View Full Version : Vision correction surgery - DON'T
Stick with glasses or contact lenses - they are much safer than vision correction surgery.
My wife had Lasik more than 10 years ago. Yesterday, our 18 month old son accidently poked/scratched her eye. She had to go to the emergency room, where she was seen by a physician's assistant (why she was not seen by an MD and referred immediately to an eye specialist is a subject I will take up with the hospital very soon) who informed her that she had a hole in her cornea, told her to call her eye Dr. in the morning, and sent her home with antibiotic eye drops and pain medication.
This morning, she visited her optometrist, who informed her that the injury had become worse overnight, and by that time the cornea had been essentially torn off. He cleaned the wound, applied a contact lens bandage, and wants to see her tomorrow morning. Fortunately he expects full recovery, although nothing is 100% certain until it happens. She is visiting an opthamologist this afternoon just to be sure - we conly get one set of eyes.
She was informed by her optometrist that the Lasik surgery had weakened her cornea, and made it more susceptible to injury. In fact the injury might not have been as severe as it was but for the surgery.
When I met with an FBI recruiter in my last year of law school (1997), he informed me that anyone who had vision correction surgery would not be accepted as a special agent. Now I know why - even more than 10 years later, the eye is more susceptible to injury.
I have worn daily wear contact lenses for 28 years, through high school wrestling practices, traditional martial arts training, and now MMA training, with no issues. They are very tough to knock out of one's eye, although others do make credible claims of having lost them during training. Just keep a few spare pairs of disposable lenses in various places (car, work). If you prefer glasses, then get a pair with polycarbonate lenses and spring hinges, and unless/until they get knocked off in a fight, you will be wearing what amounts to partial safety glasses.
Whatever you do, DO NOT GET VISION CORRECTION SURGERY.
I forwarded this to my wife. She's considered lasik for a while now?
Thanks for the info!!
I would like to think when it comes to vision correction surgery, there is a huge difference on what is done now versus 10 years ago.
I used to wear contacts, got sick of them, and now wear my glasses full time. There are definite trade-offs, and I have been considering Lasik for a while now. What always gets me is that even the people I talk to that are "100% happy" ultimately wind up conceding that there are some negatives. Increased sensitivity to light, halos at night, etc. and I just can't deal with that kind of thing.
I think you're overreacting and painting with a pretty broad brush. Don't get me wrong, I understand the reaction, and in the same circumstances might react the same way, but it's still a pretty sweeping generalization to make.
I agree wholeheartedly that we need to protect our vision, it's our most important sense. And there are definite risks and drawbacks to the various procedures.
I've been wanting LASIK all my life, but it turns out that I am too high of a prescription for those type procedures, so I'm looking into some of the (very much more expensive) alternatives. I am completely helpless without my glasses or contacts, I'm talking literally can't see past my nose clearly. It can be worth some tradeoffs, but everyone needs to understand them upfront before making decisions.
I had LASIK about a month and half ago. I have not noticed any increase in sensitivity to light or halos at night.
The ability to wake up at night not reaching for glasses or with contacts stuck to my eyes is priceless.
It was the best grand I have ever spent.
I think you are over generalizing. There is no way to perform refractive surgery without removing tissue from the cornea. It sounds like she had an abrasion not a full thickness corneal penetration or she would have been referred. I don't know why you are blaming the surgical procedure for the abrasion. People who sleep in contact lenses have abrasions all the time.
Yesterday, our 18 month old son accidently poked/scratched her eye. She had to go to the emergency room...
A poke in the eye that results in an immediate trip to the ER is probably something that isn't your "run of the mill" eye incident.
Just sayin'.
The eye being more prone to injury after is something that is dependant on the type of eye correction used.
Some types, and I forget the particulars, will eliminate you from certian MOS within the military, airborne, piolts etc.
IIRC, the early types which required a flap to the cut in the eye is the problem. The newer versions use a laser to re-shape the corena, and no blades/cuts are required.
Shoulderthinggoesup
10-07-11, 14:53
As student entering physician assistant (not physician's) school.... going into EMED I feel the need to offer a defense of the hospital letting your wife be seen by a PA. ( I wont defend the treatment given by this specific PA as I wasnt there.)
Seeing a PA does not mean you are given inferior treatment, they are trained to diagnose and treat common illness and injury. If the presentation is outside of the PAs scope they should have refered it to a specialty doc. It sounds like the pa diagnosed correctly but did not refer out fast enough? Was a specialist available at that time? That may have been part of the issue. A emed doc may very well have done the same thing and the PA may have consulted with the doc in the er on your wife's case, and quite possibly would have done the same thing/given final say on your wifes case.
My suggestion is to ask the opthomologist what he/she thinks about the PA's treatment and go from there. It will give you more leverage when you call if the specialist is on your side.
If you are EVER not comfortable with your provider (pa, np, doc) you can ALWAYS demand another, just understand this may mean waiting longer.
I hope your wife gets better quickly, that is a scary deal.
on topic: I had interlase lasik done about 5 years ago and it is the best thing I ever did. After about a month all of the issues with halos ect went away and I see better than 20 20.
If you are nervous about the "flap" weakening the cornea check out PRK. It is lasik minus the flap. it is more painful and has a longer recovery but doesnt present the risk that caused the op's wifes problem. It is/was the only type of laser corrective surgury the military does from what I understand.
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk
Stick with glasses or contact lenses - they are much safer than vision correction surgery.
My wife had Lasik more than 10 years ago. Yesterday, our 18 month old son accidently poked/scratched her eye. She had to go to the emergency room, where she was seen by a physician's assistant (why she was not seen by an MD and referred immediately to an eye specialist is a subject I will take up with the hospital very soon) who informed her that she had a hole in her cornea, told her to call her eye Dr. in the morning, and sent her home with antibiotic eye drops and pain medication.
This morning, she visited her optometrist, who informed her that the injury had become worse overnight, and by that time the cornea had been essentially torn off. He cleaned the wound, applied a contact lens bandage, and wants to see her tomorrow morning. Fortunately he expects full recovery, although nothing is 100% certain until it happens. She is visiting an opthamologist this afternoon just to be sure - we conly get one set of eyes.
She was informed by her optometrist that the Lasik surgery had weakened her cornea, and made it more susceptible to injury. In fact the injury might not have been as severe as it was but for the surgery.
When I met with an FBI recruiter in my last year of law school (1997), he informed me that anyone who had vision correction surgery would not be accepted as a special agent. Now I know why - even more than 10 years later, the eye is more susceptible to injury.
I have worn daily wear contact lenses for 28 years, through high school wrestling practices, traditional martial arts training, and now MMA training, with no issues. They are very tough to knock out of one's eye, although others do make credible claims of having lost them during training. Just keep a few spare pairs of disposable lenses in various places (car, work). If you prefer glasses, then get a pair with polycarbonate lenses and spring hinges, and unless/until they get knocked off in a fight, you will be wearing what amounts to partial safety glasses.
Whatever you do, DO NOT GET VISION CORRECTION SURGERY.
An emergency room is trained to stabilize a patient in most matters that are life threatening. For eye related matters, the opthalmologist on call is either contacted or the patient is referred to see that specialist at his own office. ER docs are not eye specialists and the hospital cannot afford to keep one of every type of specialist at the hospital. This is pretty normal SOP at most hospital emergency rooms.
Depending on the time that this happened, for example in the morning, she would have likely seen the ophthalmologist on call or been referred to an associated ophthalmologist. However, if this happened late at night, chances are the specialist would have the patient come in first thing in the morning.
Also, how did the optometrist who saw your wife in the morning know that the injury became worse overnight? Did he see it the night before? Is it possible that the flap of cornea was already mostly off due to the initial poke?
Regarding LASIK...flap complications are one of the most common side effects for the procedure. Basically a device called a micro-keratome cuts a very thin flap of cornea only a few hundred microns thick and leaves a small hinge to keep that piece attached. The flap is peeled back and the laser ablation is performed on the corneal tissue underneath. Afterwards, the flap is placed back over the treated area and over time, the area heals. The advantage to LASIK is fast healing time, quick visual recovery, and minimal pain because the patient's own cornea goes back over the wound. The disadvantage is that the flap never 100% seals back onto the tissue underneath. Thus, a hard poke in the right (or wrong) spot and the flap can get dislodged.
I would like to think when it comes to vision correction surgery, there is a huge difference on what is done now versus 10 years ago.
The basic procedure is the same. LASIK and PRK are still the standard two procedures and although there are variations of both, the concept remains the same.
The main differences (technology wise) are in the lasers and the software running them.
...And of course after 15+ years of doing the procedures, surgeons have gotten better at mitigating undesirable side effects.
