Your eye will also be more susceptible to damage (depending upon the surgery you've had) as the integrity won't be as good as it was before (this is especially true with Lasik because of the free floating flap).
Laser eye treatment - who's done it?
- Thread starter Phate
- Start date
If there are only a few, they can be moved by repeatedly moving your eye up and down. Just make sure to do it when your friends/colleagues can't see you as otherwise they may think you're on LSD or having a fit.
It will cure it for a number of hours but they will eventually go back to where they were.
Now you know what Eye protection is for!
I found that out while using a circular saw a few years ago. I needed to do a quick cut on some slate and didn't bother with goggles, a piece flew up and I ended up in A&E with a splinter in my eye. Luckily there wasn't any damage but I've definitely learned my lesson. I think from wearing glasses for years, if I was just doing something quickly, I wouldn't bother getting the goggles out but I do all the time now.
Just had my annual check up (I had cataract surgery + istent as a glaucoma treatment several year ago. It has been incredibly successful in treating the high eye pressures 16-17 yesterday, before surgery heading north of 30 even with eye drops)
(From reading about this, it seems that my treatment has been particularly effective. Rather more so that typically claimed. The fact that I was also +6 as well is probabally a factor)
I just had the simple replacement lens (Not multifocal/toric) and although the distance correction is spot on, I still have a bit of astigmatism.
I asked my consultant about laser surgery to correct this. He suggested that if i really wanted to do something about it, and I very much got the impression that the attitude was not to bother really since it isn't a big problem, I should go for a surgical option (Small relieving partial depth cuts around the edge of the cornea.) on the grounds that this would not be as invasive as laser surgery and would not compromise the integrity of the cornea anything like as much.
Now we get to the interesting bit, which is the main point of the reply.
I asked him how laser correction works in the first place since if I burn my skin, it grows back as it heals Why doesn't the cornea grow back when it heals.
The answer is basically that it doesn't heal. There is no blood supply to the cornea so its ability to heal after damage is actually quite limited. That is why laser surgery works. The cornea never really heals properly and nor does the flap and the eye is always vulnerable to damage in a way that it would not have been before.
For something that is promoted widely as a simple and inexpensive procedure so that you no longer have to wear glasses, this strikes me as being something that should be a major concern for anybody contemplating laser surgery.
I can understand that it might be worthwhile fo somebody with a stupid prescription lik -7 or something since if you lost your glasses you would be practically blind, I was +6 before cataract surgery and my greatest fear was breaking/losing my glasses while out for the day and not being able to drive home. This is now not a problem. Though I do use glasses for driving/going to the cinema to correct the astigmatism, I can drive perfectly safely without them.
But if you have a less severe prescription and are simply having this sort of surgery to get rid of the glasses for cosmetic reasons, it may really not be that good an idea.
Indeed, It occurs to me that having a Multifocal/Toric lens replacement might actually be a rather safer option, though rather more expensive.
It would also provide some future protection from developing glaucoma, especially if you are long sighted.
(Though this is not without its problems too. Not everybody can get used to them and your low light level vision is poorer, though I am given to understand that the last three years has resulted in significant improvements in the technology and the ability to predict who is likely to benefit and who is not)
As an aside, I was amused to note that the, really not that old, visual field analysis machine ran on XP and had an FDD!
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 4,103
I am -5 and -7. No way would i consider thos laser surgery, especially after reading what you just wrote about the cornea never healing. I really don’t mind wearing glasses as i have been used to it for so long.
My optician said he has quite a few people who are beyond -10 , i don’t -7 is that severe, although it is high.
My optician said he has quite a few people who are beyond -10 , i don’t -7 is that severe, although it is high.
Soldato
Are you suggesting that you don't think -7 is too severe?!
You can't see even your forearms length at that prescription
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 4,103
Well its not great but its far from the worst. You can get lenses up to -20 i think.
I can see my forearm at length also btw.
Last edited:
Soldato
You guys are way overestimating the incidence of flap dislodging.
It would be a concern if you're into heavy contact sports where your face might get smashed in, such as boxing. For daily things, it isn't a concern. LASIK is approved for usage in the US military and if flap dislodging was a real issue they wouldn't bother. Hell, for how common LASIK is I really don't hear about flaps coming dislodged all the time in car accidents either.
To most people, being able to ditch glasses and the future possibility of bifocals (which are a constant annoyance) is far more beneficial than the extremely rare chance you dislodge a flap and need to get it put back in place.
