|
I had LASIK last Friday and so far it's been amazing aside from all the eyedrops I have to use. Didn't hurt at all, no pain afterward, no complications, I was able to use the computer the next day with sunglasses, could drive at night with less starbursting than my glasses, and I was seeing 20/20 by the next morning appointment. From something like 20/400 to 20/600. And it's noticeably better than 20/20 just a few days after. And probably about 2-3 times better than what I was ever able to get with glasses. Partly because of that, I'm thinking I probably had some significant weird aberrations or something fracturing images because I notice that nothing's obviously split into 3-4 (or occasionally more) pieces anymore, and the briar patch snowflake "starbursts" are basically completely absent. Now the starbursts just look basically like what the usual starburst examples look like, which even though that's not perfect, it's way better. I'm going to have to remember to ask about those wavefront aberration charts at my next appointment, but I do remember there being large patches of irregularly shaped off-center red on those eye graphs they had. Still have haloing too, at least for now, but it's noticeably decreasing. One of the weirdest things is sometimes feeling like I'm not able to read distant stuff simply because the text is too small or the light is wrong instead of it being too blurry or fractured.
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2016 11:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 07:34 |
|
|
Mine was $3400 for all laser lasik, not including the approx $80 in eyedrops I'm probably going to be using before the dry eyes and rubbing moratorium ends. It would have been $200 less per eye using a blade (microkeratome). The others in my area were in the $4000 or above range for two eyes for the same technology from what I gathered. Some places will do a sub $500 per eye procedure on lower prescriptions, but I'd guess you're out of that range. Supposedly the national average is around $2100 per eye. Kylra fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Feb 25, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
Also, I'm not sure if I could get a whole lot better vision unless I got new higher resolution retinas and/or brain processing installed, so I'd currently take the same cheaper price but same tech option from Joffe again without hesitation if I had to do it over. Especially if most of the haloes and starbursts fade as advertised over the next months. They were even super friendly. Maybe it will all suddenly go to hell or something, but I think I'm supposed to be past most of the real serious complication phase unless I decide to start poking my eyes in a fit of insanity or wash my eyes with sewage. And even if it slips significantly I can get touch ups/enhancements free for 18 months or the low price after.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
Ok, I went in for my 3 week checkup. Currently I can read the 20/20 line trivially, and the 20/15 line with a little effort. I imagine I could take a crack at a letter or two on a 20/10 or so line on a good day, which today is not. My new best correctable vision with glasses seems to only be a tiny bit better than that, which is still a good bit better than what I had before with glasses. I don't think I got past 20/20 on the day the last ones were brand new. My prescription before lasik was -6.5 going to -10.25 with astigmatism in my right eye, and -4.5 going to -7.5 with astigmatism in my left. I couldn't even tell the 20/200 E might be an e without a good chunk of time to sort through the fractured image mentally. Haloes are mostly gone, but there's still a lot of starbursting. Not enough to get in the way of night driving more than an annoyance nor enough to be uncomfortable, but it's there. Eyes feel basically fine. Not dry or anything. I can't focus within 2 inches of my eyes anymore, but I don't need to hold anything that close anymore anyway! This is basically ideal results as far as I can tell, so I dunno if this is something everyone should expect. But, this is my three week trip report. Method and laser was the eye q guided allegretto with laser created flap. Kylra fucked around with this message at 23:55 on Mar 15, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
5 monthish update: even more solidly 20/15 and I can sorta make out the 20/10 line. Coming from 20/400 or whatever it would be if they tested high enough, and with no post op complications, and in one operation, I'd call this a resounding success.
Kylra fucked around with this message at 19:30 on Jul 14, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
Also less starbursting still, and what's left is just starting to blend in to "oh a bright light" squinting.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
There is a very small chance something could go horribly wrong. Even less so with newer technology or with smaller corrections and maybe also thicker initial corneas. Ectasia (destabilization of the cornea) seems to make up basically all the disaster outcomes with more recent tech from what I gathered, and isn't 100% predictable. Older tech seems like it might have a higher chance of producing long-term annoying amounts of starbursting/irregular astigmatisms, or various annoyances that don't destroy visual acuity but might impact quality of life. Think something like visual tinnitus. Along with custom mapping, more recent lasers use smaller laser points and/or cut a larger radius to help prevent problems like that. I'd find out what laser they're using, and make sure it's a more recent one, since that is liable to be the largest factor in outcome with how automated it is. Some places will use older (but still FDA approved!) lasers to save money. All the bigger names with money here seem to favor the Allegretto Wave Eye-Q system, which is what I had used on my eyes. I also had a laser flap made instead of a blade cut, but opinion seems a little more divided there among opthamologists on whether laser flaps are much better yet from what I gathered. You likely will have at least some starbursting and/or halos long term. In my case at least though, with some serious astigmatism, it's less of a problem than the irregular thorn bushes I got with glasses, and I'm not 100% done healing yet. It's not a scam though, just a surgery, and things can happen during surgery. Probably the best money I've ever spent aside from stuff like food to not starve to death. I see much better than the best glasses I've ever had in my life.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
