Any of you guys had LASIK?

[cowtown]

Hi everyone,
I've been thinking about LASIK and its various predecessors for over 5 years now, and I'm finally ready to take the plunge. I'm scheduled for Wavefront LASIK on the 19th with a very good surgeon in Hayward/San Jose (Mark Mandel). I see around 20/30 corrected with glasses, but can't wear contacts for various reasons, and see 20/450 uncorrected.

I was just wondering if any of you guys, especially those who do DE and autocross, have any feedback about your results. I'm a bit concerned about glare, but I've had two different doctor consults and I seem to be a very good candidate. I'm hoping I'll see well enough to run track events with no extra correction.

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Dude, you have only one set of eyes. My wife's aunt had it 2 years ago and HATES what it's done to her night vision (halos, fogging, etc.).

I'm 20/800 uncorrected with astigmatisms in both eyes. I can't wear contacts. My glasses put me in the 20/30 -- 20/50 range. I'm a "borderline" candidate for Lasik -- but I'd never do it.

[LeRoux Strydom]

I had this done about 6 years ago. You have to do the research to be sure this is right for you, and you may live with the possible side effects. For me, the positives were obvious, no more glasses, improved lifestyle etc., etc. Negatives, well, my left eye had to be done twice, whih left me with a slight halo effect at nighttime in the one eye. Daytime vision is perfect. Fortunately it is not my dominant eye, so it is not too bad and I can live with it. All in all, I rate it a 90% success. It would have been 100% if the left eye did not play up afterwards.

Since your track events are daytime, I think the risk is very small that you will have vision problems afterwards. In fact, I sometimes think my depth of visual perception has increased since losing the glasses.

Good luck

LeRoux

[Moses]

Mark Mandel did my LASIK three years ago. Pre-op uncorrected 20/450. Now 20/20. Easily the best money I ever spent.

Mark did LASIK for about a dozen of the docs at our local hospital. Most of us are surgeons, so we picked someone who has our complete confidence.

Mark is unusual in that he is a cornea surgeon. Should complications arise in another facility, patients will be sent to a cornea surgeon for treatment. It makes sense that someone who specializes in fixing surgical complications should also be adept at avoiding them.

I was thrilled with my results. I do have some slight "starburst" effect at night with stoplights, but it doesn't bother me. My visual acuity in the operating room is better than ever and my distance vision is great.

Good luck!

[Dantilla]

A couple of friends are thrilled with their results.

My thoughts- Though less than 5% have any real problems, if I am one of those few, it is still 100% of the eyes I have. My eyes are not that bad. I usually don't wear my glasses when driving. The FAA, however, says I must wear them when I fly an airplane. I'll pass for now. If my eyes worsen in the future, or as procedures evolve, maybe someday.

[cowtown]

Thanks for all the great feedback.
Moses, your experience with Mandel confirms a lot of other good things I have heard about him. I first looked him up because both of my wife's grandparents had him do their cataract surgery. And though I know I'm better off considering statistics than anecdotes, the huge list of surgeons, MDs, and ODs who have used him for the procedure does say something to me. On top of that, his statistical outcomes are in line with the other doctors I was considering. I fall into that large "98% 20/40 or better" range.

I've done a ton of research on LASIK over the last couple years, and it finally seems like it's become a stable/routine (as opposed to revolutionary/experimental) procedure. I'm a really conservative guy when it comes to risk, but I've read up on the risks and have found them acceptable for someone with my correction level and lifestyle. The key is just hoping your specific procedure falls into that statistically normal sample of results. As my stats teacher used to say, "you don't want to be an outlier!"

BlueSky, I do appreciate what you say about only having one pair of eyes. That's exactly what kept me from considering the earlier procedures like PRK. It's also made me shy away from the latest-greatest Intralase machine, which replaces the keratome (knife) that's used to cut the corneal flap with a laser. No real statistical information on results or long-term effects is out yet.

Dantilla, if I were in your position, and my livelihood depended on perfect vision, I'd pass too. My goal is to be able to drive uncorrected (which I think requires 20/40) , and anything on top of that is added benefit.

I've also wanted to wait until my eyes completely stabilized (I'm 32 now). Hopefully I'll get in 10-12 years before I start needing reading glasses.

It's been a huge decision for me, and I really appreciate the responses!

Colin

[John#6]

You'll still need reading glasses, no matter what. It just goes with the aging process.

[cowtown]

"Hopefully I'll get in 10-12 years before I start needing reading glasses." Fingers crossed.

[John#6]

There ya go -- Just try doing Driving Events with bifocals - you'll get the Lasik asap -;-)

[BlueSkyJaunte]

I just got back from my optometrist, and he feels the next "new thing" will be corrective implants like they use for cataract surgery. My grandfather is 85 years old and needs glasses only for reading--before his cataract surgery he had worse vision than I do. It sounds like they can do multifocal implants now so it would be acceptable for younger folks.

Interstingly my prescription went down in the past year. May have something to do with nutrition, since I've been a lot more careful about what I eat for the past 6 months.

[Moses]

Originally posted by BlueSkyJaunte
I just got back from my optometrist, and he feels the next "new thing" will be corrective implants like they use for cataract surgery.