The eye being more prone to injury after is something that is dependant on the type of eye correction used.
Some types, and I forget the particulars, will eliminate you from certian MOS within the military, airborne, piolts etc.
IIRC, the early types which required a flap to the cut in the eye is the problem. The newer versions use a laser to re-shape the corena, and no blades/cuts are required.
As far as which came first (I really don't remember my history on this), I believe PRK was first. This involves removing the epithelial layer of the cornea and the laser correction is applied to the bare stroma. Over time, usually 4+ weeks, the cornea will slowly epithelialize over the treated area and the person's vision will come in. However, the initial week is usually very painful and extremely blurry.
The LASIK procedure involves cutting a flap. The traditional method was with the micro-keratome blade. The newer method is the Intralase which uses a laser to "vaporize" a layer of the corneal tissue under the desired flap and the flap then will peel away. Both methods still involve leaving a "hinge" to hold the corneal flap in place so that it can be folded back over. The treatment is then performed over the tissue under the flap and afterwards the flap is placed back over the "wound". However, because the procedure allows an intact layer of cornea to go over the treatment area, visual recovery is very quick (sometimes a few days), and there is minimal pain.
The military, as far as I know from spending a few months at the San Diego Naval Hospital 10 years ago (Balboa Park), only wants their airborne personnel to do PRK because there is no flap to dislodge later on. The thought was that if pilots/airborne guys were in free-fall and their eyewear flew off, there was a possibility for the wind to shear off the corneal flap.
I used to wear contacts, got sick of them, and now wear my glasses full time. There are definite trade-offs, and I have been considering Lasik for a while now. What always gets me is that even the people I talk to that are "100% happy" ultimately wind up conceding that there are some negatives. Increased sensitivity to light, halos at night, etc. and I just can't deal with that kind of thing.
Neither can I...
What was your issue with your contacts?
alphableak83
10-08-11, 07:10
I am glad that your wife is expected to make a full recovery, but don't bash all laser eye surgery. They are not all equal. I had eye surgery, but it was PRK. It is accepted for flight, special operations and any other high risk units in the military. The difference is that it doesn't cut the flap of the cornea like LASIK. It does have a longer healing time but it is not fragile like LASIK is.
Before you get eye surgery done check out all the different types of surgery and what suits your needs(LASIK, LASEK, PRK). Also check the place that is doing it. Not all lasers are equal. There are different types and styles of lasers, some older and some newer.
Another thing to make sure to do is read the pamphlets. They will explain all of the risks/rewards and possible side effects. Everybody's eyes will react differently.
I do recommend PRK though. My vision is now 20/15, astigmatism free, and my eyes are not weakened due to the flap from LASIK.
As someone who has taught pathophysiology, A&P, etc., for 30+ years (though I am not a clinician!) - I have to say both camps so far have supporting data, i.e., DON'T DO IT and "best thing I've ever had done". That's pure & simple statistics.
I hate my glasses, but for reasons in the OPs camp - I'll never have anything done surgically. In addition to statements made already, consider that a Doc doesn't actually do the surgery - a computer does. That may give some people comfort - not me:)
Also - go to the websites for the Docs doing the surgery - and look at their pics. MOST ARE STILL WEARING GLASSES!
Cheers!
john
Oh, and it's not that I'm simply anti-surgery. When I had my retinal tear and detachment - I went running to the surgeon to have it re-attached:) There is a time & place for most things.
john
Bad Medicine
10-09-11, 07:40
I used to wear contacts, got sick of them, and now wear my glasses full time. There are definite trade-offs, and I have been considering Lasik for a while now. What always gets me is that even the people I talk to that are "100% happy" ultimately wind up conceding that there are some negatives. Increased sensitivity to light, halos at night, etc. and I just can't deal with that kind of thing.
Halos usually have to do with night blindness which is now also corrected through surgery.
I had refractive keratoplasty 15 years ago (pre-LASIK) and over that time period have always considered it to be a life-changing event for me. The only negative I have found over that time is that I suspect it has increased my correction requirement for reading glasses a little now that I'm presbyopic. Fortunately, those $15 hardware-store glasses are the same price no matter what the diopter correction.
I don't get halos or starbursts, but my correction was not great and the incisions didn't carry into the optical zone of either eye. Regarding LASIK, I'm a big fan. My daughter is an ophthalmology tech and I have several friends that are ophthalmologists. There are definitely potential trade-offs but IME it's rare to find people who didn't think LASIK was worth it on balance.
Pick a good surgeon, based on reputation not price.
Halos usually have to do with night blindness which is now also corrected through surgery.
I'm not sure what you mean by "night blindness" as it is a fairly generic term that people use that can be attributed to a variety of issues....kind of like saying "My gun is jammed, what's wrong with it?"
Traditionally, night blindness is due to a vitamin A deficiency which surgery definitely isn't going to fix.
"Halos" can be caused by multiple things, but the more common causes are uncorrected, or irregular astigmatism, and the treatment size too small relative to the size of the pupil.
The first, is fairly common even with improved methods. The newer procedures utilize a wavefront aberrometer which detects the aberrations in a persons' cornea and attempts to correct them with the laser. This is usually produces much better results than the conventional approach.
Keep in mind, it's very rare for a person corrected with refractive surgery to have perfect vision. Most will have residual astigmatisms or other minor corrections. This isn't to say that they won't be happy with their post surgical vision, but that if they were particularly sensitive to it, they'd notice it.
The other halo complaint is mainly due to pupil size and treatment size ratios. As an example, let's say the treatment size is 8 mm in diameter. In bright sunlight, the pupils constrict and everything is great and clear. However, at night time, the pupil expands to 7-9 mm depending on the light conditions. This places the edge of the treatment inline with the visual axis of the person. The edge of the treatment will have light diffraction because it is where the edge of the untreated eye meets the treated eye and this will create different visual haloes. Patients will exhibit different amounts of pupillary dilation so measuring a dark adapted pupil is a routine part of the surgical consultation.
Additional information about my wife:
With more information transmitted by cooler heads, I now understand that it wasn't the entire cornea that was torn, but the top layer of the cornea, which has multiple layers. The cornea itself is now 100% healed, but there is still a lot of irritation. She is still seeing her Dr. daily. The physician's assistant in the ER had given her an antibiotic that was adding to that irritation, so her current Dr. switched her to a better antibiotic, as well as liquid Advil eye drops for the pain. She tested at 20/30 at 70% healed, and better than that (but not 20/20) at 1005 healed. She is wearing safety glasses - either in the form of sunglasses provided by the Dr. or a pair of my clear safety glasses - for most of her waking hours. It will be awhile (will hopefully find out soon exactly how long) before it is advisable for her to take unnecessary trips in the car due to the risk of damage if she is in an accident.
Along the way, we have also received contradictory information about whether the lasik may have made the eye more susceptible to injury. After reading the information above, I remain convinced that it did.
It looks like there has been some good discussion in this thread since my last post, with many posters showing a good understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of the various forms of surgery. It is undeniable that many are happy with their surgery, and that it fits their risk/benefit analysis well. I started this thread to throw some more information into the risk/benefit analysis. For me, it is definitely not in favor of the surgery.
Regarding the use of a physician's assistant, I know some very smart people who are presently in PA school. One who comes to mind would likely make a good physician, but doesn't want to take that much time away from her daughter. I have also seen some good physician's assistants. The biggest problem I have with this particular PA is that she should have realized 1) when something was an emergency, and 2) when she was in over her head, and referred the case to an eye specialist for immediate treatment. At the very least, the ER attending physician should have become directly involved when my wife asked the PA if her eye would heal back to normal, and the response was "I don't know."
In any profession, one has to realize when one is in over their head, and when to get some additional help. I am an intellectual property attorney. I regularly refer out work that, although simpler than what I do every day, is not in my practice area, and is therefore better done by someone who does it every day.
Everywhere I drive around here, I see signs for optometrists and opthamologists. I can't imagine the hospital would have any difficulty finding some who would be happy to do an on-call rotation for some extra $ (paid for by the patient when they are actually called in).
USMC_Anglico
10-10-11, 14:02
If are going to get corrective surgery, PRK is the way to go. The military does it all the time now, with priority for folks being deployed. PRK is more painful and recovery is slower than LASIK, but it is the original procedure with over 20+ years of results and no flap being cut.
Don't go for the cheapest eye mill. Do some research on the doctors in your area, the experience of the Dr. will certainly pay off. I had my PRK done by a former head of the Air Force Acadamy's program. Couldn't be happier.
