wrote:
>>
> You think so but youve forgotten what vision was like with glasses.
No I haven't, I remember exactly.
> Also dont forget your vision is blurry for two hours after you wake up.
No my vision is clear when I wake up.
> Your quality of vision isnt as good, especially at night and indoors.
> If you dont believe me, try some RGP contacts and youll see
> improvement.
I'll decide how my quality of vision is, not you.
I know you are happy with lasik but dont go around saying
> your vision is perfect because it isnt quite. Your lasik results
> however is better than the results of most people I know. Its a good
> thing you are happy and have decent vision, even if not 100% perfect.
>
Nothing is 100% in this life and I am thrilled that I have GREAT
vision.
> There are many reasons why you usually see a little(or alot) worse
> after lasik than you did with glasses but youll deny those. The
> instances lasik can give better vision than glasses is because of high
> pescriptions(lots of minifiation) and/or lots of astigmastim
Again I see better with lasik than I did with glasses. BTW, what's
"minifiation"?
Ace
> No I haven't, I remember exactly.
good memory sir.
> No my vision is clear when I wake up.
you have a couple threads where if your eyes are resting on the pillow,
this distorts the thin cornea and causes temporary blurry vision. To
avoid this, you sleep on your back now.
> I'll decide how my quality of vision is, not you.
just making a point there that RGPs provide the best quality but its a
moot point as you didnt get lasik to be in RGPs.
>Nothing is 100% in this life and I am thrilled that I have GREAT
> vision.
Of course this is good, but I wish you were a bit more symphatic and
extended your condolences to the thousands and thousands less
fortunate. More than 50% in fact dont see as well as they did with
glasses in their own subjective opinion and when measured
objectivately, this becomes over 95% due to induced aberrations, oblate
cornea, loss of contrast, etc. However being happy/satisfied is what
matters most. Alot of people I know are happy with 20/30, 20/40 or even
20/100 vision because this *reduces* their dependancy on glasses and
they arent "blind" without glasses. That alone was well worth the
tradeoffs.
> Again I see better with lasik than I did with glasses. BTW, what's
> "minifiation"?
minification is the effect of making everything smaller. Perhaps you
never had the right glasses which frankly is good as it makes you all
the happier with lasik. I know a few guys who didnt quite have the most
up to date pescription and they decided not to get stronger glasses as
they were gonna get lasik and also they realized even if their lasik
doesnt go perfect, they are much more likley to still be happy. One guy
even went back to his old glasses on purpose 3 months before lasik and
got used to the slight blur. After lasik, his vision was a little
better than his old glasses so he was like "wow everything is so
clear!" Its funny but works!
Ragnar
the refractive error... far from it! The closest to eliminating
refractive error is achieved with RIGID contact lenses.
Ace
Ragnar wrote:
> Your main mistake below is in assuming that glasses completely correct
> the refractive error... far from it! The closest to eliminating
> refractive error is achieved with RIGID contact lenses.
>
Then explain why many people get at least 20/30 correctable with
glasses and some even 20/20. Glasses dont eliminate anything, it aids
in helping you see but you are still myopic and astigmatic. RGPs do a
better job because they dont minify like glasses and they can mask more
than half your HOAs. Lasik does eliminate your refractive error if it
goes perfectly but it induces HOAs and an oblate cornea and a flap.
Even you admit RGPs give much better vision than lasik.
serebel
Ace wrote:
>
> > No my vision is clear when I wake up.
>
>
> you have a couple threads where if your eyes are resting on the pillow,
> this distorts the thin cornea and causes temporary blurry vision. To
> avoid this, you sleep on your back now.
>
Completely out of context, And has nothing to do with a thin cornea.
It wasn't from resting on a pillow, it's from sleeping for hours with
an eye basically crushed into the pillow. BTW, I never could sleep on
my back.
> > I'll decide how my quality of vision is, not you.
>
>
> just making a point there that RGPs provide the best quality but its a
> moot point as you didnt get lasik to be in RGPs.
>
I never wore RGP's so I am not qualified to comment on them.
>
> >Nothing is 100% in this life and I am thrilled that I have GREAT
> > vision.
>
>
> Of course this is good, but I wish you were a bit more symphatic and
> extended your condolences to the thousands and thousands less
> fortunate. More than 50% in fact dont see as well as they did with
> glasses in their own subjective opinion and when measured
> objectivately, this becomes over 95% due to induced aberrations, oblate
> cornea, loss of contrast, etc. However being happy/satisfied is what
> matters most. Alot of people I know are happy with 20/30, 20/40 or even
> 20/100 vision because this *reduces* their dependancy on glasses and
> they arent "blind" without glasses. That alone was well worth the
> tradeoffs.
>
There are not "thousands and thousands" less fortunates out there. If
you choose to believe the "flappies", that's your problem.
Ragnar
You have a habit of changing my statements... I did not say that
RGPs give MUCH better vision than lasik.
The best vision possible is achieved with RGPs... however.. most
people can't tolerate wearing them. And I never said MUCH better.
Glasses might give 20/30 or even 20/20 under ideal circumstances.. but
that doesn't take into account smudges on the lenses, fogging of the
lenses or vapor collecting on them.. chips, scratches, hairs on the
lenses... or slipping of the glasses.. or the very limited field of
vision.
A human can see movement via peripheral vision to about 270 out of 360
degrees... glasses do nothing for that.
As a matter of fact.. football and motorcycle helmets have one huge
disadvantage in that they rob the wearer of their peripheral vision.
Wearing a motorcycle helmet is a bit like a horse wearing blinders -
which is why Florida allows motorcycle riders to ride WITHOUT a
helmet. What they should really wear is a helmet that doesn't obscure
vision.
Lastly... you do not know what you are talking about.. you have no
interest in having LASIK done... and although your ficticious alias of
Malcontent has had LASIK... you really need to go away. At best..
you are a pest.