Considering lasik surgery to help sight alignment and focus, share your thoughts please.

[Zaydok Allen]

Anyway, I'm not trying to talk you into anything, just letting you know that your aversion is not unique or even unreasonable, but that, if you chose to, you could get past it.

I hear you man, and it's good to get different perspectives and experiences. I started this thread knowing I may be told stories that talk me into or out of it. It's going to take me a bit to even go for a consultation. I appreciate your perspective and experience.

 

[rpenmanparker]

For me putting in and taking out contact lenses the times I have tried them was no problem at all. It was the need for reading glasses when I was wearing them that made them impractical. I didn't get around to trying them until I was already in my '50s and needed progressives. So if I were going to have to carry glasses around all the time, I just felt having them on my head was the best approach. Bye-bye contacts. Nice distance vision, but up close was horrible.

 

[Jinx0760]

My prescription was -4.75 which made some thick glasses, so I went to contacts. The contacts would get dry while sitting in a tree stand for several hours, so I tried Lasik in 2004. My doctor was from South Africa (and a hunter) and asked my hobbies then gave me some choices for close-up, distance or stereo.I took the distance and still have 20/20 or better at a distance, however I did start wearing 2.0 readers in the last 5 years. If I were to make the decision today, I would do it all over. Reading glasses makes you look distinguished, and I need all of the help I can get!

 

[rpenmanparker]

My prescription was -4.75 which made some thick glasses, so I went to contacts. The contacts would get dry while sitting in a tree stand for several hours, so I tried Lasik in 2004. My doctor was from South Africa (and a hunter) and asked my hobbies then gave me some choices for close-up, distance or stereo.I took the distance and still have 20/20 or better at a distance, however I did start wearing 2.0 readers in the last 5 years. If I were to make the decision today, I would do it all over. Reading glasses makes you look distinguished, and I need all of the help I can get!

By the way even with that prescription you can have glasses with relatively thin lenses if you spring for the highest refractive index plastic available. They are pricey, but high RI lenses are much thinner and lighter than regular ones.

 

[Riomouse911]

I had it 12 years ago. I my eyesight went south and I couldn’t read street signs and license plates on patrol, and then with glasses they would get rain on them, get fogged up or get knocked off so Lasik became a serious option.

The procedure is really painless, the only weird factor is when the eye is cut and the flap lifted you’re almost blind and the experience is really freaky. My only issues involved a “halo” from lights at night for about 12-14 months, and I lost enough depth perception from the surgery to serously affect my abilities to catch fly balls in the outfield (The loss of depth caused me to close my mitt a hair too soon on flies, so I kept dropping them).

For about six-seven years it was great, then my eyesight started to deteriorate again at distance and glasses were prescribed. 12 years later I wear glasses for distances and readers at night for books, newspaper etc. 2-10 feet I’m still 20-20.

While it lasted I was happy as a clam, but I won’t spend another couple grand per eye again if it’s only going to last me a few years. Hopefully your luck will be better than mine.

Stay safe.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

I had it 12 years ago. I my eyesight went south and I couldn’t read street signs and license plates on patrol, and then with glasses they would get rain on them, get fogged up or get knocked off so Lasik became a serious option.

The procedure is really painless, the only weird factor is when the eye is cut and the flap lifted you’re almost blind and the experience is really freaky. My only issues involved a “halo” from lights at night for about 12-14 months, and I lost enough depth perception from the surgery to serously affect my abilities to catch fly balls in the outfield (The loss of depth caused me to close my mitt a hair too soon on flies, so I kept dropping them).

For about six-seven years it was great, then my eyesight started to deteriorate again at distance and glasses were prescribed. 12 years later I wear glasses for distances and readers at night for books, newspaper etc. 2-10 feet I’m still 20-20.

While it lasted I was happy as a clam, but I won’t spend another couple grand per eye again if it’s only going to last me a few years. Hopefully your luck will be better than mine.

Stay safe.

I know some folks who had it done and a few of them have never needed an update or touch up. A few others wear glasses again on a daily basis. My regular eye doctor told me he didn't expect my eyes to change too much from here on out. I don't know how he can tell that now, but I know pretty much nothing about the biology of a human eye or how it degrades over time. I have my mom's eyes, and her vision was reasonable until she passed away, so my total conjecture point here, is I think I have a decent chance of being a one and done candidate. I need to schedule a consultation.