Wife had LASIK done a couple of years ago,Lifetime guarantee !! Went back for a correction and was told her cornea was now to thin to correct the problem.We weren't told this up front. So she's back to square one with glasses or contacts and out a lot of money.
Got LASIK ten years ago and still have 20/20. I get mild halos at night but still think it is very worth it. I did have to get it wavered for the military though.
HawaiianM4
10-10-11, 19:54
Had PRK done four years ago. Eyes are now 20/10 and 20/20. Prior to PRK I bolo'd on the M16 range. Now I shoot very well. Take the time to understand the procedure and ask alot of questions. It took me 6 months to a year to fully realize the benefits of PRK.
Just because it went fine for them, may not be the case for you Complications are not uncommon.
FYI - some people should not have it done.
Additional information about my wife:
With more information transmitted by cooler heads, I now understand that it wasn't the entire cornea that was torn, but the top layer of the cornea, which has multiple layers. The cornea itself is now 100% healed, but there is still a lot of irritation. She is still seeing her Dr. daily. The physician's assistant in the ER had given her an antibiotic that was adding to that irritation, so her current Dr. switched her to a better antibiotic, as well as liquid Advil eye drops for the pain. She tested at 20/30 at 70% healed, and better than that (but not 20/20) at 1005 healed. She is wearing safety glasses - either in the form of sunglasses provided by the Dr. or a pair of my clear safety glasses - for most of her waking hours. It will be awhile (will hopefully find out soon exactly how long) before it is advisable for her to take unnecessary trips in the car due to the risk of damage if she is in an accident.
Along the way, we have also received contradictory information about whether the lasik may have made the eye more susceptible to injury. After reading the information above, I remain convinced that it did.
It looks like there has been some good discussion in this thread since my last post, with many posters showing a good understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of the various forms of surgery. It is undeniable that many are happy with their surgery, and that it fits their risk/benefit analysis well. I started this thread to throw some more information into the risk/benefit analysis. For me, it is definitely not in favor of the surgery.
Regarding the use of a physician's assistant, I know some very smart people who are presently in PA school. One who comes to mind would likely make a good physician, but doesn't want to take that much time away from her daughter. I have also seen some good physician's assistants. The biggest problem I have with this particular PA is that she should have realized 1) when something was an emergency, and 2) when she was in over her head, and referred the case to an eye specialist for immediate treatment. At the very least, the ER attending physician should have become directly involved when my wife asked the PA if her eye would heal back to normal, and the response was "I don't know."
In any profession, one has to realize when one is in over their head, and when to get some additional help. I am an intellectual property attorney. I regularly refer out work that, although simpler than what I do every day, is not in my practice area, and is therefore better done by someone who does it every day.
Everywhere I drive around here, I see signs for optometrists and opthamologists. I can't imagine the hospital would have any difficulty finding some who would be happy to do an on-call rotation for some extra $ (paid for by the patient when they are actually called in).
It's good to hear that your wife is doing well and chances are that she'll make a full recovery.
Regarding LASIK making an eye more susceptible to injury...I guess that depends where you'd like to place liability, counselor. One can argue that the treatment site was perfectly healed and would never have caused any future problems except that a fingernail managed to lacerate the flap off. Wouldn't the owner of the fingernail be the most culpable? Just playing devil's advocate, no offense intended.
Any refractive procedure weakens the cornea to some extent. It is removing material and thus making it thinner. It doesn't change the fact that almost everyone who has the procedure done is made well aware of the risks and most still choose to do the elective procedure. Flap complications are usually listed in the literature.
With most choices in life there are pros and cons. I know of a case where a pilot was warned that there were risks of halos and blindness inherent in the procedure. He chose to take the risk because he wanted to see better and in his mind, he minimized the risks for the greater goal of perfect vision. Well, unfortunately, he got haloes as a side effect and couldn't continue flying at night. Guess what? He sued....:blink:
Regarding the actions of the PA and the emergency room, I'm not sure if any of this would have changed the outcome. Once that flap came loose, there was going to be issues either way. If someone (a specialist) managed to lay it back over, there would still be risks of epithelial ingrowth and possible corneal erosion. Usually, fingernail injuries to the cornea are very slow to heal.
What time did this happen? How much time elapsed between your wife leaving the ER and visiting her optometrist? It sounds like your big beef happens to be that your wife never got to see the attending ER doc and I can understand your frustration there. From your description, the PA noted an eye issue that the hospital probably couldn't treat. She wrote a script for antibiotics and instructed your wife to see an eye specialist ASAP, but you weren't clearer on the timeline.
When I met with an FBI recruiter in my last year of law school (1997), he informed me that anyone who had vision correction surgery would not be accepted as a special agent. Now I know why - even more than 10 years later, the eye is more susceptible to injury.
That's not true anymore. They require you to wait 6 months after getting it done. If you have no issues after the 6 months and are signed off by your doctor then you are GTG.
I hope your wife gets better.
David
Regarding the actions of the PA and the emergency room, I'm not sure if any of this would have changed the outcome. Once that flap came loose, there was going to be issues either way. If someone (a specialist) managed to lay it back over, there would still be risks of epithelial ingrowth and possible corneal erosion. Usually, fingernail injuries to the cornea are very slow to heal.
What time did this happen? How much time elapsed between your wife leaving the ER and visiting her optometrist? It sounds like your big beef happens to be that your wife never got to see the attending ER doc and I can understand your frustration there. From your description, the PA noted an eye issue that the hospital probably couldn't treat. She wrote a script for antibiotics and instructed your wife to see an eye specialist ASAP, but you weren't clearer on the timeline.
The injury happened early evening, with the wife and kids at her parent's house. I immediately got a call to come get the kids so her mom could get her to the ER (only a couple of minutes away from the house). She had also tried to call her eye Dr., but for some reason the emergency procedure for contacting the Dr. on call fell through that evening (once the eye practice learned of this, they took immediate steps to correct the problem and ensure that my wife received good care). She was then able to see someone at her Dr.'s practice early the next morning.
The physician's assistant recognized what could have been a very serious problem (didn't know if the vision would ever return to normal), but did not bring the attending physician into the picture or try to get immediate help from an eye specialist. She just recommended seeing the eye Dr. the following morning, and when we did, we were informed that the injury likely got worse overnight.
My beef isn't at all likely to result in a suit against the hospital - my wife appears to be fully recovering. I am actually happy that the PA didn't do more herself in some ways - with her lack of knowledge of the issue, she could have done more harm. My big concern at this point is making sure the hospital understands how bad this could have been so that the next time a PA does - or should - realize that they are in over their head, they seek and get help. The other hospitals in the area are much farther away, and I'd really like to know I can count on this one in an emergency. They did do a very good job during another emergency that arose 18 months ago during the birth of my son.
I don't know who to believe about LASIK surgery. A close friend, and my own brother, have had it, and they both assure me that all concerns are BS and this is the greatest thing ever.
But then I read about the potential risks, and it doesn't seem so airtight. Especially when you have healthy, corrected vision going into the procedure. Is it really worth risking your eyes for something that as many as 20% of patients are still experiencing issues 6 months after the surgery, and some have permanent issues? IMHO, the procedures are not currently solid enough to risk healthy eyes, when your main complaint is merely that "I don't like glasses and contacts." It's just too risky for a strictly elective procedure.
Yes I think the following source is somewhat biased AGAINST LASIK. But it seems like many more sources are biased FOR it as well, particularly those who stand to gain from it. It is worth reading this stuff before you forge ahead, if you have otherwise healthy corrected vision:
http://lasikcomplications.com/
BTW, my eye Dr. and my primary care Dr. still both wear their glasses, for some of the same reasons cited in the above source. Yes I've asked them why. I'm going to wait a bit longer to pursue eye surgery.
Navy doesn't allow Lasik, only PRK. Nature of the surgery (cutting the flap vs essentially shaving the eye) being the reason. Take that for what its worth.
If you are going to blame anyone, I would blame your surgeon who performed the initial procedure. I had PRK done to my eyes when I was a firefighter over ten years ago and I still see great. However, my doctor clearly explained the pros and cons of each procedure (LASIK/PRK). You doctor should have measured the thickness of your wife's cornea as well. This would have let her know if she was a good candidate for the LASIK surgery. With LASIK, creating that "flap" is an incision of the epithelial layer of the eye. In most people this does not 100 percent heal. This should have been clearly explained. I hope the best for your wife and a speedy recovery.
you can still serve in any of the armed forces, the FBI, the Navy DELTASEALS or as a greeter at home depot with LASIK or PRK -
OP, sorry if this hurts; but you over reacted.
LASIK and PRK are both extremely safe procedures that pruduce excellent results - yes you hve to guard your eyes a little more after the surgery than before.
