lasik eye surgery

i'm about to undergo this so i can get rid of contacts/glasses. anyone go thru it already an d warn me of things NOT to do?

Don't rub your eyes right after the surgery... That's all I can think of, since I didn't have it.

A whole lot of people that I know have had it and have been VERY happy with it though. It is affordable and comes out with excellent results almost every time. I would recommend you go to a good doctor (check his credentials, any papers he's written, etc.). Also, there are a few things you probably ought to be aware of:

There are a few issues with Lasik:
1. There is a very rare chance of reducing your eyesight permamently. This almost never happens, but it is possible. Similarly, you could get an infection, but these are also rare, especially so with Lasik (as opposed to some of the other eye surgeries).
2. The Lasik surgery is permament. It is possible to have minor corrections, but if it is seriously messed up the first time, or the shape of your eye later changes (both rather rare, but there still isn't much long-term empirical evidence), then you are stuck with the results.
3. There is a real chance that you could get Lasik and not have perfect vision. Some people still need corrective lenses even after the surgery. This is a possibility you should probably consider.
4. Lasik surgery cuts some of the nerves that tell your eye when it is dry. As a result, you may have dry eyes, possibly even needing eye drops, especially late at night or when you wake up in the morning.
5. Lasik reduces night vision in a significant portion of the people that undergo it. In addition, many people have a "halo effect" around any bright lights at night.

I hope that helps. As I said earlier, most people who have the surgery are very happy with the results.

-Biscuits

I at one point was talking to the son of an optometrist about this, and his mother had one argument that convinced me I wouldn't try it if I needed glasses. She claims that all of the people presenting papers at optometry conferences still wear glasses. If they're not convinced, I'm not convinced.

That being said, with every passing year they're learning more about the long term effects, so perhaps the experts have changed their minds.

Matthew

There are a few issues with Lasik:

This seems like a pretty fair list. I have Lasiked friends and coworkers. Some are pretty happy while others are not as happy as they wanted to be.

iMaGe, I expect by now that you've browsed Lasik story sites like this one. Allowing for the fact that some of the horror stories may be amplified by a certain "ambulance chaser" effect, the fact of possible complications remains. I'm pretty conservative when it comes to surgical procedures. All I'd say is that if you have any doubts about what you are getting into, there's not much of a downside to delaying. Kind of like tatoos!

I know several people who have had it, all who ended up very pleased with the results.

One of my friends was hating it directly after the procedure because it was uncomfortable and her vision was blurry. She swore that if she had to make the choice again, she would choose against it. After a week or so of her eyes adjusting themselves, she ended up with 20/20 and loved it. It was worth it in the end, she decided.

Probably similar to breast implants, for those who choose to have that done.

I remember reading a Newsweek article about this surgery, a couple years ago, when it was particularly popular.

The main things that I came away with from reading the article were:

- Some doctors were using that surgery system like an assembly line, buying into it and generating the revenue without necessarily making sure that it was the right solution for their patients. And some were practicing it on patients after little more training than a weekend seminar. So it's important to find a doctor who is experienced in the procedure, as well as one who's truly interested in helping *you* rather than making a fast buck on a popular procedure.

- Some patients, those who have very dry eyes, won't heal up properly after the surgery and will be much worse off than they were before it. So the doctor really needs to check you out and make sure that your eyes really can tolerate the procedure.

I had it done.

Before: severe far-sightedness with a bad astigmatism

After: 20/20

I'm also of the opinion that surgery should be avoided unless necessary. To that extent, you might want to try the Bates method of improving eyesight. (I'm sure that's not the best link, but it's the first one I saw.)

It assumes that sight irregularities are a result not of lens problems, but eyeball problems, and that they are caused by muscle stress on the eyeball itself. I'm not going to say that it will cure your eyesight problems, or even that it will help, but I can't imagine that anything in it could possibly hurt, so I'd definitely try that for a while before letting anyone cut on your eye, which, while probably unlikely, does have the potential for damage.

Make certain you are willing to live with the RESULTS of failure and not the RISKS of failure. I know a doctor who had a collegue that lost his vision in one eye from lasik surgery. The doctor I know said there was no way he would have it done.

Also, one of the things they don't talk about too much is visual acuity. You may have 20/20 vision, but your ability to resolve fine details (like the pixels on your mondo 1600x1200 monitor) might not be as good after the procedure as it was beforehand.

