posted 09-04- 11:16 AM               

My wife and I were considering having Lasik Eye surgery to have perfect 20/20 or better vision. We both wear glasses and are very sick of them. However, after going to SurgicalEyes.com and reading all of the horror stories about complications from this procedure, we won't be having this done anymore. Your vision just isn't worth messing with if it's going to ruin your life.

Check out that forum and you'll see what I mean. If you know someone who is considering it (or if you are yourself), you must read the stories there. I found it very disturbing. Even if you are left with some of the typical "side effects" BUT your Doc has you seeing at 20/20 or thereabouts, you are considered a successful patient. The bad news is the possible complictations are VERY serious and some very painful.

posted 09-04- 01:23 PM               

Yeah i heard it could mess with your nightvision but I thought it happend a couple years later. And I never heard about all that other stuff.

Pete I heard of another method that doesn't use lasers, they inplant a rubber ring in your eye that ends up acting kinda like a contact lens.

All this stuff is in its early stages so It was bound to happen, it just sucks how we don't hear about it.

I'm waiting for nanotechs. Then we will have zoom eyes that can take pictures and self repair.

posted 09-04- 04:40 PM               

I know several people who have had the procedure and absolutely love the results.
My vision is exceedingly poor without contacts or glasses, im considering having this done after i graduate.

Of course, if 60% of patients experience loss of night vision as some of these people claim, perhaps it isnt worth it.

posted 09-04- 05:09 PM               

I've heard of others who had these results. I think its probably all a matter of the quality of the Dr you see, and how bad your vision is start with.

My wife wears glasses at night to reduce the glare of lights because of some starbursting, but in her case the trade off was worth it in her opinion.

The do need to test more and explain more when they sell the procedure.

[This message has been edited by goth (edited 09-04-2000).]

posted 09-04- 10:37 PM               

In a recent study 2/3 of laser patients failed the night vision test for a german driver's license too.

Theres a place in town here that does the intacs (implantable rings). After reading the surgical eyes site and talking to some of the people there the past few months those would be my choice but they don't work if your vision is very poor to start.

TS

------------------
Patch It!

TS Aircombat

posted 09-05- 12:55 AM               

I know. I'm thinking 20/20 and 60 Minutes among other shows will jump all over this in the future. The one thing I didn't mention is professional athletes! Tiger Woods recently had this done as well as a few other athletes to gain an edge on their competition. That's cool but it's the "if" part that really concerns me.

There is a new method pending FDA approval where a few drops are carefully placed on the cornea, making it "pliable." Then a specific contact lens for your vision type is put in and worn for a couple days. Once the lens is removed "hardening" drops are then put in which keep the new shape permenant. But if you ask me, sight is so precious that I'd hate to fudge it and be stuck with something horrible like the people on that forum.

A friend of ours had this done 3 DAYS ago (the Lasik surgery). Because she went through it I was seriously considering it for my wife and I. I haven't talked to her yet but her going and having it done was the reason I wanted to dig deep and find out more.

In about a year some new laser equipment should be hitting the market that will effect a wider portion of the cornea and hopefully do away with all these problems. Also now they are starting to look into procedures where no cutting will be needed on the cornea. I'm just gonna hold out a couple more years until all of these effects are done away with and the results are better. To all of you who know someone who has done this, I hope all is well with those people. I'm seriously praying for the ones who are screwed now on that other forum.

And lastly, the quality of the Doc is important, but it still can go wrong! There are many cases I've read today where the best Doc has performed the surgery and considered it successful. But then a few days or a month later, problems start and some of them aren't fixable! So don't be disillusioned by a "perfect" Doc who says you are a "perfect" candidate. It pays them $4500-5500 bucks to do both eyes, so many of them are in it for the money. And since the patient signs a waiver if things go really wrong (which they tell you of course they shouldn't go wrong... I've done 3000 of these procedures with only 2 go bad, or something like this), legally you are screwing yourself over IF things do develope and you lose sight. And for some, this sight isn't even correctable WITH GLASSES! That scares the heck out of me.

Ok, I'm done.

posted 09-05- 02:27 PM               

- Like all "tech support" you predominantly hear from people who are having trouble. I believe, from a statistical perspective, the number of people having real trouble is fairly small.

- The psychology of this sort of thing often leads people with a perceived problem to exaggerate the problem.

- As Whirlwind pointed out, correlation isn't the same as causation.

Also, think about this. One possible reason that none of the TV "news" magazines have covered this story is that the number of people with problems is low enough to convince even those producers that it's not a widespread, systemic problem. Also, that despite the low numbers, the medical community is working diligently to improve their processes to reduce the number even further.

I'm not saying all that to diminish the real problems some people are suffering. I'm just trying to make people think a little. I'm a little tired of wild accusations with little data that leads to sensationalist tabloid media.

A friend of mine is an optometrist and he underwent Lasik surgery last year, with what he considers good results. That he was willing to put himself in the chair says a lot, to me.

posted 09-05- 03:37 PM               

Mighty, consider this. They are saying 2% of patients will have complications. They are expecting 1 Million people to have the surgury this year. Do the math. That's 20,000 people who can look forward to having problems. I think I'll wait, since there is no telling how your eyes will respond and you may find yourself in that 2%.

So even though it is doing well for some, it's not enough for me to want it at this point. Hopefully in the future it'll be more perfected, or better yet another procedure will come along that doesn't require slicing open your eyes. I've seen several videos of it and I was thinking, that's their EYES being hacked open!! Vision is an incredibly precious thing in life. My vision is so damned important to me that I'll stick with glasses for now until I can be assured success.

Btw if successful I'd be in heaven. My eyes are 20/400 and 20/450. Not too good right now. I'm practically blind without my glasses (and yes it sucks).

posted 09-05- 06:09 PM               

I'm telling ya pete, Nanotechs are the ultimate answer. No problems there and you could change your vision on the fly any time you wanted.

Whenever we get off our asses and get some research going into that all these so called doctors will be out of business.

posted 09-05- 07:07 PM               

hehe

posted 09-06- 04:23 PM               

Pete, at the rate were working on them it could take another 50 years.

Sucks.

Himdog, thats very eyeopening Har Har
Thanks for the info.

I was also considering but I won't be able to afford it for at least a couple years so by then hopefully things will be a bit better.

posted 09-13- 08:36 PM               

US. Navy NFO selectees can have any degree of vision within refractive standards correctable to 20/20, but they usually draw the line at +/- 6 diopters. Pilots MUST have 20/20 uncorrected. I'm -4.0 uncorrected and 20/15 in both eyes corrected. See where I'm goin'?

US. Airforce navigators can have up to +/- 3.5 refractive error, but waivers are routinely granted to deserving applicants.
Pilots are 20/20.

US. Coast Guard PILOTS can have up to 20/50 but waivers are granted here too. NFO (NAval Flight Officers) in the Coast Guard follow the Navy's standard for vision.

Don't know for sure about the Marine NFO's, haven't dealt with them yet, but pilots are 20/20.

There is one Navy LCDR who has undergone Lasik surgery and is allowed to fly as a pilot, but this guy is more of a Guinea pig and I would NOT repeat NOT count on the US Armed Services allowing laser eye surgery for their pilot applicants.

Pardon me if the terms and strengths are used in error, but this is straight from the horse's mouth from the good people at Boston MEPS.

posted 09-14- 01:22 AM               

I could use some glasses for far aways stuff.

I'm supposed to use them for night driving, legaly i think.

How does the number system work with vision?

I wouldn't mind piloting coast guard helis, In fact I think I would rather to that then be a military pilot.

posted 09-14- 10:08 AM               

TS

------------------
Patch It!