My last deployment to Iraq was mid to late 2004. I started the deployment with contacts, I had to put them in or take em out every couple of days, they got dust in them very easlily, and tore or dried out from time to time. eventually the dust just got to bad and I switched to my glasses. Now I didn't have to worry about the sand and dust so much, but trying to wear good eye pro over my glasses kinda sucked, and the limited field of 20/20 vision was not ideal. I also had to guard against losing my glasses or finding them in the morning when I woke up in the middle of a gunfight (different story)
Soon after I got back I got LASIK done - it was the best thing I have ever spent money on, other than maybe my wife's engagement ring. I have not had any serious issues with halos, light sensitivity or dry eyes. Since then I have not had to worry about dust or trying to find proper eye pro. I have my full field of vision and no contacts to put in or out. I have been through two very physical police academies and have not had a single issue.
Again, sorry to the OP, but I will loudly proclaim from the rooftops that LASIK the best thing since sliced bread - as long as you get it done by a good DR, most of the folks here dont buy crap rifles, dont buy crap LASIK.
Navy doesn't allow Lasik, only PRK. Nature of the surgery (cutting the flap vs essentially shaving the eye) being the reason. Take that for what its worth.
They allow you have LASIK done, but they wont pay for it. A buddy of mine is an F-15 pilot up here and he had LASIK done, I also have a former co-worker who is now a SEAL who had LASIK done about the same time that I did. Never heard a word of complaint from either.
It.is a little scary. You need to find a highly rated doctor to do it.
My experience was similar to Preliator, wearing contacts and glasses overseas sucked, '06-'07 for me. When I got home I found the best surgeon in the state (luckily he was close by) and had PRK done. He actually would have refused to do LASIK on me because he said there was about a 2% chance of complications due to the thinness of a part of my eye.
Total cost was $4,700 that I paid out of pocket, could have had the Army do it but I would rather have the best do it than get it for free from Uncle Sam.
The recovery time did suck, but now I have almost no issues, I still get some sensitivity to light but nothing that my Oakleys can't fix. I went from 20/400 to 20/15, with my eyesight being 20/20 now 4 years later.
Shoulderthinggoesup
10-12-11, 14:02
Glad to hear your wife should be OK. It sounds like you have a clearer understanding of the situation.
To add to the discussion, It seems that Intralase flaps are as mechanically sound as the PRK versions of the surgery these days.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CDcQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amo-ilasik.com%2Fpdf%2FH08-2550_9870r_JRS1108KNORZ.PDF&rct=j&q=interlase%20flap%20strength&ei=1eKVToeVGJTIsQK1rKTvAQ&usg=AFQjCNGcJ1dMVPHN0DlBljLPIuSEJo11EQ&sig2=WyLRLo42eLArDoIxUd8mSg&cad=rja
Apparently the military now has approved iLASIK as well.
I had LASIK done in 98. The Dr. was one of the best in the country. He's retired now that is why I said WAS on of the best. This was one of the best decisions I have ever made. I had almost 20/500 vision and afterwards I was 20/15 in the right eye and 20/20 in the left. Has been that way ever since. Never had any halo effect or senstivity to light. The only issue was dryness and that went away after about a year. I'm 47 now and am starting to have to wear reading glasses later on in the day as my eyes tire. That is considered normal as aging occurs. My distance vision is still as it was after the surgery.When I had the surgery done they did both eyes at the same time. There was no pain during or afterwards. I'd do it again in a heart beat!
Thanks for this thread, and thanks you guys for all the responses. I had considered surgical correction a 'no-brainer' before, but this is something I will have to reconsider.
Perhaps I should just buy Revision corrective safety glasses.. some of them look quite normal.
Moose-Knuckle
10-19-11, 17:07
I wear glasses and contacts, alternate between the two. One of my concerns is there may come a time where one may have limited access to or availability of resupply. So needless to say Lasik is something I have looked at hard as it would negate the cost/use of contacts and glasses. However, our eyes are always changing. As we grow older so do our eyes and our vision. Lasik or not, we will all need some sort of corrective lenses if we live long enough.
I see a retina specialist and an optometrist annually. My optometrist currently does not recommend corrective eye surgery for me, when I asked she went into all the research that she has done for herself on the matter as her and her husband both wear corrective lenses and they are both optometrists.
The top lasik doctors in the country are located here in DFW and they are always tied up in law suites. This as they say is a clue. I'll pass for now.
I had contacts and glasses for years before I got LASIK. I have lasik almost 10 years ago now, and it has been nothing but awesome! I haven't ever experienced a sensitivity to light or any halo effects at all in the 10 years since. I still have 20/20 vision, and I couldn't be happier with it!
FWIW, I think the OP is way over reacting to say "NEVER GET LASIK". To each his own I guess, but I couldn't be happier with mine, and I've never had any of these negative reactions people are talking about. I've even been poked in the eye hard probably 2-3 times since I got lasik, and it's never caused any problems.
This is a surgery that was probably successful:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQzi5cG6cgU&feature=fvst
This one is very botched, a royal F-up, see how bad the flap looks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XL01H65Gf54&feature=related
An animation of how intralase works:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpYlZoJHbHE&feature=related
eternal24k
10-21-11, 12:31
The ability to wake up at night not reaching for glasses or with contacts stuck to my eyes is priceless.
That is one of the big reasons I am considering, that and contacts are irritating and glasses while motorcycling or snowboarding is a huge PITA, not to mention I shoot much better with contacts.
It was the best grand I have ever spent.
damn, I am looking at 3-4k
turdbocharged
10-21-11, 14:35
I never understood peoples aversion to corrective lenses, or glasses for that matter. Honestly i am MUCH more comfortable with my glasses than contacts. I also love the added safety of the polycarbonate lenses. There are many stylish frames out there, and I have been looking into perhaps getting some prescription transition Oakleys for shooting, and doing yardwork or other activities where safety glasses are needed.
Consumer Reports, reported the results of some LASIK follow-up surveys in their August 2009 edition:
http://lasikcomplications.com/consumerreports.htm
Survey finds 53% of laser eye surgery patients experience at least one side effect and 22% still have problems six months after surgery.
This is the kind of stuff causes me some hesitation. Consumer Reports is not perfect but they are also not a BS, alarmist outfit. There is a LOT of money being made on LASIK procedures, which after all take the doctors just minutes to do, so there's a big incentive to push the procedures and to cover up complications in the results.
I had LASIK in 2001 through TLC Laser Eye Centers. I did not have any significant problems and still do not. I do have dry eyes. During allergy season I need moistening drops. Also during the winters in Ohio the defroster would sometimes cause me some discomfort after long hours in the car. Nothing the drops didn't help. Halo's are not any worse than I experienced with contact lenses or glasses. I was something like 20/800 before surgery. I am now 20/20 uncorrected. Having worn glasses since the 2nd grade I can tell you that it was worth the pain and the occassional dry eyes. Several guys from my Agency got it done around the same time as I did. Those of us that went to TLC had no issues. The guy that went to "Bob's Discount House of Eyes" had all kinds of problems and did for years. I was in LE the whole time and had been in several car accidents, many fights, pepper sprayed numerous times and even struck by a car going 35mph. Still no issues. YMMV.
ETA - Baby fingernails are very small and thin, like little razor blades. They are usually very sharp.
Step back and stop being so emotional. You're letting the fact that your wife was hurt cloud your brain.
An answer of "I don't know" doesn't mean anything. It could be because there is no way to know, whether you're a PA, an MD, or a Dr. of Optometry.
A small finger and fingernail jabbing hard in the eye can cause damage regardless of what was or was not done prior.
Consumer Reports, reported the results of some LASIK follow-up surveys in their August 2009 edition:
http://lasikcomplications.com/consumerreports.htm
Survey finds 53% of laser eye surgery patients experience at least one side effect and 22% still have problems six months after surgery.
This is the kind of stuff causes me some hesitation. Consumer Reports is not perfect but they are also not a BS, alarmist outfit. There is a LOT of money being made on LASIK procedures, which after all take the doctors just minutes to do, so there's a big incentive to push the procedures and to cover up complications in the results.
I'm probably among the 22% that still had complications 6 months after surgery.
I weighed PRK vs Lasik for a while and eventually chose Lasik.
My eyes weren't the best candidates in the world for Lasik. It would be a one time deal, the corrective area was thin for the size. They would max out the range of the machine and I had just enough material for one correction (no return trip for me) and a bit of buffer. But my eyes were very stable and otherwise healthy, and I had some recent life events that made me realize the liability of corrective lenses.
My problems were helos, staring, dryness, and some contrast issues well after surgery. It is good to note here that I experienced helos and staring *prior* to surgery as well, and they got worse for a time.