Last I checked, the "complication" rate was hovering around 5%. That's a very huge number. I would not go for an elective surgery until they got the complication rate under 0.5%, at the most.

Finally, if you're not in a hurry, there is much cooler technology around the corner. Check out what Brian Barsky, at U.C. Berkeley, is doing.

Okay, now that I'm not incredibly late for a class, I can go into more depth, as it appears that I am the only one here who has had first hand experience with the process. Trust me, I am well aware of the pros and cons. I'm willing to bet I'm one of the better people to give an opinion on it, as I think you'll see.

To start, I am a little over the 2.5 year mark with 20/20 vision, or what I would call perfect.

My mother had the operation before I did, and her results were not good. She had a lot of problems and had to go in for a total of 5 operations, 2 on one eye and 5 on the other. However, we finally got it right and she now has very good eyesight, if not 20/20.

Despite this process, I went ahead with the operation. In fact, I was so eager to have it done, I wasn't concerned with these facts:
-my mother's problems with her operations
-I was a test participant on a new type of laser
-at the time, the operation was not as successfull for far-sighted people as near-sighted, and I was very far-sighted
-the new laser I was a test subject for broke just before I was supposed to go in, and I had to come back another day while a repairman from the company was flown in to fix it

Despite all this, I went through with it, came out of it, and was seeing without glasses that very night.

My dad, who just started wearing glasses in his late 40's, decided he didn't now want to be the only one in the family wearing them, and he had it done recently on one eye. His results were also poor, as he was over corrected. They can fix it, however, and think they will, based on previous experience.


Here are the tips of advice I'd give:
-first, how old are you? if you are under 40, I think you'll have a much better shot
-the operation does not improve some things. When you get older your reading vision will not be as good. This is not an eye issue, but a muscular one from what I understand.
-you may be nervous, but don't take any sedatives if they offer them
-after the surgery, as someone said, don't touch your eyes. they will probably ask you to sit somewhere for 5 or 10 minutes with your eyes shut the entire time. After that, your coneas are effectively healed, but they will take time to heal completely.
-when you get home, SLEEP. This is why you shouldn't take the sedatives, because you will find it harder to sleep afterwards. the period within the first 4 or 5 hours is the most uncomfortable one, and I slept through it.

That's it. It's a very painless surgery. If you'd like me to describe it to you, I'd be happy to. I've seen plenty of them.

Another issue, as was mentioned, is who to get it done by. In that area I was fortunate. My eyes were done by the best person in the world possible. There's a DC area doctor named Mark Whitten (spelling?). He has, I believe, performed the surgery more times than anyone on the planet. He did Tiger Woods eyes, to which he attributed the following 7 championships that he one. He also did Matt Lauer on the Today Show in their segment on the subject. This is not one of those weekend seminar guys.

Lastly, there's the issue of cost. Yes, my whole family has had the operation. In my case, we got a break for the test thing. In my mom's case, the company was doing a toys for tots promotion where if you brought a toy, you'd get $1000 off. Not too bad. In my dad's case, he had too much in his FSA at the end of the year, and decided he might as well. None of these cases were, by the way, cosmetic decisions. The inconvenience of glasses was too much for us, and it gets expensive in it's own right. I tried contacts, but could only wear the gas permeable ones that were very painfull. My mom, as my dad says,"needed her glasses to find her glasses."

So there is my experience on the subject. Glad you asked?? Again, if you'd like me to describe the actual surgery, the procedures, or the after-visits, I can. Or at least what my doctor did.

Anyway, whatever happens, just remember, it's better than having to do this.

In reply to:

---

Anyway, whatever happens, just remember, it's better than having to do this.

---

No kidding. My mom had RK done back in the 80's. One eye ended up over corrected and the other ended up worse than it originally was. She still wears powerful contacts.

In reply to:

---

But his real brillance was in discovering that vision was extremely susceptible to mental strain. So, it does change a lot during the course of a day, even for people with normal sight, depending on the stress the person is under.

---

That is so true. I've noticed that when I'm stressed out and don't wanna do anything but just go home and relax, my vision gets very blurry, to the point where I have trouble reading billboards on the highway or reading a license plate 20 feet away. But when I'm well rested, very relaxed, and I can very easily concentrate, then my vision is perfect.