 

[entropy]

PM me your Rx-It's not whether your eye would change much that determines success probability with Lasik, it's your Rx- certain parameters determine time until redo. Some Rx's will allow more time between redos. Hint: If they try more than once to 'suggest' the "lifetime" plan, you are probably better off without it. Your doctor probably based his prediction on fundus photography, which has little to do with Lasik. Fundus photography covers the retina, which is in the back of the eye; Lasik adjusts the cornea, the 'bulge' that the iris and pupil sit in. It changes the shape of the cornea, thus changing it's dioptric power, refocusing the light going into the crystalline lens, which is the main part of the eye that does the focusing. The reason Lasik doesn't last, and lasts shorter for some patients is the cornea is a living structure, and changes over time. Some optical irregularities cause more change, and faster than others.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Your eyes aren't necessarily going to get "worse"...but soon you WILL start to feel the effects of presbyopia. The lens of the eyes will start to lose their flexibility and you'll have problems focusing on objects close up.

When I asked my eye doc about corrective surgery options in the later years of my Naval career, he told me that the surgeries are great and if I choose that option I'll always have perfect far vision. (I'm near sighted.)

HOWEVER, my eyes would still age and eventually I'd start having problems focusing close up, and I'd ultimately need reading glasses.

I remember thinking "What's the point, then, if I end up needing to wear glasses again anyway?"

So I never had corrective surgery. And now, sure enough, I've been wearing bifocals for a number of years.

Take this for what it's worth.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

HOWEVER, my eyes would still age and eventually I'd start having problems focusing close up, and I'd ultimately need reading glasses.

I remember thinking "What's the point, then, if I end up needing to wear glasses again anyway?"

That has been on my mind also, but I'm ok with reading glasses. I'd rather that than require them for driving, seeing my target, or relying on them in a survival situation, so long as I can still see my speedometer and gauges on my truck. I am an outdoor enthusiast. I tend to go on long day hikes and frequently they are off trail. It's also part of my profession. I have gotten hurt out in the woods before. One day while on a recreational hike, I crawled under a down dead tree, and thought I was clear. I went to stand up and didn't realize there was a 4 inch diameter branch over me. It didn't give, and when I brained myself it dropped me on the spot. It took several minutes to recover, and I pressed on, but I have wondered would I have seen the branch if my glasses hadn't slid down? How bad of a situation would it have been if I'd broken my glasses? I also go tent camping now and then and if there is a critter in camp that needs dealing with, will I find my glasses and gun when coming out of a dead sleep? I think being able to skip the later may be a benefit. I think lasik would be a benefit for me even if I need readers.

None the less, the notions you've mentioned are good points, and ones I'm considering heavily.

 

[tunnug]

I'd been wearing glasses since my 20's, (I'm 59), In 2008 I went to Lazic Plus and had it done, my regular eye doctor did the procedure but also did everything else so I decided to go to someone who only did lazic, I figured practice makes perfect, the procedure took 10 minutes total for both eyes and came out better than 20/20, I love it, just remember that it reverses everything, before I could see up close perfect but couldn't see far away, now I see far great but need cheaters to see small print.
Do it, you won't regret it.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

That has been on my mind also, but I'm ok with reading glasses. I'd rather that than require them for driving, seeing my target, or relying on them in a survival situation, so long as I can still see my speedometer and gauges on my truck. I am an outdoor enthusiast. I tend to go on long day hikes and frequently they are off trail. It's also part of my profession. I have gotten hurt out in the woods before. One day while on a recreational hike, I crawled under a down dead tree, and thought I was clear. I went to stand up and didn't realize there was a 4 inch diameter branch over me. It didn't give, and when I brained myself it dropped me on the spot. It took several minutes to recover, and I pressed on, but I have wondered would I have seen the branch if my glasses hadn't slid down? How bad of a situation would it have been if I'd broken my glasses? I also go tent camping now and then and if there is a critter in camp that needs dealing with, will I find my glasses and gun when coming out of a dead sleep? I think being able to skip the later may be a benefit. I think lasik would be a benefit for me even if I need readers.

None the less, the notions you've mentioned are good points, and ones I'm considering heavily.

I think many people exaggerate their dependency on glasses. I'm pretty darn near-sighted... -2.25 diopters worth. That puts my visual acuity at somewhat worse than, what? 20/200?

Yet if I go without my glasses I can STILL function quite well in most aspects, so long as it doesn't require detail work such as reading and such. If I lost/broke my glasses, I could still survive until I got to the point where I could get another pair. Everything will just be increasingly fuzzy starting at about a foot from my nose.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Oh, and by the way...they CAN correct your eyes to allow both distance and near vision. My understanding of the way they do this, though, is they don't correct both eyes to the same perfect vision. One eye will be corrected to allow you to see up close, for example.

To see if you can handle this, though, what they do is give you a pair of prescription glasses which correct your vision to the proposed final surgery vision.

Me? I couldn't hack that. If my eyes aren't focusing the same, much less focusing properly at all through my glasses, I get powerful headaches.

 

[hdwhit]

My brother, a corrections officer, had laser surgery on both his eyes. It helped him to not be as reliant on glasses (he still has an astigmatism so he does still have glasses), but it didn't change his score on the pistol range.