I'm now 4 years later and the dryness only comes during seasonal changes, right along with my characteristic dehydration from the same seasonal changes. It's only a few days to a week, not a big deal. I don't need drops, just a few extra blinks.
The helos are gone completely now. Net gain.
The staring only appear during a few specific points of *perfect* contrast lighting at dusk. I've only experienced it a couple of times this year. I could call this a net gain from where I was.
Contrast loss remains, but it is so slight now I really have to pay very close attention to notice.
It took me a little more time than most, but I still have excellent vision and I would do it again. I did my homework and bought the services of the best doctor I could find in my area, and try to take really good care of my eyes.
So while those numbers look unfavorable, the "side effects" really need to be quantified... I was happy after 3-6 months even with the helos, staring, etc, they were worse than before but I had already lived with them for years. I know many patients also lose their corrections due to lifestyle, too much time in front of the computer or books without breaks or relief. I use +.25 reading glasses for extensive up close work for that reason.
I never thought about this before.
I had cataract surgery on both eyes where the lenses were replaced...does this type of corrective surgery fall under the same "warning" regarding a reduction in the structural strength of the eye...the opthamologist never mentioned it?
I never thought about this before.
I had cataract surgery on both eyes where the lenses were replaced...does this type of corrective surgery fall under the same "warning" regarding a reduction in the structural strength of the eye...the opthamologist never mentioned it?
No, during a refractive lensectomy or a standard cataract surgery, if that is what you had, several thin incisions are made in the cornea to remove the lens and to implant the IOL (intraocular lens).
The procedure, done correctly, does not remove or thin out corneal tissue like LASIK. The vision correction is done by implanting an IOL of sufficient power to correct the vision, unlike LASIK/PRK where a re-shaping of the corneal contour takes place.
No, during a refractive lensectomy or a standard cataract surgery, if that is what you had, several thin incisions are made in the cornea to remove the lens and to implant the IOL (intraocular lens).
The procedure, done correctly, does not remove or thin out corneal tissue like LASIK. The vision correction is done by implanting an IOL of sufficient power to correct the vision, unlike LASIK/PRK where a re-shaping of the corneal contour takes place.
Glad to hear that, thanks. I do have a "caution" though, for anyyone who will have a similar procedure. I was given the option of selecting what type of correction I wanted - both eyes corrected for distant vision, both for near, or one of each. I told them I preferred both distant but was talked into correcting one eye for near and the other for distant. Big Mistake in my case which may or may not be unique. It turns out that one eye tended to act like a "lazy eye" that I had never noticed except when I was on the computer where I would experience a situation of having to frequently force a refocus of the screen because one eye had eased into a dominant role without me even realizing it until I forced the refocus. This was no big deal and I had pretty much learned to live with it.
When the lenses of differing power were inserted it aggravated the lazy eye condition and now it is really bothersome because the eyes have a strong tendancy to focus in diferent areas such that I am not experiencing true binocular vision when it occurs and I have to manually snap them into focusing on the same area. I'm not talking about focusing sharply but focusing on the same exact area, one eye focused sharply and the other somewhat out of focus like a nearsighted condition - that description may not make sense unless you have experienced it.
It was several months before the condition manifested itself and I complained about it to the doctor at one of the checkups. That's when he discovered the lazy eye tendancy and wound up sending me to a specialist in that area. To make a long story short we tried a non-surgical method of correction which would we could not get to work properly and being 73 years old I did not want to go through a surgical procedure that may or may not have worked. I'm just happy I don't need to wear strong corrective lenses any longer and I can live with the problem.
Take care of your eyes!
Had PRK done about a year ago. After the initial recovery period, I have had no issues or side effects at all, with 20/13 vision. Definitely the best money I ever spent.
My vision had a few odd halos when I was still recovering, but those went away after a month.
OP seems a bit overly emotional about the topic to me.
The SOCOM Surgeon only authorizes PRK. PRK hurts more and has a longer healing time. However, it forms a more durable scar.
A lot of civilians go with LASIK because it seems like a pretty simple out-patient procedure. With PRK you know you got wounded. You have to have someone drive you home and you spend the next 3 days in the dark, with ice packs on your face, and all wacked out on percocet.
Since I fight and conduct airborne ops, I was very concerned about the LASIK flap thing.
Now, I have 20/13 - 20/15. It is pretty amazing. No more pain the ass issues with using NODs, binos, or goggles. No more glasses fogging over in cold weather or humid conditions. No more contact lens maintenance. I can wake up and see immediately.
mkmckinley
12-02-11, 09:28
I got PRK through the Army and am really happy with the results so far. I had the surgery about 5 years ago and still have 20/15 vision both eyes. For about the first year there was some discomfort due to dryness but it was intermittent and not too bad. I had pretty bad light sensitivity for a few weeks but that diminished too. I still have some sensitivity but I just wear sunglasses which is probably a good idea anyway. To me it's been well worth it.
Tim McBride
12-02-11, 09:48
I wore glasses my first deployment, the issue insert/protective lenses broke fairly often. I had Wiley X prescription glasses made and sent, constant issues with them but better then just wearing my glasses for 15 months.
When I got back, I went through the Army program and had LASIK done at FtHood through the program there.
On My second deployment it was a much easier time and although I was still dealing with dry eye issues I did not have any serious problems with my LASIK.
I wouldn't know what to do today if I had to go back to training with glasses and all the issues that come up with them.
I am a firm believer that getting the right person to do the LASIK makes all the difference in the world.
A physician friend and I are both super myopic and astigmatic. When I asked her whether or not she had considered vision correction surgery, she replied NO. Why? Because she had observed that eye surgeons choose not to undergo this same treatment for themselves.
I had PRK on both eyes at Tripler a month before deploying to Iraq in 2006. The only appointment I made before deploying was the 4 day checkup to get the contacts removed, which I had already done myself a day or so earlier because they felt like gravel in my eyes. I have slight astigmatism in the left eye but today I still have 20/20 left, 20/15 right. Well worth what I paid for the procedure (not a damn thing!)
if you have $10,000 just get ICL's (implanted contact lense) this is by far the BEST thing out for vision correction, it takes about 15min theres no cutting or removal of material from the eye and no side effects and the healing time is pretty much a few days (1-3).
if you want more info go here http://www.laservueorlando.com/icl-implantable-contact-lenses/
Dr. Brock is a superb eye doc and does a lot of these procedures on active duty military members because its faster, better, and safer than lasik. Brock had a soldier come in who was the in an IED blast and got about 5 pieces of frag to the eye and his implanted contact lense were undamaged. pretty cool pictures as well.
Got my eyes done about 5yrs ago now still have slightly better than 20/20 vision and consider it the best money I have ever spent period. I used a Dr in La Jolla when I was stationed at Pendleton dont remember the office name but they did the players for the san Diego Chargers and high end clients. Its definitly a surgery I would skimp on and would do some research but done correctly if you have worn glasses or contacts your whole life is also the most rewarding thing.
QuietShootr
01-01-12, 18:47
I wore glasses my first deployment, the issue insert/protective lenses broke fairly often. I had Wiley X prescription glasses made and sent, constant issues with them but better then just wearing my glasses for 15 months.
When I got back, I went through the Army program and had LASIK done at FtHood through the program there.
On My second deployment it was a much easier time and although I was still dealing with dry eye issues I did not have any serious problems with my LASIK.
I wouldn't know what to do today if I had to go back to training with glasses and all the issues that come up with them.
I am a firm believer that getting the right person to do the LASIK makes all the difference in the world.
I agree. I had LASIK done in 1998, by an utterly top-flight surgeon. It cost almost $6,000, which was a hell of a lot of money in '98 - but I went from 20/500 in my right and 20/300 in my left to 20/10 in both - and it's held stable for 14 years. I had NO complications, which I attribute to the surgeon and to the fact that I followed his instructions to the absolute letter. I had some dryness the first year or so that could be alleviated with drops, and in very low light I get some starring around light sources, but I have learned to live with it. It was worth it, IMO.
When I was an 11B as a kid, I carried three pairs of glasses: one on my face, one in a hard case in a cargo pocket, and one in my ruck (and that doesn't count the M17 inserts). If I'd lost my glasses in combat, I'd have been ****ed. I always wondered why there wasn't a vision requirement for Infantry. I guess we're cheaper than pilots.
Since then, like someone posted above, I've been pepper sprayed, jumped out of planes, been diving, flown in open-cockpit planes, all that.
tacti-cool
04-18-12, 00:59
I had PRK done in 2006..
Lasik is stupid, they cut a 3 sided flap.. laser .. then lay it back down, and there can always be a " blow out".