Fat_Cow posted:Thanks for the response. Is there a difference in "side effects" that can be produced by LASIK vs PRK? Yeah. You'll have less possible issues with things like flaps coming lose with PRK since there's no flap. If you're in a high contact environment/profession, PRK is probably a safer bet. Presumably more recent LASIK advancements in laser flaps have made it good enough for athletes, the US Air Force and NASA astronauts though, so you probably won't have an issue either way. Laser cut flaps tend to be thinner, and presumably have less stability issues due to that. But if you do happen to be a professional fighter or something where constant hard impact forces on your eyes/head is more or less guaranteed, maybe go for the PRK. Anecdotally though, I happened to get hit straight in one open eye with a soccer ball 3 months post-op and the flap stayed put with no complications or loss of vision. Recovery for PRK is much longer, and it will be a while before you get your final results and you may have more short term complications. You may also have to go in twice unless you want to be blind for a few days from bandage coverings. Lasik, I walked out with 20/20 and I went on a tour the next day seeing better than I had in decades. (I just had to put eye drops in every hour while I was there) As far as I know, the rest of the long term complications regarding ectasia, halos/starbursting type effects, loss of contrast/night vision, potential loss of best corrected visual acuity and so on as well as final visual acuity results are relatively similar when properly screened. Other than that PRK needs less corneal thickness, so if you're borderline or not a candidate for LASIK for that reason, then you'll probably have to do PRK. Other than the corneal thickness thing, this claim I am a lot less sure of though. I'm just someone that's done their pre-surgery homework on a critical organ, not a doctor. That's something that should be assessed and explained at the consultation though. Busy Bee posted:I don't think it's a scam. You just have to realize that out of the 10,000 LASIK surgeries that happen, there's going to be 1 or 2 people that are going to be unhappy and they especially will be very very vocal about it. And by unhappy I don't mean going blind but maybe not getting perfect 20/20 vision - which is more of a risk when your prescription is pretty bad to begin with. I don't think it's a scam. I got it done a year ago and I'm at 20/15 - 100% worth it. I also heard that you actually have a higher risk of developing eye issues if you wear contacts when compared to getting LASIK done. If I had to take that risk again I'd still totally do it again though. Kylra fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Jul 16, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
To be clear though, ectasia is treatable, even if it might not let you get 20/15 or whatever in the end. It's not like GAME OVER YOU'RE BLIND FOREVER. Realistically though, it seems like it's probably the only really serious potential complication that might happen outside of freak equipment malfunction accident type territory with newer custom mapping and laser technology, or poking your own eye the day after/otherwise fail to perform post-operative care, so it probably wouldn't hurt to look it up some if you're worried about the potential risk you're taking to make the risks of LASIK seems less unknown. I know it helped me feel better at least to sit down and look at some statistics and scientific studies.
Kylra fucked around with this message at 17:59 on Jul 16, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
Fat_Cow posted:Got my PRK last Friday. Vision was bad for the first two days, but healed up nicely. However, my vision up close starting last time has gotten a bit blurry, no idea why. So basically instead of only being able to see a few inches away from my eyes, I can only see everything farther than a few inches from my eyes. My doctor said this particular kind of thing was fairly common.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2016 14:24
|
|
|
It's a side effect of the focusing part of your eye having the same range of motion, but the "center" of that range being moved so that you can see things father away, assuming you were myopic and you have better best corrected visual acuity than your previous glasses/contacts now. So instead of close focus being the center of the range of the lens, it would be towards one of the extremes instead. Like before without glasses I could focus reasonably well on text with my forehead and nose touching the paper with only mild discomfort, but now the limit is it starts getting blurry closer than about 2.5-3 inches even straining my eyes as much as I can. Supposedly the better distant visual acuity you have after, the larger this gap is likely to be, and is also supposedly not uncommon among people with similar distant visual acuity who have not had vision correction surgeries. If that's what's happening to you, then yeah, probably.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
Also related: Why a lot of people need reading glasses when they get older. The lens that changes your eye focus loses some of its range of motion.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
Wile E. Toyota posted:Thanks for the replies. I understand that I will need readings glasses when I get older, it just seemed like a couple people in this thread were reporting that their near vision was worse right after surgery, and I assumed they weren't in their 40s. I could be wrong though. But most people in this thread do seem happy with their results, so that's heartening. Zogo posted:That's usually because it takes eye muscles a couple of weeks to adjust if you've been wearing glasses for years. It used to be I could read a book if I put my nose all the way into the spine so my eye was almost touching the page. I'll take being able to see clearly much farther than I ever could with glasses over seeing clearly the 2-3 inches in front of my face. I don't at all need reading glasses and I am not at that age. E: I guess I basically posted this last page. It's been a while. If you have any more specific questions about this I might be able to answer, ask away! Kylra fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Oct 11, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
Also as a 6 monthish status update while I'm here, there's still a bit of haloing and even less starbursting, but it's nothing serious compared to what I had pre-lasik. Can still see 20/15 or better. Otherwise no complications. Which I still find somewhat surprising considering I couldn't even tell there were letters (or anything really) on a Snellen chart without my glasses prior to lasik.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
