I know what you mean. My frames are just 3 strips of titanium. They don't even have hinges, it just relies on the fact that the arms can bend without breaking. So three pieces of metal and 4 holes in the lenses some how work out to be around $350.

And then I've got to get the lenses. I've got bad astigmatism but I'm only reasonably short sighted this means the lenses are thicker than normal. Which means the thinnest lenses and they're another $350.

So all in all it's incredibly expensive! I doubt I'd be able to get any laser eye surgery done as I've got really dry eyes as well...

- Trevor

They are called rimless and they are held to the frame by fishing line. No glue needed. Probably cost more because of brand name.

the doctor that i went to is Dr. Moosa of Los Angeles. [...] anyways, i have a week to chicken out

That's a name that I didn't come across in my Lasik research in LA. I ended up going with Dr. Macy, at Ceders-Sinai.

I won't kid you, it was the most absolutely frightening thing I've ever done, far surpassing my first skydiving trip (which *used* to be the most frightening thing I've ever done) -- I'm less afraid of dying, than I am of going through life blind. Up until I went through with the procedure, the closest thing I'd ever been to being blind was putting a blindfold on. The surgery was the first time I'd ever experienced true involuntary blindness that I wasn't in control of (the part when they put the suction thing on to cut the corneal flap).

I'd have to agree with pretty much everything that DiGNAN17 said (as the only other poster thus far with first hand experience), *except* for one thing: I'm not usually one to take drugs (I've healed up from a fairly badly seperated shoulder with nary an aspirin), but in retrospect, I'd have taken some sedatives if they'd been offered. I was incredibly tense, so my results weren't quite as good as they could have been (I ended up with 20/20 in one eye, 20/15 in the other).

Can't speak to the costs, since it was covered 100% by my company's insurance, but it's the best damn benefit I've ever had -- worth more than my salary for the year, as far as I'm concerned!

Don't chicken out.

At 22, I don't think it'll be too bad. They definitely advise that your prescription should be pretty stable, and mine had been for years.

I don't know about you, but I found it helped to watch the operations being done. I'm not sure what your doctor does, but at mine's office, in the back where the surgery rooms are, they have 19" TVs inside the surgery rooms that people can watch on the outside, broadcasting the procedure. I must have seen 30 of those.

The thing that amazed me the most is the turnover rate at which they do this. The average operation lasts about 10 minutes. It's like a fast food restaurant Would you like fries with your cornea?

The thing that amazed me the most is the turnover rate at which they do this. The average operation lasts about 10 minutes. It's like a fast food restaurant Would you like fries with your cornea?

Ah, youth. Amazed...or horrified? I'm, sorry, but I'm an old fart and I think I just need to check in to some spa somewhere in Arizona that can give a rubdown and make me more jaded.

If the [censored]-up rate is 5 percent -- 1 in 20 -- then I would expect 19 Lasik customers out of 20 to chime in one how well it worked out. Fair enough. But.....

Okay, okay.... there was a problem with mine. When the corneal flap got put back on my left eye, an eyelash got underneath. The day after, I had that removed, and I had a reaction to the anesthetic drops used the second time, which were mildly different from the drops used the first day. The anesthetic wore off while I was in a bookstore, and when it did, I sat there for about 10 minutes crying from the pain before I managed to stumble blindly back to the doctor's office.

There. There's your 1 in 20. Happy now?

Honestly, I asked my doc about that, and in all the thousands of procedures he's done, he's had exactly three problems: one lady rubbed her eyes (after being told many times not to), one lady wore mascara the day after the surgery (after being told not to), and my eyelash under the flap.

Where did you hear that 5% statistic, and what does it mean? Is that 5% failure rate of all procedures starting from the first time it was ever performed? What's the statistic for the procedure in the last... say... year? And just what constitutes a "failure"? Achieving anything less than 20/20? Going blind?

I had a disastrous experience with lasik, and put up a website to educate prospective patients about the risks and unknowns. You can read my story and learn about the devastating complications which can occur, at:

www.lasikdisaster.com

Please also spend a bunch of time on the bulletin board at www.surgicaleyes.org

We'd rather have you visit us before having surgery than have you become a lifetime member after!