Get PRK!!!!
its very safe
I had PRK done in 2006..
Lasik is stupid, they cut a 3 sided flap.. laser .. then lay it back down, and there can always be a " blow out".
Get PRK!!!!
its very safe
Lasik is a very viable option with the technology available today. To call it "stupid" seems somewhat ignorant...... I had Lasik performed a while back and could not be happier with the results. As to the OP, he is definitely over reacting somewhat. Without getting into the entire issue of having On Call Opthalmologist or Optometrist is not just a simple "pay them some money" issue. Frankly I do not blame these specialists for not wanting to take call for the ER. They will invariably get stuck caring for patients that will not pay and could very well file suit if a bad outcome occurs. I could go on and on with this subject, but I have neither the time nor want to do so. In the ER we see a multitude of eye injuries. There are very few that require immediate intervention. If she had a scratch or even a tear in the cornea which is evident with flourescein and a slit lamp exam, then this is NOT an immediate surgical emergency. If she had a globe rupture or hyphema, then sure, she would need immediate referral. HOWEVER, it sounds like appropriate action was taken with referral in the A.M. Be that as it may, sometimes bad things happen. This does not automatically mean something was done wrong....
How can I say all of this?? Easy, I am a board certified Emergency Room Physician. I have taken care of hundreds if not thousands of injuries involving the eye.......
I went back and re-read the OP's opening statement. What is a "hole in the cornea"?? Did they mean a scratch, slight defect, or a globe rupture??? There is a big difference....
This thread is kind of amusing. People arguing lasik vs PRK vs whatever else in the same way we argue and defend our choice of rifle brands here on M4C. From the tone of the thread, it appears that lasik is the DPMS of the vision correction world. :rolleyes:
Without getting into the entire issue of having On Call Opthalmologist or Optometrist is not just a simple "pay them some money" issue. Frankly I do not blame these specialists for not wanting to take call for the ER. They will invariably get stuck caring for patients that will not pay and could very well file suit if a bad outcome occurs.
Not to derail further, but what are you seeing in your ER relative to General Surgery or Orthopedic coverage? Those areas of specialist emergency coverage are also going away in our brave, new, evolving health care system.
This thread is kind of amusing. People arguing lasik vs PRK vs whatever else in the same way we argue and defend our choice of rifle brands here on M4C. From the tone of the thread, it appears that lasik is the DPMS of the vision correction world. :rolleyes:
Not to derail further, but what are you seeing in your ER relative to General Surgery or Orthopedic coverage? Those areas of specialist emergency coverage are also going away in our brave, new, evolving health care system.
The technology involved with the All Laser lasik procedures is outstanding. To Pew-pew lasik is do to so because you dont understand how far and how advanced it has become.
As they say, wait until Healthcare is free... :rolleyes: It is only getting tougher and tougher to find decent coverage in many smaller ER's and hospitals. At this point General Surgery is still fairly well covered, but even Ortho coverage becomes spotty at times. As I mentioned earlier Optho/eye trauma coverage is next to impossible unless you are at a Tertiary care center.
I am sorry to hear about the OP's situation.
I got LASIK done about 4 years ago and couldn't be happier.
I recently got my eye poked severly by accident and thank my lucky stars i didn't damage my eye. I was worried that i had cornea damage but or something. i guess i got lucky.
If you guys are considering LASIK i say do it! i was about 30 years old when i got mine done.
Got lasik done in both eyes exactly two years ago.
Best $2500 I've ever spent. I'd spend triple that to do it again, if I had to. I do have a lifetime warranty, if I'm ever not happy with my eyesight I call 'em up, schedule an appointment and they fix my eyes for free!
I wouldn't hesitate to recommend lasik to any family member or friend. 3 of my uncles have had it done, and 2 close friends with no ill effects.
HawaiianM4
06-03-12, 03:50
I had my PPK done 5 years ago and am thankful everyday. I would recommend either a PPK or a LASIK if you are a good canidate. If you are not a good canidate dont do it. Dont find a doctor that will do something two others have advised not to either. Your eyes are very important.
I had my PPK done 5 years ago and am thankful everyday. I would recommend either a PPK or a LASIK if you are a good canidate. If you are not a good canidate dont do it. Dont find a doctor that will do something two others have advised not to either. Your eyes are very important.
I went to have LASIK a few years ago and to my surprise was informed I was not a good candidate for it. I ended up having Visian ICLs put in and my results have been great. These types of lenses have the benefit that they can be removed/replaced if necessary so it's not necessarily permanent.
Apricotshot
06-04-12, 07:47
I went to have LASIK a few years ago and to my surprise was informed I was not a good candidate for it. I ended up having Visian ICLs put in and my results have been great. These types of lenses have the benefit that they can be removed/replaced if necessary so it's not necessarily permanent.
I was told the same thing. My Astigmatism was so bad that laser correction would not work. Dr. Updagraph (Spell?) in St. Pete told me that I would need an LRI (?) done to flat out the eye. He even alluded to the fact that if this were done I may not even need laser after that. I am just real nervous when it comes to a blade cutting my eyeball....
The_War_Wagon
06-04-12, 08:10
Bifocals for me!
And the only thing I'll ever stick IN my eye, are my dirty, grubby, fingers. :p I don't trust contacts, neither.
I had PRK done in 2008. Last time I checked I was seeing better than 20/20. The recovery time is longer and more extensive than with Lasik, but theres no flap for me to worry about :) Best money I've ever spent.
Out of curiousity (and b/c I'm considering it), any long term people out there? Like, 10 or 20 years out from surgery? How has it held up?
Out of curiousity (and b/c I'm considering it), any long term people out there? Like, 10 or 20 years out from surgery? How has it held up?
I don't think anybody really knows yet on a systematic basis, you might get anecdotal reports, but no large-scale data. I think FDA organized some sort of long-term safety panel about 5 years ago, but I am no aware of any definitive data.
BTW, while theoretically 10 years is long term, I am not much interested in it - I would prefer 20 some, and this would be hard to find. The lasik has been around that long, prk even less. Lack of long-term data is what turns me off. Human eye changes over the time, and I am quite concerned that something done to it at age of 30 and 40 will backfire when the patient is 70.
Vast majority of people who had done this in recent time are quite happy. I only know of two people who had it done some 15 years ago, and one of them need to have a repeat procedure a couple of years ago.
Out of curiousity (and b/c I'm considering it), any long term people out there? Like, 10 or 20 years out from surgery? How has it held up?
I had RK done in 1987. I know, it is not the same as LASIK. It was good for 10 years. I hit 40 and my eyes start to change. When it is all said and done, I have a 10 diopter swing in my vision from where I started to where I am now. I now need reverse geometry, gas permeable contact lenses and tri-focals to see 20/20 in the left and 20/25 in the right. If I had the opportunity to start over and do LASIK, I would probably opt out and say "no". Many eye doctors will say that if you can get correctable to 20/20 with glasses or contacts, don't cut on otherwise healthy eyes. Long term predictability is an issue. If you are in a profession such as law enforcement, fire fighter, or the military, it is, in my view, easier to make the argument for the surgery. Otherwise, I probably would not. That being said, I still would not do LASIK. I would opt for PRK for reasons below. It is very easy to succumb to the marketing. Deciding to do this is not something to be taken lightly.
FDA - LASIK (http://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/productsandmedicalprocedures/surgeryandlifesupport/lasik/default.htm)
What Laser Correction Surgery Means to the Military (http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/08/slides/2008-4353s1-03%20David%20J.%20Tanzer%20What%20Refractive%20Surgery%20Means%20to%20the%20Military.pdf?utm_campaign=Google2&utm_source=fdaSearch&utm_medium=website&utm_term=PRK&utm_content=9)
In the USA candidates who have had PRK can get a blanket waiver for the Special Forces Qualification, Combat Diving Qualification and Military Free Fall courses. PRK and LASIK are both waived for Airborne, Air Assault and Ranger schools. However, those who have had LASIK must enroll in an observational study, if a slot is available, to undergo training in Special Forces qualification. LASIK is disqualifying/non-waiverable for several United States Army Special Operations Command (USASOC) schools (HALO, SCUBA, SERE) per Army Regulation 40-501.
LASIK Vs PRK (http://www.the-lasik-directory.com/lasik_prk_chart.pdf)
Photorefractive Keratectomy Eye Surgery (http://www.webmd.com/eye-health/eye-health-photorefractive-keratectomy-pr-eye-surgery)
Implantable Contact Lenses in the Military (http://d2agh9ata29wb8.cloudfront.net/l/lasikrapidcity.com/pdf/visian-icl-on-duty.pdf)
I hope this helps.