It would be a concern if you're into heavy contact sports where your face might get smashed in, such as boxing. For daily things, it isn't a concern. LASIK is approved for usage in the US military and if flap dislodging was a real issue they wouldn't bother. Hell, for how common LASIK is I really don't hear about flaps coming dislodged all the time in car accidents either.
To most people, being able to ditch glasses and the future possibility of bifocals (which are a constant annoyance) is far more beneficial than the extremely rare chance you dislodge a flap and need to get it put back in place.
I was nearly -8 in both eyes, I'm now perfect in one and -0.25 in the other.
Definitely, everything is so much easier without having to worry about faffing with glasses.
Wasnt the chance of a flap dislodge in the first 12 months something like a 1 in 100,000 chance? Pretty sure they ran through it in LVC consult and that was the most likely, yet still massively improbable odds.
Soldato
Wouldn't be surprised. It's extremely rare. One of the initial concerns was what would happen during high altitudes after LASIK such as climbing Everest?
Turns out, absolutely nothing.
Plus everyone will eventually get cataract...having an IOL implant when you're younger means you'll heal better and will never have to deal with the gradual impact of opacification. Plus your prescription will be a lot more stable too.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 4,103
I was nearly -8 in both eyes, I'm now perfect in one and -0.25 in the other.
Definitely, everything is so much easier without having to worry about faffing with glasses.
Thats good man, how old were you when you had it done?
Soldato
The problem is multifocal lenses aren't that good. You can't beat a lens that can self adjust. You're talking trading a 1 in 100,000 chance of disloging a flap but having perfect vision over a lens implant that will either require you to wear glasses to see at whatever distances the lens cannot focus at (for single focal) or having to deal with the problems of multifocal lenses?
You can't be serious, right?
Yes, you are correct. a correctly functioning self correcting lens is the best option.
But we are talking about people who do not have this option.
Multifocal lenses are nowhere near being a perfect alternative. You lose a lot of low light level ability because the lenses absorb a lot of light.
Also, not every-bodies brains can adapt to them. (It is a brain processing issue rather than a simple optics one)
When I was given the option 3/4 years ago the "Failure" rate for multifocals was about 1:20. If it didn't work for you, you would have to have another single focus lens replacement.
But, as I said earlier, apparently the tech has moved on and it is a lot better and a lot more predictive.
I can tell you lens replacement is not a pleasant procedure. I certainly would not want to have to do something like this twice. I am amazed that people have this done as an out-patient thing. For me, Mr Bupa paid for an overnight stay. and I was very grateful for this when about 01:00 my GF saw blood coming from my eye (It wasn't a problem. Amazingly my consultant was still there to come up to my room and reassure me. But then I guess that is what you get with private health care!
(I also got a damn good full English breakfast the morning after too!))Interestingly. I understand that cataract surgery is the #1 NHS procedure. And there is a bottleneck because there simply are not enough suitably qualified surgeons to meet the demand.
The silly thing is that, in principle, it isn't a particularly expensive procedure. and yet it has an enormous potential to improve the lives of millions of people.
The really sad thing is that the NHS basically waits until people are almost blind before authoring the surgery. and by that time, eyesight is frequently permanently damaged because the internal brain connections have been truncated and they never recover...
The standard of vision following lens replacement is better than that of laser correction, with less aberration, issues with scatter and chances of regression. It's just a better visual outcome...yes you suddenly become presbyopic and would need readers, but that will have irrespective of procedure around mid 40's anyway. Personally as a glasses wearer (-3 right and left) I wouldn't consider either, but for someone who wanted the best visual outcome and the most stable prescription I'd defiintely suggest an IOL. You also don't need to have multi-focal implants and if you demo monovision contacts and can tolerate them that's a viable alternative.
Yes it would be. You will have got at least another line down on the eye chart, possibly even two!
(Am I right?)
For long sighted people however, it works the other way round. You will lose at least one line and possibly two.
There is nothing magic about this.
It is just optics!
:/
Yus
I could read the 20/20 , 20/14 and even 1 letter on the 20/12 line.
As with all optics it truly depends on your severity. I'd say my old prescription was more than severe enough to gain a massive quality of life improvement from surgery.
I wasn't debating your point.
I could read the 20/20 , 20/14 and even 1 letter on the 20/12 line.
As with all optics it truly depends on your severity. I'd say my old prescription was more than severe enough to gain a massive quality of life improvement from surgery.
I wasn't debating your point.
I had it done 7 years ago when I was 28. I'd worn glasses for about 20 years!