ibntumart posted:I have since settled into 20/20 in my right eye and 20/25 in my left (20/20 together), no astigmatism or myopia, and even though I passed into my 40s, I don't need reading glasses yet. I can still read the tiny print on medicine bottles with only a little difficulty.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
I don't think it was ever hour and a half bad for me aside from the first day before I went to sleep, nor did I ever have a gummy feeling aside from when I put in the medicated drops and that was more from my eyelids being slightly sticky. I basically always just had to remember to put the lubricating ones in after the first 24 hours because most of the irritation went away. I did the minimum suggested schedule for all phases of recovery. After the first few days to a week my eyes felt mostly normal. That's not to say something in particular is wrong, just that that doesn't match my experience.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
The part where you're laying down and getting lasered takes like 3-5 minutes. In my case, it took about as long for me to lay down and get comfortable as it did to laser my eyes. It was like 2-3 minutes or something. This duration may vary depending on on exact technology used and how much correction is being done. More recent and better tech tends to go faster, more correction takes a bit longer. Some minor haloing and starbursting is probably expected to remain long-term. In my case, the amount of starbursting went down considerably compared to pre-lasik and changed to a different pattern. It's now straight lines instead of a mass of brambles. A lot easier to see through. If I pay attention to it at full night and stare into a bright light it looks like I've been swimming for an hour or so, which is more haloing before. Nothing serious and I see way better even in such conditions than pre-lasik with glasses. Ymmv if you don't have any astigmatism pre-lasik though. I had really serious astigmatism. For me it was 500% worth the trade off of sharper vision and lessened starbursting I can see through vs a little more haloing. Kylra fucked around with this message at 00:47 on Nov 15, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
This is quite a bit worse haloing and a bit worse starbursting of the kind I experience about a year out. This is coming from being almost unable to walk anywhere outside nearly as safely without glasses pre-lasik because I might not be able to see dangerous things on the ground like nails, and potentially even oncoming cars on the road in some circumstances. The photo is blurry due to the time lapse effect. This is just for demonstration of the haloing/starbursting.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
It's not quite the time frame that was asked about but I had LASIK about a year and a half ago, but it's probably a decent time for an update anyway. Things are still holding up very well. Still see way better than with glasses. Haloing is now gone except maybe a tiny bit on car lights at night in areas with no street lights so there's maximum contrast, where shortly after post-op I'd see obvious significant blooms in movies and on monitors between black and colored areas. Starbursts are also way down since I last posted, the same as or better than with glasses. To be honest I don't know that I've noticed any in the last 8 months. No need for eyedrops now or any problems with eye related fatigue despite staring at screens and reading most of every day just as much as I used to. If anything it's easier since I am straining less, since I used to have to lean in sometimes with my old glasses. No standout light sensitivity compared to before. No post-op complications. It's not 100% perfect since if I really pay very close attention I can still see a little bit of "grittiness", especially on very fine details, but that was also a lot worse before LASIK. I went from like 20/400-600 depending on how much I squinted/could get the light to reflect just right without glasses or 20/30 with new glasses to 20/12-15ish post-lasik. I think it's still about the same, or better than 20/20 at least. I used to just tell optometrists "I can't really see it but I know the top letter is supposed to be an E" when looking at the standard chart without glasses. With all that said, the seeming relative lack of side effects or artifacts over such a strong correction might make me a bit of an outlier, but probably not outstandingly so. Whether that's just a bit of luck, from having thick corneas, from technology advances in precision and such, or some relatively even combination of the three I don't know enough to say. Based on the research I did at the time, you do probably want to make sure whatever place you go to is using the most recent technology. The machine used is a huge factor since the surgery is largely automated nowadays. Some of the more discounted places use machines a generation or two older. Also make sure you take your eyedrops as directed. Kylra fucked around with this message at 17:34 on Aug 6, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
All the good places around where I'm at do the exam as a free consultation and have free touchup enhancements for a year. Pricing can vary widely based on location though, and there's quite a bit of competition here. There's like 3-4 major LASIK places with ads on the radio constantly. If you're getting customized LASIK, which I think might just be standard at this point (?), then they need to map your corneas. That's not something you usually get at a regular eye exam, among a few other things.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2017 02:14
|
|
|
I stopped basically as soon as the pamphlet instructions didn't specify anything/only as as needed. I didn't really feel like I needed them for dryness within a monthish/before I was through with the medicated drops though. I basically only used them as directed the whole time. I am also a computer screen starer. Also since I'm posting it's been a year and 3/4 post LASIK and everything is still great basically. Better on almost all fronts than pre-LASIK, including halos and starbursts. Possibly a bit more light sensitive, but not terribly so if that's the case. Still way better than best corrected vision with glasses pre-LASIK. Kylra fucked around with this message at 11:16 on Dec 19, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2017 11:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 07:34 |
|
|
See if they're using the latest generation of technology. The surgery itself mostly automated nowadays, and so are the scans that tell the surgery device what to do. The doctor probably is not going to do any surgery to your eye manually. I'd do the longer drive if they have more recent technology. These are your eyes you're talking about. Also look at how long they've been doing this.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2017 17:17
|
|