In my case, my presbyopia offset my myopia, so I now have 20/20 vision with a slight astigmatism. Other neurological problems left me unable to focus my eyes on near objects (i.e. small print on a medicine bottle), so I have bi-focals with just the astigmatism correction in the main lens and 2X magnification with no correction in the small lens.

Bottom line from my brother's experience; the laser eye surgery will definitely make your life more convenient but it may not free you from your glasses entirely and it may not improve your performance shooting. Interview more than one practitioner, see what kind of odds they give you, ignore anyone that promises you a certain result (surgery is just not that certain) and then decide whether you want to gamble the money on the procedure.

 

[rpenmanparker]

My brother, a corrections officer, had laser surgery on both his eyes. It helped him to not be as reliant on glasses (he still has an astigmatism so he does still have glasses), but it didn't change his score on the pistol range.

In my case, my presbyopia offset my myopia, so I now have 20/20 vision with a slight astigmatism. Other neurological problems left me unable to focus my eyes on near objects (i.e. small print on a medicine bottle), so I have bi-focals with just the astigmatism correction in the main lens and 2X magnification with no correction in the small lens.

Bottom line from my brother's experience; the laser eye surgery will definitely make your life more convenient but it may not free you from your glasses entirely and it may not improve your performance shooting. Interview more than one practitioner, see what kind of odds they give you, ignore anyone that promises you a certain result (surgery is just not that certain) and then decide whether you want to gamble the money on the procedure.

I surprised the astigmatism wasn’t at least mostly corrected for both of you. Astigmatism is one of the problems that LASIK can fix.

 

[Jinx0760]

Oh, and by the way...they CAN correct your eyes to allow both distance and near vision. My understanding of the way they do this, though, is they don't correct both eyes to the same perfect vision. One eye will be corrected to allow you to see up close, for example.

To see if you can handle this, though, what they do is give you a pair of prescription glasses which correct your vision to the proposed final surgery vision.

Me? I couldn't hack that. If my eyes aren't focusing the same, much less focusing properly at all through my glasses, I get powerful headaches.

That was offered to me and they called it "stereo-optic?", it didn't look like a long range plan for me. On a side note I saved a ton of money on golf balls, because I could always find them!

 

[Skgreen]

Contacts aren't going to happen. I'd sooner just deal with the glasses forever.

Life has a strange way of coming around full circle,,,,

Myself:

I was up to 4 or 5 diopters of nearsightedness before I had RK done back in 94 in my early 30's. I 'hated contacts,,',

(My doc said I was a 'good candidate' as well,,,,,,,)

~Best/highest rated~ practice that was available in Austin, TX at the time did the work.

Like many who have had the differing types of eye surgery, the first 10 yrs or so were great!!! But after that, I started to become farsighted

Today, I'm up to about 9 diopters of far sightedness,,, Getting hard to find retailers who can even order lenses that strong,,,

You mentioned eyeglasses that drop below your sightline,,, With my 'pop bottle' progressive lenses, looking through the corners of my lenses throws things out of focus. When 'below my sightline',,, everything is just a complete blur,,,

So,,,,,,,
,
I'm back to attempting to wear contacts,,,,,, 'Piggyback' contacts, with both a soft and a 'hard' contact in each eye.

I can still remember 'hating' my old soft contacts and wanting 'something better',,, Wish I would have just stayed with the contacts/glasses now.

Wife:

Her vision wasn't as bad as mine, but she 'hated contacts',,,Had Lasik done in ~'late 90's early 2000~
About 10 years of ~bliss~ but today she needs corrective lenses.

My conclusion:

It's quite common for folks to get ~10 yrs~ or so out of corrective eye surgery, but due to multiple factors, including aging, it's by no means a guaranty of 'never needing glasses again' or, worse yet, you could end up like me, longing for just a 'normal' pair of glasses or 'normal' contacts like I had before.

 

[Mike OTDP]

Presbyopia comes for all of us. I did have LASIK done for astigmatism when they did my cataract surgery, but they were already working on that eye.

 

[entropy]

That was offered to me and they called it "stereo-optic?", it didn't look like a long range plan for me. On a side note I saved a ton of money on golf balls, because I could always find them!

It's the same idea as 'monovision' contacts. I could never do it, would drive me batty. (and that's not a long trip.... )
Lasik does not cure presbyopia, though it can stave it off a bit longer for mild hyperopes. (far-sighted.)

I'm back to attempting to wear contacts,,,,,, 'Piggyback' contacts, with both a soft and a 'hard' contact in each eye.

Soft scleral over an RGP? Are they trying Orthokeratology to reverse the damage from RK?