I had this done.... best money I ever spent (for me my work offered a flex spending account... so no noticable money outta my pocket). I was in and out of the eye place in less then a half hour. My eyesight went from never being able to see without glasses (can't remember my prescription before the surgery but I literally couldn't see 10 ft in front of my without my glasses) to 20/20 in my left and 20/19 in my right the surgery is great. Out of the 10 people in my office that had it done everyone except one is extremely happy. The one guy had a rare side effect where his eye thought it was traumatized more then it really was and got flooded with white blood cells however he's been back a few times and is expected to be 20/20 in that eye soon. His was a very rare occurence. IMHO it's the best money you can spend.

Do some research and find a doctor that has a crap load of surgery's under his belt and you'll be fine (my doc had over 7000 surgery's)

There. There's your 1 in 20. Happy now?

Finally! (actually, that didn't sound like fun!)

Honestly, I asked my doc about that, and in all the thousands of procedures he's done, he's had exactly three problems: ....

I'd certainly allow that's possible -- even with the high degree of computeriztion, I'd still guess that there are folks who are better at this and some who are not. Unless, I knew one of these folks extremely well, though, I don't know that i would take what they say at face value. Suspicious old me!

Where did you hear that 5% statistic, and what does it mean? Is that 5% failure rate of all procedures starting from the first time it was ever performed? What's the statistic for the procedure in the last... say... year? And just what constitutes a "failure"? Achieving anything less than 20/20? Going blind?

I think different statistics get kicked around on this and I am no authority. I used the 5 percent figure in the context of "if the failure rate is" 5 percent. What is a failure? I expect some of the follow-up studies have come up with different definitions, but I doubt they are always clear-cut. I would characterize what you experienced as a complication, not a failure. For success/failure, I would be looking at long term outcome. Did vision situation improve? stay the same? get somewhat worse? get much worse?

Since I pretty much decided not to do this because of the reading glass issue, I didn't really research all of these things, but if I were contemplating this, I would spend a week in a medical library searching thrrough Medline for Lasik studies. Esoteric Ogg players are a great place to be an early adopter. IMO, early adoption of surgical procedures is for life-or-death or agonal situations.

I had a disastrous experience with lasik

I'm so sorry to hear that. I can't imagine what that would be like.

The one thing I would say is that I'm sorry, but you didn't go to the right people.

I see that you have a link on your main page that says "Undercover investigation of TLC!!", but the video doesn't show up. I'd be interested in knowing what it's about, because that is the office I went to.

It sounds like you never once talked to the performing surgeon, and that is amazing to me. Each of my family members saw our surgeon 2 or 3 times in various pre-surgery visits, were explained everything that would/could happen, and during the surgery the surgeon himself talks you though the whole process.

It also sounds to me like you had many problems that would make you a poorer candidate than your doctor said you were.

Where did you hear that 5% statistic, and what does it mean?

I'm not entirely sure. I think I heard it from my opthomologist, although I could have heard it from a friend who's an optical surgeon. Both, by the way, wear glasses.

You have my sympathy, as well, but when I see things like this,

I never heard one negative word about LASIK before having it done. It was presented as though as innocuous as a haircut, so I approached it in that regard. I did not research it because I trusted Dr. Husband's knowledge and recommendation, and at the time, I felt that obtaining medical information off the Internet was dangerous.

I have to admit that sympathy is difficult to come by. You did zero research because you trusted the knowledge of someone who's never done, and is not qualified to perform the surgery? I'm sorry, but that doesn't sound too bright to me. Do you know the difference between an optometrist and an opthamologist? Did you look at the qualifications of the doctor that was doing the surgery? I can understand the feeling that getting medical info off the 'net isn't the best thing to do, but when you only have one pair of eyes, I'd think that you'd want to be as informed as possible. As far as I'm concerned, mis-information can be just as useful as correct information, because it gives you something to ask the opthamologist about -- "this is what I've read, is that correct?" At every step of the pre-surgery office visit, and every step of the day-of office visit, I had them explain to me what they were doing, and more importantly, why, and what the results meant. I did, however, opt not to see a video of the procedure.

It also sounds to me like you had many problems that would make you a poorer candidate than your doctor said you were.

Honest doctors would/should have told you about those, too. If a person who is not a good candidate for a surgery has the surgery and has problems as a result, is that the fault of the surgery? If the doctor is inexperienced and bungles the surgery, is that the fault of the surgery?

You got bad doctors who most certainly ought to be slapped with malpractice suits and be driven from the business, but you didn't educate yourself enough to realize that.

