I'm a medical student and I'm currently rotating with an ophthalmologist, so while I'm not an expert by any means, I can probably try to clear up some of the issues that have been brought up.
Originally posted by: Kaido
I have a friend who works at an eyeglass shop...I was discussing Lasik with her and she wasn't sold on it. She said they cut your cornea (?) and if they mess up, they just keep cutting it without telling you. Once it's cut, you can never "uncut" it, so you're stuck that way. She also said that eventually you will have to get glasses again. So I'm not quite ready to take the plunge yet
This is partly untrue. Your cornea is made of epithelial cells which regenerate extremely quickly. This is what allows the short recovery time with LASIK patients. In the LASIK procedure, a flap is made in the cornea. This is extremely important. If you get a bad flap, it increases the risk for complications. However, you can just replace the flap and wait several weeks for it to heal and it will be as if the flap was never made. Another attempt at the procedure can be made at this point. Some doctors will go ahead with the surgery even if they make a bad flap and this is what causes most of the horror stories you hear. Once the laser cuts away at your cornea, that part can't be reversed, but this is also what corrects your vision so there's no way around that. And yes, presbyopia, or age-related changes in vision will occur, but that happens to everyone regardless of whether they get LASIK or not.
Originally posted by: F22 Raptor
Wait until implants are approved here like they are in Europe. They are a much much better option.
What you are referring to are Phakic IOLs (intra ocular implants). IOL procedures have been performed routinely in the US, but they are to replace lenses in cataract patients. Phakic IOLS are slightly different, designed to correct refractive error in a person with a healthy lens. There are currently Phakic IOLs made by 2 companies that are FDA approved. I believe that you can get this procedure done right now, although it is not as widespreak as LASIK. These are a good option for people who are not candidates for laser surgery. They also have the advantage of being removable.
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
i'm not sure what kind of implants you are referring to, but there is one type of implant, they put a ring in your cornea to change the shape of it. it has had moderate success at best, actually my brother has 4 US patents on a procedure that allows him to adjust the thickness of the ring once it's in your eye.
the advantage of the ring over lasik is, the ring procedure is reversible, once in, if patient doesn't like the results the ring can be removed.
but it wasn't as good as the eyesite got worse, i think the ring wasn't good for anything beyond like -5 or so.
What you are referring to is Intacs or intracorneal rings. Like you mentioned they are only good for people with mild nearsightedness and are limited to several diopters of correction. These are also removable. They are actually placed inside the cornea whereas the Phakic IOLs are placed in behind the cornea, in front of the lens.
Originally posted by: LordSnailz
For those that have done, what technology did you use? Thinking about going with the wavefront technology ... seems like the safest?
The Wavefront technology, or Custom Lasik as some places call it, makes a 3D map of your cornea and allows the laser to adjust for the specific curvature of your cornea. It has the potential to make your vision slightly sharper and it minimizes the side effects. I don't know if it is really any safer, but it makes the surgery more precise.
Originally posted by: aries2k1
i got PRK done in april free thanks to military service...ive been told PRK is more stable than lasik since lasik only cuts a flap which can be dislodged by physical activity, PRK changes the cornea so its more stable, although it takes longer to heal.
PRK has it's own advantages and disadvantages compared to LASIK. For people with thinner corneas it is safer since making a flap is unneccessary. People with high refractive error or large pupils will probably also have better results with PRK than LASIK. The disadvantages are since you are actually cutting away at part of the surface epithelium, it takes longer to recover and your vision will also take longer to improve to 20/20, sometimes up to a month as compared to several days with LASIK. The first few days after can also be very painful. The next 3 months after your procedure you also need to avoid getting water in your eyes or rubbing them as it may hinder the healing process and can possibly cause infection.
If you are considering PRK, ask your doctor if he performs the procedure with Mitomycin C. It is an antibiotic that has been shown to prevent haze in PRK patients.
Patients over 40 who are considering LASIK or PRK are eligible for a situation called
monovision. They will correct one eye for distance sight and one for near sight, eliminating the need for reading glasses. As long as the difference in correction is not greater than 3 diopters, the brain should be able to correct for the differential. However, some people don't take to this well, and your depth perception is slightly affected.
I personally had PRK a few years ago and am satisfied with it. I was at -9.00 D in both eyes which is why I opted for it even though I was a candidate for LASIK. I get some halos at night, but it's fairly minor and it doesn't affect my vision overall. My surgery was performed by
Dr. Dan Durrie in Overland Park, KS and I'd highly recommend him to anyone considering it in the Kansas City area.
One thing to remember is it's not a good idea to choose a doctor based on price. Although it is fairly safe procedure, it's still surgery and it's irreversible. Pay the extra money to go with a doctor you trust and has a good reputation. Feel free to ask how many procedures they're performed and their success rate. Also, the sign of a good doctor is that they will turn you away if you are a bad candidate. I've known people who have doctor shopped until they found someone who would perform the surgery when others wouldn't. Some with good results and others not so good. The doctor who refuses to perform surgery on you has your interests at heart as their decision directly conflicts with their own monetary benefit. Especially now that the Phakic IOLs are an option.
Hope that helps. Feel free to PM me with any questions.