A general principal of surgery is that implanting foriegn objects is a last resort. It is the standard for treatment of cataracts, because the patients own tissue is not useable. Implantable devices for refractive surgery was "the lastest thing" about 5 years ago. It was discontinued due to unpredictable inflammatory responses to the devices.

Surgically modifying a patients own tissue (if the tissue is healthy) is always better that implanting foreign objects.

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Originally posted by Moses
Implantable devices for refractive surgery was "the lastest thing" about 5 years ago. It was discontinued due to unpredictable inflammatory responses to the devices.

Those were those ring-things that distorted the cornea, right? What are the stats on inflammatory responses to cataract implants? Lots of older folks are getting them.

Surgically modifying a patients own tissue (if the tissue is healthy) is always better that implanting foreign objects.

Any corrective surgery like LASIK, PRK, RK, et al involves removal of tissue, which inherently weakens the eyeball--not a very durable organ to begin with. Just ask my boss about general durability, who has to have his retina re-attached every 8 years or so (and near-sighted people, the ones getting LASIK, are the ones prone to detachments).

Listen, I understand you're a surgeon, but nobody's going to convince me that slicing up my eyeball is a good thing. Especially when I have relatives who are unhappy with their results. It's not just the immediate post-op results that concern me, but also things like long-term results and, well, durability.

Caveat emptor, is all I'm sayin'.

[cowtown]

RE: the next big thing.

From what I've read, a variant of the IntraLASIK technology (currently used to cut the flap with a laser) may be the "next big thing," IF it can be used to eliminate the need to cut a corneal flap at all.

My layman's understanding of this possibility is that the Intralase can, in theory, get in and remove tissue from the center of the cornea without direct access (ie a flap). It has something to do with targeting specific depths by altering the wavelength of the laser.

So, in a few years we may have laser correction techniques that don't involve any cutting at all. Just lasing the cornea center to reshape it is possible.

But that's a whole new procedure, and as I said I like to see a few years of statistics first. It's really not the cutting that concerns me. In fact, I really don't care about the specifics of the procedure at all, as long as the doctor knows what he's doing...it's just the outcome that I'm interested in.

[CHILI]

How about intacs? Not sure if that's what you are referring to, when you are discussing corrective implants.

Pros: can be reversed by taking them out.
Cons: Don't work for everyone. I think maybe your eyesight is too poor.

Any thoughts. I was thinking about having this done in lieu of Lasiks.

[Moses]

Originally posted by BlueSkyJaunte
nobody's going to convince me that slicing up my eyeball is a good thing.

No doubt about it, the safest surgery is no surgery at all. If there was a way to restore a lens without replacing it, that would be the best method.

With LASIK, you are able to "model" the cornea and change the refraction. If someone is planning refractive surgery, avoiding foreign body implants is the way to go. If someone develops a bad implant reaction, merely removing the offending material is not that simple. The remaining tissue may be infected, scarred, and permanently damaged.

[BlueSkyJaunte]

OK, yeah:

The Intac is a "corneal ring"; the doctor makes an incision near the cornea and the ring is inserted (under the epithelial layer?). The ring distorts the cornea a certain amount to change the focus point to line up with your retina. These are supposedly removeable.

The implants used for cataract surgery are a complete lens replacement. They are starting to be able to provide multifocal lens replacements that eliminate the need to use reading glasses. The way I understand it, the implants are custom-ground (molded? formed?) to correct your vision to 20/20.

Intacs: http://www.swmed.edu/ophth/krings.htm

Multifocal replacement lens: http://www.richmondeye.com/array.htm

[RickM]

You're lucky you can consider LASIK. I recently learned that I'm not a candidate after having LASER surgery for Glaucoma (at 43)...the result of a relatively rare condition called Krukenberg's spindle. Damn!! Apparently, after this procedure it is common to get inaccurate low pressure readings. Not a good thing. Hopefully one of the newer technologies will afford me the opportunity to lose the contacts and glasses.

BTW, of the 10 or so people I know of that have had LASIK they are all very happy with the results. This despite the fact that most of them have minor side effects...dry eyes, halos and starring.

[DonDavis]

Originally posted by Moses
My visual acuity in the operating room is better than ever and my distance vision is great.

I've heard my wife say the same verbatim. Well, about a Dental chair. Not an operating room. She is a Dental Hygienist and had LASIK 3 years ago. Prior to surgery, she couldn't see her hand in front of her face without glasses. I don't remember what her vision was but I remember her glasses were a -7. She is still thrilled to this day about her 20/20 vision. Not sure about the nighttime vision but I don't hear her complain.

She did tons of research and found a great Doc.

In the end, it has to be an individual decision based on ones research, comfort level and confidence in the Doc.

[Porsche]

I am also contemplating refractive surgery. Will let you know when I do get it done.

[Moneyguy1]

I'll keep my glasses, thank you. Has anyone thought of the safety that glasses provide re: flying debris? If you have worn glasses for years, and suddenly you no longer need them, you may do work where safety glasses would be required and you forget....All of a sudden that newly acquired 20/20 is far worse than it was before and you are using a cane........

If it ain't broke, Don't fix it.....