Anytime you undergo an important surgery, you should have a second opinion. I think any surgery involving your eyes would qualify for that criteria....

Bingo. To approach an operation, especially one where they slice up your eyes, like it's a haircut seems.... naive, at best.

To approach an operation, especially one where they slice up your eyes, like it's a haircut seems.... naive, at best.

Not if you know nothing about the operation. People have to trust their doctors, just like they have to trust anyone who is an expert in things they don't understand. Whether it's prescribing a medication, or performing surgery, I accept that my doctor is the expert and I'm not.

If you trust your doctor, and your doctor convinces you that the procedure is as simple as a haircut, it's the doctor's fault, not yours.

Although no doctor should say such a thing. He has a responsibility (or should have) to inform a patient of risks involved. When these risks are explained the patient should do some research. It is pretty naive to just blindly (excuse the pun) walk into cosmetic eye surgery. I do see your point, but he can't assume that all patients aren't ignorant.

It is both of their faults. It is the doctor's fault for misrepresenting things. He is in a position of responsibility where people take his words as the gospel truth and should be very careful to tell the complete truth.

However, it is also your fault for just accepting whatever he says. Ask him questions. Challenge him. You should get as much information out of him as possible and not simply accept simplistic answers. Also, if it is surgery or an important procedure, you should ALWAYS get a second opinion. Regardless of how simple Lasik is, those are still your eyes.

You'd think that spending thousands of dollars would have convinced this lady that the procedure is more complicated than a haircut. At least she might have been concerned about her wallet, even if not her eyesight?

I'm not saying people should not feel sympathetic. A large part, maybe even most, of the blame belongs with the doctor, but people shouldn't try to fob off all the responsibility when they deserve some themselves.

-Biscuits

If it's something like a mild corrective prescription, I'm going to trust the doctor with his judgement. He knows more about this stuff. But if he's going to cut a part of me, especially my eyes, I'm going to ask him some questions.

The fact is, in her story, she makes it sound as if she went right into the operation without any research whatsoever (in fact, I think she says this flat out). I watched dozens of these operations, including my mother's, before going through it myself. I knew every step of the way what was happening, and the doctor made sure to fill me in as well.

I definitely think she went to the wrong people. They should have made her more informed of what was going on. However, my father and I asked countless questions of anyone who would listen. We made sure to arm ourselves with the knowledge of what was happening to us.

When I went in to see the surgeon who would be performing the operation, he was fairly certain that I would have to have enhancements (read: corrections) done after the initial operation. He told me this.

Inform yourself!

I had the Lasik 1,5 year ago.
The first 12 hours you wil hate yourself (at least I did) because it feels like someone has dropped a bag of salt in your eyes.
I had both my eyes done at the same time. It was about -2.5 in both eyes. now it's 0
I'm 110% happy with it!! :-))))

for the dutch viewers; I had mine done here: lasikcentrum.nl

Greetings, Robert

To approach an operation, especially one where they slice up your eyes, like it's a haircut seems.... naive, at best.

Not if you know nothing about the operation.

Especially if you know nothing about the operation, and even more so when it's an elective procedure!

People have to trust their doctors, just like they have to trust anyone who is an expert in things they don't understand. Whether it's prescribing a medication, or performing surgery, I accept that my doctor is the expert and I'm not.

Absolutely. I don't have a problem with trusting doctors, but my first priority is to myself. My health is my responsibilty. Let me ask you this: how much research did you do before you bought the Empeg? Don't you think your health is worth the time and effort to find out what is going to happen to you? There's a difference between researching an operation, finding out out the risks and benefits, making sure your doctor is qualified, and going out and becoming an expert in the field. If I have a doctor tell me I need open heart surgery, I'm going to ask why, and if there are any other options. I'm not going to say "okay... you're the expert, go ahead. Whatever you say." As a patient, it is *my* job to be informed about what's going on.

In the case of this LASIK gone bad, the optometrist said no to the procedure back in what... 1985? She finally had the procedure done in 1999, after her optometrist completely flipflopped his stance on the operation. In 14 years she did no research. It's not like this was something that she had to make a snap judgement on -- "if I don't do this in the next 2 days, I'm going to die!" I don't, for a second, buy that I should put *less* thought into an operation than I do into buying a truck. If you do, then you're a fool.