And have you noticed that when your eyes feel tired and you press on them with the balls or heels of your hands, you see better for a few seconds or minutes afterwards?

thanks for all the input. i've been struggling today because i did my exam in the morning. using the computer after getting my eyes dilated (so they can see if i'm healthy and viable for the surgery) proved to be a daunting task.

now, the doctor that i went to is Dr. Moosa of Los Angeles. he has quite a record (98% success rate, the OFFICIAL lasik surgeon for LAPD and LAFD officers who want it). Now price was pretty steep, but i'm paying for the name, imo.

i'm 22, and i agree with you that the younger you get it, the more beneficial it becomes. I figured that i was spending around 250$ a year on glasses/disposablecontacts/contactsolution, so lasik is more economical.

anyways, i have a week to chicken out (my appt is next saturday)... so hopefully i get thru reading those horror stories without changing my mind.

Not sure where you live, but the company I work for (B&L) makes the lasers for this type of surgery. the latest form of this is called zyoptics. It not US - FDA approved yet, but I know its being tested. I think its available in Europe and Canada right now.

the difference in the procedure is upfront diagnosis of your eye. The Ophthalmologist maps the various lenes of your eye, to precisely determine where the inaccuracy is. A computer takes this data and plots the best possible cornea shape to correct the total eye geometry. I am probably doing a poor job of explaining, but I am just a computer geek not and eye doc. Here is the first link i found :

http://www.laserfocus.com.au/equipment.htm

I know that with this procedure the risks are minimized, and the outcomes have been substantially better. I think most outcomes are 20/20 or better (BTW - 20/20 is average, 20/10 is considered perfect vision).

The inconvenience of glasses was too much for us, and it gets expensive in it's own right


Too true. I've just had my eyesight checked again, no real change (again), but I observed to the doctor that I'm getting worse computer-related eyestrain than I used to. He suggested that one of 2 things could be done. Firstly, the lenses could be marginally weakened to reduce the strain whilst hacking, but that would affect distance vision, or secondly, having 2 pairs of glasses, depending on use (I'm far-sighted BTW). Well, the first 'solution' didn't make me happy when we did a quick distence test, so he wrote up a prescription for 2 pairs.

I then went to the shop and looked at frames. In the past couple of years I've started having skin reactions to Nickel, so I need either plastic (yuck), or Stainless Steel, or Titanium frames. Needless to say, I haven't found a nice looking pair of frames for less than $200. Of course, my insurance will cover $130... of the first pair. So that's $270.

Being far-sighted, the lens is thicker at the outside edge than in the middle. That makes far-sighted lenses significantly heavier than near-sighted lenses of the same strength. So I'd need to have polycarbonate lenses - most lightweight frames will not accommodate my lenses in glass. That's going to cost me another $35 on the first pair. (And I don't know what for the second.)

And of course, my insurance won't cover the second pair of 'basic' lenses either (AFAIK). I don't know how much that is.

And that's before we've even got into anything like scratch resistance or anti-glare coatings.

I'm potentially looking at the wrong side of $400, not counting the insurance premiums that I'm already paying and the $10 copay for the visit itself.

I at one point was talking to the son of an optometrist about this, and his mother had one argument that convinced me I wouldn't try it if I needed glasses. She claims that all of the people presenting papers at optometry conferences still wear glasses. If they're not convinced, I'm not convinced.

Is an optometrist really going to advise you to have a procedure which could me you will never buy a pair of glasses from him again?

Gareth

Wow, thank you for posting that link (the one here about creating contact lenses for abnormally shaped corneas). I may need this in the future, and I hope they can get something going soon.

I had an accident before Christmas where a nail from a nailgun ricocheted twice, then punctured my left eye, hitting my retina before popping back out again. I had surgery and now have 20 stiches in my cornea in a diagonal line that may interfere with my field of vision when it finally heals up. A corneal transplant was suggested as a possible solution if I need it, but that has a 12 month recovery period, and I'm going nuts after only one month with one eye. I would pay any amount of money to avoid that.

FWIW, you shouldn't treat the cost of glasses as a medical expense. The lenses, maybe, but the frames are effectively jewelry. Glasses effect how you look every bit as much as the clothes you wear.

That helped me justify the pricey titanium frame that I've been wearing the past few years. The other helpful justification is that they're so amazingly light. My old glasses would gouge my nose. My current frames are very comfortable.

Wow, on a bizzare side-note, I found the web site for the firm that made my glasses (www.lindberg.com). It took over my whole screen to show me its marketing material (most likely a Flash thing). I guess they want to make it visible to users with uncorrected vision!

