LASIK and VISIX

[wingnutx]

I had LASIK about 11 months ago.

Worked perfectly, and I am well satisfied with it. Best money I ever spent.

I don't know anything, good or bad, about VISIX.

 

[roscoe]

I had LASIK a year and a half ago. Corrected my 20/280 vision, but I get some halos and my left cornea has faint striations that give lights a bit of a 'smudge' at night. During the day I am great, but night driving I wear very mild glasses (1/2 diopter). Bit of a mixed result, but I can't really say I regret it.

My impression is: be careful if you need a really big correction.

 

[c_yeager]

My boss had laser eye surgery last year. I dont think his results are typical but he went from wearing contact lenses to having uncorectable vision that is 10 times worse that it ever was. He cant read anything smaller than a 30 point or so font. Im not sure if its still the case but it used to be that laser eye surgery excluded a person from military service no matter what the persons vision currently was. That much alone gives me pause for thought.

 

[clubsoda22]

glad that by the time i need glasses laser eye surgery will be perfected.

 

[Border]

Best money I ever spent!! I was -6.50 and I still see 20/15 post surgery nearly two years later!! As a hunter, camper, athelete-it's just GREAT! (And my girlfriend never has to see me in my glasses either)!

There is no surgical procedure or life event known to man that doesn't have some risk to it along with anecdotes about a bad outcome-those that do have one end up on "surgicaleyes.com" Yet there have been literally MILLIONS of Lasik procedures done and it is largely the same people posting again and again on SE-that ought to tell you something! Even the complicatio rates cited-almost all of them are fixable. If you factor those out then the "real" complication rate drops even lower. But hey, I skydive so what is counted as an acceptable risk may be different for me!

 

[ejohne]

Here is a link to a collection of articles about refractive surgery:
http://www.lasikinfocenter.net/Webpages/Articles of General Interest Webpage.htm

 

[Border]

Yes, if you strain out the thousands of positive reports and research outcomes on Lasik then you will end up with that lasikinfo propganda sheet. Anyone interested in Lasik should perform a real scientific literature review-actual studies not anecdotal footnotes! As I said, most medical procedures that many of us have already had could pull up a "tragedy sheet" 100 times as long as "lasikinfocenter." has. Learn, study, explore-don't just go by a scag sheet.

Start with the medline cite to pull up the abstracts then go from there. Askphysicians.com.

 

[ejohne]

The link I posted had some very interesting comments from experts in refractive surgery such as Dick Lindstrom, George Waring and Jack Holliday. The individual comments that have been posted on this forum are anecdoctal. The ophthalmologists' comments are based on their extensive experience in this field.

 

[ejohne]

BTT

 

[Border]

As I said, you need to do a comprehensive lit review not jump on an anti-lasik sight for some dated and out of context quotes! George Waring brought Lasik to this country for example. My ophthalmologist did a Fellowship with him and he is not ant-lasik, nor do most people ever need a repeat procedure years later! Warring would tell you that!

Go on Medline, do a search for any of those "problem areas" and read the whole paper, look at the methodology, etc. They publish RECENT research every month. Drops in contrast sensitivity for example usually return to baseline by 6 months post op. Wouldn't know that from the kind of dated, out of context quotes that just talk about..."there is a drop in contrast sensitivity..." without knowing the time period wherin they are sampling this, but hey, we vote people into office on soundbites. Few people employ critical thinking anymore.

 

[Joe Demko]

Why are you such an evangelist?

 

[Border]

A very good question Golgo! I guess it is just in my nature to examine every issue with a critical eye and not let many topics pass by without one: "Is that true? Can that be empirically validated?!" etc. (I torture myself with it sometimes-LOL)! I often comment when I see a skewed portrait of a subject somehow presented as truth, fact, or a balanced analysis. I particularly hate it when I see little sound bites of "research" presented without referencing the large body of evidence that contradicts those findings for example. Quotes out of context just slay me! LOL! Look at all those movie ads that shout: "Suspenseful! Spectacular!" when if you pull up the whole review it actually reads something like: "This movie had the potential to be a spectacular, suspenseful, thriller had not the direction been among the worst in movie history!" LOL!

I have read papers on Lasik that talks about a visual acuity level that drops but only temporarily or in some few cases drops permanently but is: "subjectively unoticeable by the patient-the level that can only be noted with sophisticated instruments..." but you can go on a site and find just "...drops permanently!" You get the idea!

Had there been research studies from "both sides" given here I likely would not have commented at all, certainly not beyond: "best money I ever spent!" and just let people draw their own conclusions. I have had several friends now have the surgery but I told all of them to "do your own research (review) and draw your own conclusions, be discerning etc. then evaluate your comfort level based on what you have read." I grew up in an anti-gun house hold for example and it was only through examining my bias through research on the matter that I became a pro 2nd A "evangelist!"