Sounds like you either had or have recently developed high intraocular pressure; If you had it back then, RK wouldn't have been a good idea; if you've developed it since, that would explain the increase in hyperopia, as the pressure would 'bulge' the eye, changing the dioptric power of the cornea; the sometimes rapid change in perscription resulting from this is one possible indicator of high intraocular pressure. This is one reason why that test we all hate, (myself included) the tonometer ('air puff') , is so important.

 

[FROGO207]

I also needed glasses since first grade. Always have been really near sighted. I wear safety glasses at work, at the range, when I reload, yard work etc., so prescription safety glasses for everything. With fixed eyes I would still need safety glasses about 75% of my waking time anyway and add the cost of the procedure as well as having developing cataracts---I think I will pass for now. After 60 years I have grown used to what my eyes are capable of and want to keep to already identified problems. YMMV

 

[Zaydok Allen]

This has been a good conversation and has given me much to think about. I'm questioning whether or not I want to do this. I'm not a competitive shooter, just a guy who likes guns and carries for defense. I see a lot of pluses when it comes to aiding my shooting skills. I sort of see it the same as buying the right gun for the job. It's just equipment, but this equipment has a lot of alternate benefits. Screwing around with my eyes is something I said I'd never do, but I'm a fool if I don't consider the potential benefits to shooting and life in general, given the modern day positive results people get.

I appreciate the individuals older than I that have participated. It helps me gain perspective.

Yet if I go without my glasses I can STILL function quite well in most aspects, so long as it doesn't require detail work such as reading and such. If I lost/broke my glasses, I could still survive until I got to the point where I could get another pair. Everything will just be increasingly fuzzy starting at about a foot from my nose.

I can function in a controlled environment, but driving would be totally out and avoiding physical obstacles when working in the woods would be challenging.

Oh, and by the way...they CAN correct your eyes to allow both distance and near vision. My understanding of the way they do this, though, is they don't correct both eyes to the same perfect vision. One eye will be corrected to allow you to see up close, for example.

It's the same idea as 'monovision' contacts. I could never do it, would drive me batty. (and that's not a long trip.... )

For me it's both eyes or neither. Like I said earlier, I use stero pairs of aerial photos at work to look at timber stands and topography. Stero pair air photos only work if you have both eyes focusing on the same distance.


Thank you all for participating!

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

One of the reasons I never got corrective eye surgery when I was younger is the fact that it was still a pretty new procedure for me back then. As a teen, I didn't see the point in subjecting my eyes to delicate surgery techniques when there wasn't yet an established history to show me what effect it would have as the years and decades passed.

Now, in my mid-50s, I'd say that we have that kind of history to go by. If I were a teen today, or even in my 20s or perhaps 30s, I probably wouldn't hesitate. I would know I'd have quite a number of years to enjoy perfect vision.

But at my age now? As I said earlier, I'd really just end up switching from one kind of prescription glasses to another with presbyopia.

 

[Skgreen]

Soft scleral over an RGP? Are they trying Orthokeratology to reverse the damage from RK?

We're starting with a plain soft lens under an RGP and intended as a 'daily wear'. (Just a 1/4 diopter in the soft, so no real corrective power, just used as a cushion.)

I'm just a few weeks into the fitment process. On my 2nd set of RGP's now

My cornea's have 'steep sides and a flat top', and Orthokeratology has not been brought up by the practitioner I'm seeing.

Kind of an interesting 'establishment' where I'm going for all this,,, The founder, Joseph W Soper, (passed in 99) had quite a career in contacts, prosthetics, etc. His son Marcus is 'carrying the torch' now,,

 

[entropy]

You're in good hands, then. That makes sense, putting the soft lens under the RGP as a cushion, considering your corneal shape. Ortho wouldn't work with that, anyway; It just forms a lacrimal lens-the tear layer collects under the RGP and becomes a lens. (Sometimes, doctors use this effect to achieve correct refraction; the doctor calculates the back curve if the lens that is needed to achieve the desired dioptric power)

 

[Batty67]

I got it 17 years ago when I was 34. I had really, really bad distance vision, like 20/400. My doctor was and likely still is the preeminent LASIK (and variants person) in the DC area. He had corrected my wife's and SIL's vision previously that year. They had no issues and within 1-2 days 20/20.

Unfortunately, I did. I developed irritation in both eyes. My left eye cleared up with lots of drops in 2-3 days. My right (dominant) eye did not. I had to use powerful anti-inflammatory eye drops pretty much hourly for my right eye for 1.5 to 2 weeks. Very unpleasant, and frankly, it was getting scary that my vision would be screwed for life. Thankfully, irritation went away but, not surprisingly, my right eye vision is worse than left. Left remains 20/20, right is like 20/40. With both open I'm close to 20/20, so in the end, a huge improvement, but not pleasant getting there.

I also had HUGE "halo" issues at night, which took 2-3 years to diminish to the point where I could ignore it.

Of course, now I need reading glasses...