Hi,

What is your rx exactly? I can tell you what material to ask for. I dont know a lot about the prices of frames, but they sound a little steep. Poly has to have a anti scratch coating applied or it will scratch as soon as you try to clean them. Its a very soft material. Plastic (CR 39) is more scratch resistant but comes out thicker. Another alternative that is better optically is hi index plastic (tradenames like spectralite, trivex) It is 15-20% thinner than CR39. Try to find a frame that has smaller and more rounded lenses and your lenses will end up looking thinner. I can help you more when I have your rx info. Glass is the best optically but is a pain to produce since most you have to harden it, drop ball test it, etc. Its also very heavy.

Sean

Definitely. That guy hit it on the head. My vision is controllable - it's just a matter of learning how to control it.

FWIW, you shouldn't treat the cost of glasses as a medical expense. The lenses, maybe, but the frames are effectively jewelry. Glasses effect how you look every bit as much as the clothes you wear.


I couldn't agree more with the last sentence. I have been wearing glasses since I was 2, and know only too well the taunting and bullying that can arise in schools from wearing the 'wrong' type of frame. (Anyone in the UK remember the NHS dark plastic frames?? Ugh.) Given the choice then, I would have never worn glasses, and the reason that I have continued to do so is purely medical.

That being said, all that taunting and bullying goes away eventually. It's possible now that it doesn't really happen much in schools today, since a significantly larger percentage of kids wear glasses, and advances in materials have resulted in stronger and lighter glasses that are less ugly.

But still, the fact remains, I wear glasses for a medical reason, not to look good. It's only in the past few years that soft contacts have even been an option for me (astigmatism), and since most people that I know with contacts still have glasses too, that'd only be additional cost.

I agree that glasses can also have a cosmetic effect, although I'd observe that it is diminished somewhat for far-sighted people such as myself - The nicest frames in the World aren't going to overwhelm the 'Bottle-bottom, huge-freaky-eyes' effect that far-sighted lenses have. I'd also observe that a lot of the more 'cosmetic' frames seem too restrictive in their styling for general purpose use. The stylish small squarish frames that would look great on me when I'm in a suit with my hair in a ponytail just aren't going to cut the biscuit when I'm in jeans and t-shirt at a rock gig. So that'd result in multiple pairs being necessary.

I see where you're coming from...it's just I've never really considered glasses as a 'luxury' item, and to buy multiple pairs for purely cosmetic reasons. Too long in the saddle I guess. And better toys to spend the cash on

<Rant Mode>
Why are all the manufacturers sheep, and insist on following each other along the fashion road? I don't have a problem with them introducing new styles, or keeping an eye on fashion. But they just seem to choose a new fashion, and produce 90%+ of their frames to fit that fashion, hence severely limiting choices for those whose faces don't fit it..If I have to see just one more pair of ridiculously small lensed frames that will never suit me (not in a million years), then I swear I'm gonna scream.

I had an accident before Christmas where a nail from a nailgun ricocheted twice

HOLY [censored] [censored]!

Gawd, it hurts to read that. It sounds like they rushed you to the right ER. I'm feeling like something here is a tribute to how far opthalmic surgery has come over the years.

Best of luck going forward

It assumes that sight irregularities are a result not of lens problems, but eyeball problems, and that they are caused by muscle stress on the eyeball itself.

Probably only tangentially related....I had had the same (very mild) distance eyeglass prescription since ~1978, but found myself in the mid-90s with typical 40-something problems with nearvision/reading. *Plus* it seemed like my ability to refocus and my distance vision were getting worse.

I finally broke down and got "progressive" bifocals and things have improved a lot -- I can read, refocusing is no longer a problem, and it seems like my distance vision has improved. I can go around without my glasses and have fewer hassles focusing.

As friends considered Lasik, I thought about it, too, but then decided that it would be more hassle to haul reading glasses around (as you all will someday!!) than it would be to just keep wearing the bifocals. The risks, too, I still rate as too high. OK, I'll say it: I'd wait a few years for the "next, best thing" with lower complication rates.

I haven't found a nice looking pair of frames for less than $200.

[rant]
Eyeglass frames are among the biggest ripoffs I have ever seen!

Can someone explain to me why maybe five pieces of wire and a couple of nose pieces should cost that kind of money?

How is it possible that I can go to my local department store and buy non-prescription sunglasses "off the rack" so to speak that have pretty much equivalent frames -- for $10--$15, including the lenses and glasses case?