Thanks Olkev, looks like I'll be reading this afternoon.
yes, I'm military, but it's not mission-essential to be 20/20. Contacts do well with me. The only hassle is you're not supposed to wear them if deployed overseas. That means my sunglasses are the eye-pro that's issued, which SUCKS with inserts in my prescription. Talk about distortion.
I had the all laser lasik procedure which has been incredible. This is not the typical flap created lasik procedure. The all laser lasik has been approved by all branches of the military including pilots.
The above link has a power point that stresses the strengths of this procedure. I WOULD NOT hesitate to have it done.
Stick with glasses or contact lenses - they are much safer than vision correction surgery.
My wife had Lasik more than 10 years ago. Yesterday, our 18 month old son accidently poked/scratched her eye. She had to go to the emergency room, where she was seen by a physician's assistant (why she was not seen by an MD and referred immediately to an eye specialist is a subject I will take up with the hospital very soon) who informed her that she had a hole in her cornea, told her to call her eye Dr. in the morning, and sent her home with antibiotic eye drops and pain medication.
This morning, she visited her optometrist, who informed her that the injury had become worse overnight, and by that time the cornea had been essentially torn off. He cleaned the wound, applied a contact lens bandage, and wants to see her tomorrow morning. Fortunately he expects full recovery, although nothing is 100% certain until it happens. She is visiting an opthamologist this afternoon just to be sure - we conly get one set of eyes.
She was informed by her optometrist that the Lasik surgery had weakened her cornea, and made it more susceptible to injury. In fact the injury might not have been as severe as it was but for the surgery.
When I met with an FBI recruiter in my last year of law school (1997), he informed me that anyone who had vision correction surgery would not be accepted as a special agent. Now I know why - even more than 10 years later, the eye is more susceptible to injury.
I have worn daily wear contact lenses for 28 years, through high school wrestling practices, traditional martial arts training, and now MMA training, with no issues. They are very tough to knock out of one's eye, although others do make credible claims of having lost them during training. Just keep a few spare pairs of disposable lenses in various places (car, work). If you prefer glasses, then get a pair with polycarbonate lenses and spring hinges, and unless/until they get knocked off in a fight, you will be wearing what amounts to partial safety glasses.
Whatever you do, DO NOT GET VISION CORRECTION SURGERY.
never had a contact knock out. even swim with eyes open in them.
however i've had them squeezed out in wrestling... but that's just life and life before i realized wrestling doesn't require too much vision.
i know a bunch of optometrists. they all wear glasses... i also always hear of this anecdote being a clue to others, but i've also heard so many positive stories about corrective surgery.
A coworker who had hers 4 years ago confided the other day that she already needed additional correction. That's a 3d person I know with less than stellar durability of a result.
On a positive side, my wife was deemed a no-go. I call it positive because I felt the approach to her was very professional: one center deemed her a poor candidate, explained why, and referred to another center for an additional evaluation.
elephantrider
08-29-12, 14:53
In fact the injury might not have been as severe as it was but for the surgery.
The important word here is 'might.' It is hard to say what part the eye surgery played in the severity of your wife's injury.
I had LASIK done a couple years ago and am very happy with the results. I actually started martial arts training after the surgery and haven't had any ill efects. I've even taken a good poke to the eye from a Thai pad and I haven't gone blind or anything.
The Dr. I chose to do the procedure is a national authority on corrective eye surgery. He had fixed a lot of botched corrective surgeries and is involved in the latest in research and technology. He was not the cheapest, and in fact was probably one of the most expensive ($3k per eye). He used the latest in Wavefront LASIK and recomended using only that procedure over PRK. His office and equipment were new and pristine. There was absolutely no sales pressure whatsoever.
I also checked out one of the local big name Doctors that adverstised on the radio, just for the sake of doing my due dilligence. He was about $1k cheaper. His office seemed decent, but felt like you were being hearded through a cattle chute. I had to see 3-4 various tech/sales people and watch a retarded sales video before talking to the Dr. The Dr. gave me a different story of what my options were than his assistent did. The whole thing felt impersonal and more about getting people in and out of the front door. In fact they were e-mailing me for quite a while to see if I was coming back for the procedure.
I'm sure the technology has progressed in just the couple years since I had my eyes done. There is probably even better technology on the horizon. I was in a bit of a hurry to get it done, but I am still happy with the results.
If you are considering it: Do some research on the different methods and check out a few doctors. Don't just go with the cheapest one.
ClearedHot
09-02-12, 03:53
I know an active duty SEAL who got PRK and is satisfied with the results. He did mention PRK does diminish some of your eye's natural night vision abilities, but I guess having a set of PVS-15's will compensate for that. :D
As I posted earlier in this thread, I've been pretty cautious about the whole area and especially about the LASEK/LASIK varieties, although it seems like they get better all the time. There's a lot of marketing hype and bad practitioners as well as good in this field. I held off for a long time because of this. Yet, there does seem to be a genuine benefit if you get a reputable surgeon and you're a good candidate for the surgery. My local eye Dr. finally convinced me after he found a good surgeon in the Puget Sound area who he trusted his own family to go to. On his advice I decided to go with PRK for a number of reasons (see the above-linked comparison between PRK and LASIK). I opted for the WaveFront PRK and it was done last January, total cost $2600 with lifetime warranty/corrections as needed. I was nearsighted and got great results. My L eye is dominant and is now 20/15 with zero astigmatism. The R eye is 20/25 (also zero astigmatism), which is good enough for me to go totally without correction, and gives me a practical monovision where the L eye gives great vision at distance and R lets me read up close despite presbyopia.
Date Refractions Uncorrected Corrected
Pre-surgery R: -5.00 -0.75 x 140 20/600 20/15
L: -3.75 -0.50 x 085 20/400 20/15
8 mth post-op R: -1.0 0.00 20/25 20/15
L: -0.25 0.00 20/15 n.a.
The main drawback has been that you can have issues with what are called HOA (higher-order abberations), which affect your contrast sensitivity and fine detail of vision, such as night vision, glare, contrast. I especially notice it at night: it's harder to see details in the stars, or in dark areas like parking garages. But this improves gradually over time. Also, I tried to skip the prescribed Vicodin on the day of surgery, and that was a mistake. I recommend following doctor's orders, including pain medication. :-)
Overall I'm happy with the results and glad I did it. I went from being nearsighted all my life, glasses and contacts, and the last 3 years needing progressive lenses for both myopia and presbyopia, to today needing nothing at all. The vision quality is excellent, still with some HOA issues mainly at night but these improve incrementally each month. Time will tell if there are long-term issues or regression.
The only issue I have left to decide is whether to keep the monovision, or whether to get the 20/25 in the right eye further corrected so that both eyes are about 20/15. The Dr. generally doesn't like to do a repeat surgery on anything 20/40 or better, as they believe the risks outweigh the benefits. Plus, I'm actually quite happy with the monovision as it lets me avoid reading glasses, so I may just stick with it. Would be interested to hear if others have tried the monovision approach.
I had RK done in mid 90's to both eyes and LASIK in mid 2000's to one eye.
58 years old and presbyopia is my principal issue.
Lost some of the correction from LASIK due to changes in eye shape, and presently at or about 20/50.
This past year I went with multi-focal contacts. First as monovision, but later to both eyes.
Given the advances in contacts, their comfort, and ability to wear extended periods (30 days), my personal opinion is this the way to go if you are over 45 years old.
Past 45 you almost certainly will face presbyopia, as well as possible other eye changes. For that reason, flexibility of being able to adjust contact prescription is a huge advantage.
Until this year and adoption of multifocal contacts, my pistol shooting was a major source of frustration. I could not see the sights. For those without presbyopia, just try shooting with someone else's eyeglasses on and you'll see what it's like. My groups reduced by at least half. And this improvement in eyesight has also benefited me in countless ways in everyday life.
One caveat: getting the right prescription is a matter of trial and error. I bet I tried a half dozen different combinations of lens. My eye doctor is a shooter and Canoe U grad, so he really understood.
LASIK has changed since the OP mentioned his wife had the surgery and the incision that weakens the eye is much more precise now. If you are concerned about possible trauma to the eye PRK is the procedure used for people going into the military. Bottom line is consult with an ophthalmologist about risks. Getting medical advice off the Internet isn't the best thing to do.
Bottom line is consult with an ophthalmologist about risks. Getting medical advice off the Internet isn't the best thing to do.
^This
Anecdotal stories and old information are not going to help you.
^This
Anecdotal stories and old information are not going to help you.
Obtaining information from an ophthalmologist is a given. However, anecdotal stories allow someone to formulate relevant questions to ask.