Doctors are not infallible. The wife of one of my workmates was having knee trouble. The doctor recommended having surgery, which would leave her pain free, but unable to walk up and down stairs. She researched her options, and decided not to have the surgery, which is contrary to what the doctor told her. Today she has no knee trouble, is pain free, and can walk up and down stairs -- all she needed was a change in lifestyle.

It's your job to make sure you visit a doctor, and not a doctorb (the b is for bargain).

Let me ask you this: how much research did you do before you bought the Empeg? Don't you think your health is worth the time and effort to find out what is going to happen to you?

Oh yeah, for *me*, I do the research. Whether it's buying an empeg, or getting sinus surgery, I do the research.

Not everyone does, though. And not everyone should be expected to. I don't think that everyone should have to distrust their doctor and second-guess everything the doctor tells them. I think we need to place responsibility squarely on the doctors to make sure their patients know the risks of any procedure.

It's not like buying a car, where you expect the salesman to lie to you. Doctors should be honest and straight with you, and there's nothing wrong with expecting that. I just don't see why a Lasik patient should share the blame when things go wrong.

Should I blame myself when the car mechanic leaves the drain plug off of the oil pan? "Oh you should have expected that might happen. Sorry your engine ran out of oil."

It's not like buying a car, where you expect the salesman to lie to you. Doctors should be honest and straight with you, and there's nothing wrong with expecting that. I just don't see why a Lasik patient should share the blame when things go wrong.


The doctor probably was fairly straight with her, but if you don't ask questions then you shouldn't expect answers.
From the medical standpoint, the operation is pretty compelling; 95% of patients have no complications and basically have a 'miracle cure' for bad eyesight. Of the remaining 5%, probably 90% of those still end up with near-perfect eyesight after multiple operations. And of the remaining 0.5%, probably 90% of those eventually end up with improved vision.
IANAD, but I bet that those are darn good figures for a medical operation. Ok, it sucks for the 0.05% that go through multiple surgeries and end up with the same or worse vision, but medically speaking, it is an elective surgery with little risk and big rewards.

Oh yeah, for *me*, I do the research. [...] Not everyone does, though. And not everyone should be expected to.

Clearly not everyone does, but I disagree that not everyone should be expected to. It's completely irresponsible to have any operation without knowing the risks.

I don't think that everyone should have to distrust their doctor and second-guess everything the doctor tells them. I think we need to place responsibility squarely on the doctors to make sure their patients know the risks of any procedure.

I don't think you should have to distrust your doctor, either, and I do think it's the doctor's responsibility to make sure the patient knows the risks. But I also think that it's the patient's responsibility to ask if the doctor doesn't tell you. It's also the patient's responsibility to make sure the doctor has explained everything in language you understand.

It's not like buying a car, where you expect the salesman to lie to you.

What, you think you're in Canada, with a public health care system? This is the US -- medicine is a for profit venture here, and as far as I'm concerned, talking do medical staff here is like buying a car.

I just don't see why a Lasik patient should share the blame when things go wrong. Should I blame myself when the car mechanic leaves the drain plug off of the oil pan?

No, but I think you're confusing two things there. Things like leaving the drain plug off the oil pan, or complications arising during surgery can only be blamed on the person doing the job -- that's beyond your control. What you do have control over is who you take your car or eyes to, and if you made a bad choice there, such as taking your car to a disreputable mechanic or going to a doctor that doesn't explain the risks of an elective surgery, then yes, you are to blame for that.

I had a disastrous experience with lasik,

I'm guessing your first visit to this BBS is the result of referrer logs. Since I may have triggered that, I felt a responsibility to go back and peruse even though I have no direct interest in Lasik. I have a few comments and thoughts, not all directly related to your site:

- When a paragraph on the home page claims that "Doctors....are being refused publication of their studies in the medical journals because the industry doesn't want the world to know that LASIK can be very dangerous." it would be helpful if you linked to something that backed this statement up. Did I miss it? It is also an extraordinary claim -- not unbelievable, mind you, but extraordinary. What evidence do you offer when that journal says that "we refused them publication because their study was crummy"?

- When the link to "Suicide" offers pretty much an unattributed letter (since deleted) from a BBS (and nothing else that I can see), I can't help but ignore it. Unless you can offer more, who's to say that the suicide note isn't from the surgeon's vengeful ex-wife?

- I share other folk's sympathy, but I see you have been taken to task for plunging in without proper research. I detect some of that from your story. That being said, I expect that there are folks out there who did everything right, researched extensively, yet still suffered a bad outcome. They just may not have started a BBS or visited one.