There has got to be some sort of monopolistic price-fixing conspiracy going on between the optometrists/opthalmologists and the frame manufacturers.
[/rant]

tanstaafl.

Can someone explain to me why maybe five pieces of wire and a couple of nose pieces should cost that kind of money?


Can someone also explain why the less material there is, the more the frames cost?

My wife looked at a pair of designer 'frames'. They were frameless, with the arms and bridge bonded to the lenses. As far as I can tell, the lens cost isn't a factor in the frame cost.... so why did they cost $320 ??!

Paging jdandrea... Paging jdandrea...

He is that 1 in xxx number of people who do not heal in 5 seconds after the surgery. It took him about a month or two...

Thanks Jim. I definately was lucky when it came to the right doctor. I was driven to the local ER then they referred me to a large hospital in Nashville where a retinal surgeon performed the surgery. 20 years ago I would have lost my eye but if I'm lucky I will recover nearly 95% of my vision (if the scar does not cross my field of vision).

It has really made me more aware of how precious sight really is. The eye that was injured was my dominant eye and it provided me with 75% of my vision overall. I've had to adjust since to use my other, and with just one eye I can really sympathize with the blind or sight impaired. At the time I was nowhere near the work area and was not doing anything dangerous, but from now on I will be wearing safety glasses for absolutely ANYTHING that could potentially fly up into my face!

Don't take your sight for granted, and I know that I would think very long and hard about having lasik surgery when my sight could be corrected by contacts or glasses. One advantage of glasses over contacts is the additional layer of protection they give!

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.

ok, i've just had surgery 8 hours ago. i've been sleeping/having my eyes closed for most of the time since the surgery....

i'm here right now with the goofy protective lenses taped on my head, seeing much better than before, but not 100%. i have sharpness issues... which i'm told will be gone usually by tommorow. but overall, i feel good about the operation..

i handled the suction and flap part pretty easy because i was expecting it... but what took me by surpirse, and by far the scariest part of the operation was the laser itself.... it sounded like lightning, bright flashes, and you can smell something burning... layers of my eye. it was all painless overall, and since the anesthesia has worn off, it just feels like something is in my eye, similar to when a contact folds inside your eye and gets stuck somewhere in it.

i hope to start seeing better by tommorow.... what reassured me was that they had someone follow up on me just a few minutes ago... and the first thing i asked was that if it was safe to watch tv, read a book, or go to the computer.. he said just as long as you had your eyes closed/sleeping since the surgery, that i'm fine.

thanks to all that both reassured me and scared the living crap out of me. it prompted me to research a lot more than i have, and i know the dos and donts and feel confident of the outcome.

image

Sweet. Have a speedy recovery.

Wow! That was quicker than I thought it would be! Congrats on the ability to get through with it.

I think people have different results for immediately after the surgery, so what you are experiencing could be cleared up by tomorrow (today).

Best of luck on a speedy recovery.

thanks guys...

the sharpness has gone better, but i'd say i'm still at 20/25 at the moment, but i'm sure thats going to become better. kinda worried that my short range sight will be gone (no more 1280x1024 resolution on a 17"monitor for me). but so far, its only been uphill for the first 24 hrs.

i've taken my first shower since... and they tell you not to get any water in your eyes... or else it will feel like soap is in them...

i've done that, but i'm left w/ a sticky strip on my face where the tape was... unable to fully clean it off because of the fear of water in the eye.

going to drive to my eye doctor again now for the follow up examination. i'll see you guys later.

"Can you read me now?.........Goord."
"Can you read me now?.........Goord."
"Can you read me now?.........Goord."

Sorry....couldn't resist

I hope that it continues to improve.

Sorry to bring up the very old thread, but I wanted to find out how you were doing. We need a followup appointment

oh, i'm doing fine. i had hella complaints about ghosting and my right eye not as good as my left eye (turns out i was seeing 15/20 with both eyes with contacts, and the right one degraded to 20/20 when i got lasik). but after i learned to keep my eyes lubricated, all those problems just went away. its been 6 months, and i would say that my eyes have healed fine. i put eye drops at least once a day out of habit, but i'm sure i can get away with a weekend without any problems. great decision i made to do this. i love not having to worry about contacts in the morning and when i sleep at night.

Excellent! I've come to realize that I had the ideal outcome and that doesn't always happen (I could watch TV the night of the surgery, could see perfectly the next evening, and have been 20/20 since then). But I'm happy when it finally works out for people.