I'm on post-op day 3 after PRK. My vision was not too bad prior to surgery with a prescription of -4.25 OD, -5.00 OS and minimal astigmatism in my left eye. I picked PRK over LASIK due to my participation in contact sports and not wanting the small chance of a flap dehiscence from an accidental eye poke.
The first 2 post-op days were a world of suck. It felt like I had glass in my eyes and any light was oppressive. I tried to skate-by on the Neurontin that my surgeon prescribed along with OTC Motrin and Tylenol. By the end of post-op day one, I broke down and sent my wife to pick-up the Lortab that my surgeon had prescribed. I needed a total of 2 doses of Lortab to get me though the second day.
Well, I woke-up on post-op day 3 with zero pain, but my vision is still very blurry. I've been told that blurred vision is normal and it will not normalize for a several days to weeks. It is difficult to stare at a computer screen and reading from my iPhone gives me a headache. Tomorrow, I go back for my second post-op appointment and to get the protective contact lens removed. I've been told to expect 20/40 vision at that point. It should improve over the next month or so to 20/20 or better.
Overall, not too bad of an experience. I wish that I had just taken the Lortab earlier and spared my self the 36 hours of misery. So far, I'd say that it is worth the $4K.
The first 2 post-op days were a world of suck. It felt like I had glass in my eyes and any light was oppressive. I tried to skate-by on the Neurontin that my surgeon prescribed along with OTC Motrin and Tylenol. By the end of post-op day one, I broke down and sent my wife to pick-up the Lortab that my surgeon had prescribed. I needed a total of 2 doses of Lortab to get me though the second day.
[...]
Overall, not too bad of an experience. I wish that I had just taken the Lortab earlier and spared my self the 36 hours of misery. So far, I'd say that it is worth the $4K.
Glad your PRK came out well initially. Sounds like your experience with trying to skip pain meds was similar to mine. :-)
It seems like with PRK you really have to be patient. You saw the improvement I got in myopia and astigmatism, and that level of correction took nearly 6 months. Now I'm on the 9th month, and still have some issue with HOA's (mainly affecting night vision quality). The vision is outstanding but the HOA issue keeps SLOWLY improving over time. I've talked to many other fellow PRK patients with similar experiences, many with vision contrast and sharpness still showing improvements a year after surgery.
Went back for my check-up and I'm now 2.5 weeks post-op from PRK. My vision is right at 20/20 for each eye and I'm a little better with both eyes. I've been told that things will improve slowly but there will likely be a noticeable improvement when I finish the taper of topical steroids (Lotemax).
My only residual symptoms are dry eyes (especially in the AM) and minor HOA disturbance under low light conditions. For example, I did some low light shooting with a mounted light a few days ago. The front site and target pictures were crisp, but the rear sights were either blurry or double. I also have brief periods where my vision gets a little blurry, but this is probably never worse than 20/40, and lasts only a few minutes if I relax and close my eyes. FWIW, these spells of poor acuity are getting better and less frequent with time.
Overall, I'm very pleased. I'll be ecstatic if my vision improves to 20/15.
Lasik is probably better now than it was 10 years ago. Lasik will be better 10 years from now than it is now. Lasik 20 years from now likely won't exist as something new will have come along.
I have one functioning eye. FAT CHANCE anyone is getting a shot at cutting into it to improve it!
HawaiianM4
10-25-12, 01:03
As I posted earlier in this thread, I've been pretty cautious about the whole area and especially about the LASEK/LASIK varieties, although it seems like they get better all the time. There's a lot of marketing hype and bad practitioners as well as good in this field. I held off for a long time because of this. Yet, there does seem to be a genuine benefit if you get a reputable surgeon and you're a good candidate for the surgery. My local eye Dr. finally convinced me after he found a good surgeon in the Puget Sound area who he trusted his own family to go to. On his advice I decided to go with PRK for a number of reasons (see the above-linked comparison between PRK and LASIK). I opted for the WaveFront PRK and it was done last January, total cost $2600 with lifetime warranty/corrections as needed. I was nearsighted and got great results. My L eye is dominant and is now 20/15 with zero astigmatism. The R eye is 20/25 (also zero astigmatism), which is good enough for me to go totally without correction, and gives me a practical monovision where the L eye gives great vision at distance and R lets me read up close despite presbyopia.
Date Refractions Uncorrected Corrected
Pre-surgery R: -5.00 -0.75 x 140 20/600 20/15
L: -3.75 -0.50 x 085 20/400 20/15
8 mth post-op R: -1.0 0.00 20/25 20/15
L: -0.25 0.00 20/15 n.a.
The main drawback has been that you can have issues with what are called HOA (higher-order abberations), which affect your contrast sensitivity and fine detail of vision, such as night vision, glare, contrast. I especially notice it at night: it's harder to see details in the stars, or in dark areas like parking garages. But this improves gradually over time. Also, I tried to skip the prescribed Vicodin on the day of surgery, and that was a mistake. I recommend following doctor's orders, including pain medication. :-)
Overall I'm happy with the results and glad I did it. I went from being nearsighted all my life, glasses and contacts, and the last 3 years needing progressive lenses for both myopia and presbyopia, to today needing nothing at all. The vision quality is excellent, still with some HOA issues mainly at night but these improve incrementally each month. Time will tell if there are long-term issues or regression.
The only issue I have left to decide is whether to keep the monovision, or whether to get the 20/25 in the right eye further corrected so that both eyes are about 20/15. The Dr. generally doesn't like to do a repeat surgery on anything 20/40 or better, as they believe the risks outweigh the benefits. Plus, I'm actually quite happy with the monovision as it lets me avoid reading glasses, so I may just stick with it. Would be interested to hear if others have tried the monovision approach.
I had the PRK 5 years ago and after a lifetime of ill fitting glasses and contacts and I now have 20/20 and 20/15 vision. I have an extended wear contact that I wear for near vision or reading. I have the HOA problem as well but I balance with the fact that I can see well during the rest of the day. The best part of having corrective eye surgery is seeing the detail and clarity that I missed for so many years. I do recommend continuing to have regular eye exams. I should also note that eye doctors that I have seen after corrective eye surgery are dismissive of it.
I would like to think when it comes to vision correction surgery, there is a huge difference on what is done now versus 10 years ago.
This, the military has allowed it for pilots for years now.
Try this:
When you go to your eye doctor, if he/she wears glasses, ask if they are getting it done. If not, why not?
If they don't wear glasses, ask when they had it done.
The key issue is long term stability.
I had LASIK over 10 years ago for myopia and have 20/15 in my right eye and slightly worse than 20/20 in my left eye. I don't know exactly but since my left is dominant I can tell it's worse than my right eye.
After the initial dryness and halos that has completely faded long ago so I can't really complain. My question is after reading the issues with the flap detaching will it make it more prone to detaching if I go for re-correction?
I paid extra for lifetime correction and I assume that limits me to LASIK. If it were an option, do you think it would be a good idea to go for PRK this time? My shooting accuracy is already being affected shooting lefty and I'm mostly ambidextrous anyway so I'm considering just shooting right handed if I have to stay with LASIK.
I'd rather my cornea not be thinned any more than it already is.
I had the RK in 1981 and got a good 15 years before the astigmatism came back. The doc had told me to expect 10-15 years before I would need some correction.
These days, I wear 3-4 prescriptions a day. My eyesight is the worst in the morning and gradually gets better throughout the day. Its a big pain to keep that many sets of glasses and sunglasses clip ons to get through the day. I travel and if I forget a pair, its a royal pain.
This, the military has allowed it for pilots for years now.
About a decade ago, I was on the Navy's Astronaut Candidate list, and while going through the flight physical I learned that vision correction surgery is approved for:
- Astronauts
- Pilots
- Navy SEAL's
All of whom go through high stress (in term's of G forces, and other stress like hyperbaric environments)....
I think if our military trusts vision correction surgery to the above group of individuals, then I suspect it should be good enough for the average schmo.
UnauthorizedAccess
12-25-12, 08:24
I had Lasik surgery on both eyes in 1997. No issues since. Was back in Tae Kwon Do after 30 days and have trained in Karate and Kickboxing for years with no issues. Incredible vision still except for 0"-16" from eye - age related need for reading glasses.
I had radial keratotomy in the mid-90's. I was 20/15 for about a decade, now 20/20. As my presbyopia has progressed, I do need reading glasses. In fact, I need two pairs...2.5 diopters for reading, 1.5 diopters for focusing on the front sight of a pistol, which also allows good focus on the target. That is still a hell of a lot cheaper than contacts, and especially bifocals, and especially graduated tri-focals.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.