A few threads following this have talked about "Who is responsible?" Medical decisions are a shared responsibility, IMO, and the delicate balance of who is responsible for what depends on a lot of factors -- unusualness of the situation, gravity, number of alternatives, history of the partnership, technical complexity. In the case of an elective procedure with a track record less than 1/3 as long as the expected average lifespan of the potential patient, I think more of the burden falls on the patient.

Practitioners of different stripes *do* suffer from cognitive dissonance. Some are able to manage it better than others, but it remains that surgeons like to solve problems with surgery, medicos with medicine, etc. For some, throwing barrels of money into the equation for very quick procedures can distort their judgement. Docs are sometimes surprisingly easily swept away by the latest-greatest therapy and identify with it, perhaps to their detriment, then may be disappointed to discover years later that the old therapy worked just as well (or better).

For thoughtful practitioners, the patient who doesn't ask any questions, seems disinterested in details, and says "Oh, whatever you think is best!" should raise a red flag. Some of these folks will be the first to sue you when things go wrong.

Of the remaining 5%, probably 90% of those still end up with near-perfect eyesight after multiple operations

This is what my thinking was, which is why I wanted someone to provide a source for the 5% claim.

I also didn't want to say it, but you're right, the figures you estimate, if accurate, are pretty good for this type of procedure. I'm willing to bet there aren't a lot of other operations that have such a high percentage rate.

Jim, I agree with that statement as well about the people who likely did the research and still had bad results. The difference? Those people actually talked to their doctors beforehand and were explained the risks. Afterward I think they are less likely to go on this type of campaign, because they really don't have anyone to blame. If malpractice was involved, then they do, but if it's a result of something that they were aware of before, it's a little tougher.

So I still say yes, her doctor should have said,"if you have dry eyes, the operation may not be as successfull." But she should have asked questions and done some research, or she would have come across this. Either way, it doesn't matter because it isn't the fault of the Lasik practice, it's the fault of her or her doctors.

I also didn't want to say it, but you're right, the figures you estimate, if accurate, are pretty good for this type of procedure. I'm willing to bet there aren't a lot of other operations that have such a high percentage rate.

I don't want to flog this thread, but what you say provoked some other thoughts. OK, we don't know whether the 5% is accurate or what it represents, but I'll just use it here for argument's sake....

If the number (for a serious complication) is really 5%, then I would say that the 95% success rate is actually not very good, as I would compare this to the adverse effect rate that would result from doing nothing for some period. What is the adverse effect of doing nothing for 1 year or 5 years?

Lasik would stand in contrast to something like cardiac pacemakers, where the indications for using the therapy are pretty clear-cut, the success rate is very high, and the consequences of delay are, well, like *death* maybe.

In addition to the *percentage* rate of complications/failure, I'd also be concerned about the population incidence. It is one thing if you have a 50-50 radical therapy for a relatively rare disease where the consequences of doing nothing are very bad. A small number of people are eleigible for the therapy, a small number can suffer the adverse outcomes, and they may well suffer more or die anyway if no action is taken.

With Lasik, the population of eligibles is *huge* and it grows immensely in economic actuality as the purchase price of the procedure is reduced through efficencies and competition between providers.

So, if the eligible/partaking population is huge, and if we find that longer-term negative consequences/outcomes exist that maybe we weren't able to gauge at the 10-year mark, then the rate wouldn't even have to come close to 5 percent to have a negative effect for 10s of thousands, 100s of thousands....millions?

Um, quote taken out of context.

I was talking about how I agreed with his divisions of that 5%. What we're confused about is whether the 5% was all failures, or whether it was made up of failures, enhancements, and non-improvements. That's what,"the figures you estimate" meant. 5% is one figure For example, what is the success rate for most types of plastic surgery, like breast implants?

That said, I don't think 95% is a good success rate, but I also would like to know what the real numbers are. Looking back at the thread, the first mention of the 5% figure was from DWallach who said,"Last I checked, the "complication" rate was hovering around 5%." Who knows if that number is accurate.

For example, what is the success rate for most types of plastic surgery, like breast implants?

From what I can tell by walking around town, very high.

Badum-ching!

Sorry, didn't mean to ignore your more serious point, but I couldn't resist the set up!

Yes, now even *I* would like to know what the numbers really are.