I tried doing a Net search, but I don’t feel like I have found any unbiased sites.
Is there a minimum age for getting this done? Several years ago, I seem to recall reading that the procedure shouldn’t be done on people younger than 35, or thereabouts. Obviously, the surgery has advanced, but I didn’t know if something like this still applied.
I also vaguely recall having heard that the procedure only lasts about 10 to 15 years. Is that true or still the case?
What is the rate of complications?
I believe that 18 or 19 is considered the minimum age for Lasik surgery. At least that’s what I was told when I did some research for one of our employees last year. I was told that the surgery isn’t recommended prior to age 18 or 19 because the eyes are still growing.
Here’s a link to a Lasik FAQ http://www.marioneyecenters.com/mec-faq.htm#age
The main requirement is that your prescription is stable, which makes sense if you think about it. If your prescription is still changing from year to year, you’ll want to wait.
I’ll let you know in 5-10 years 
So far so good with 20/20 in both eyes.
I started with -3.75/-4.00 correction and moderate astigmatism.
My friend Dan is a top LASIK surgeon-- he teaches the procedure to other docs, and he’s the guy you go to if someone goofs on your eyeballs. And he’s always offering to burn my eyeballs, but I turn him down, because I’m happy with glasses.
Essentially, LASIK used to treat myopia (near-sightedness) is permanent. The big catch is that as many people age, they develop far-sightedness (ie you need reading glasses). This may mean reading glasses, or you can luck out and no longer need glasses when you’re 50.
Complications are very low, and continually getting lower. And the procedure has actually been done for about 50 or 60 years-- it’s just easier with computer-conrolled lasers, instead of using a scalpel)
I had the same prescription for over 5 years before I had my surgery done (Custom Cornea/ Intralase). My vision at 24 hours post surgery, 1 week and 1 month ended up at 20/12 in both eyes. Previously, I was about -1.5 diopter in both eyes, with a bit of astigmatism.
Since I’m 32 y.o., I expect it to be about 10 years before I will need reading glasses, so you could (wrongly) say that the surgery will only “last” 10 years. But I would need the reading glasses when I hit my forties whether I had my myopia fixed or not… I’d just end up with bifocals.
My wife and I both had LASIK done about two months ago. As a precondition for treatment, we were required to do extensive study and even pass tests over a period of five weeks. Based on what we learned, I concur basically with Smeghead. A stable prescription is all that is required aside from certain physical constraints, such as a sufficiently thick cornea.
I suggest that you talk to your friend. Practically everything you posted is wrong. LASIK can be used to treat myopia, hyperopia, and astigmatism. As you approach age 40, you develop presbyopia, which is not far-sightedness (or hyperopia), but inability of the lens and its ligamentous attachments to adjust to focus correctly on near objects. Actually, this begins at an early age, even before the teens, but does not affect reading until about age 40. That’s why a person with 20/20 vision will need reading glasses.
LASIK was approved by the FDA less than 10 years ago. An earlier surgery, called radial keratectomy (RK) (LASIK is a development from a laser surgery called photorefractive keratotomy (PRK), which was first developed in the USSR and extensively used in the Far East before it was approved here. PRK differs from LASIK in that a flap is cut in PRK. There is even a newer laser procedure, and a friend of mine, who is an opthalmalogist, says it’s no improvement; but from what I’ve read, it does offer some advantages over LASIK.
The “scapel” (actually not a scapel, but a microkeratotomer - or some similar fancy name) is not the only difference, or even the major difference between RK and PRK. In RK, micro-incisions were made into the cornea, not the entire depth, but to some depth. Laser surgery does not involve any incisions, but a “shaving” of the cornea. Hence, the difference between “keratotomy” and “keratectomy.” RK was used only for myopia. The laser surgeries can be used for any visual defect. Moreover, RK should only be used for those with corrections of -3 or less diopters. Actually, my friend said that he had someone recently request RK.
FDA has recently approved the use of artificial lens to correct vision. I’ve always wondered why they hadn’t before. If and when you get glaucoma, an artificial lens is substituted for your degenerated natural lens, and it can be any diopters you want. If I were considering surgery now, I would opt for this procedure. (BTW, I had RK about a dozen years ago, before any laser surgery was approved here.)
There is a method to get the operation, get 20/20 vision, and yet not need reading glasses down the road. That is to get the operation to correct one eye to 20/20 and the other eye to around 20/50. (People with 20/50 can read without glasses.) If your vision is already about that (which is about 0.5 diopters), just get it on one eye. Your mind adjusts, but some people have problems with night vision and in adjusting.
Well, that’s not right either. I had PRK done just over a month ago, because my corneas are too thin to get LASIK. LASIK is the one with the flap being cut. With PRK, there’s no flap. Instead, they kill off the thin surface layer of cells and then use the laser to sculpt the surface of the cornea. A contact lens is used as a bandage, and it takes much longer to heal. Here I am, about 5 weeks after surgery, and my vision is still gradually improving as my eyes continue to heal.
I believe the newer procedure you’ve heard about it what’s called “custom LASIK”. Basically, they use these cool little instruments to get a very detailed image of your cornea. This image is then plugged into the computer that controls the laser, and you end up with a much more precise reshaping than you would if you’d been tested with a regular eye exam. The surgery itself isn’t any different - it’s mainly the eye exam that’s been improved.
Thanks, ** Smeghead **, for the correction, but I made even a greater boo-boo. It’s not glaucoma that the lens is substituted, but cataracts.
I recently (6 months) had the procedure you describe. I now hardly notice which eye is the dominant one in any given situation. It feels like I can just see correctly at all distances.
For several months this was not true. Whichever eye was the “blurred” one felt like it had goop in it, or something. This gradually improved over months and now I really can’t even tell which eye is dominant even when I think about it. The brain just adapts. You get full depth perception because you still get both images, but the brain uses the blurred one only for the depth perception and considers the sharp one for “vision.”
They told me that since I am male this would take 3-6 months; for females it generally takes 4-8 weeks. I refuse to consider the implications of this and merely report what I was told.
Almost forgot to mention: Even if I close my distance eye and look only through the “reading” eye, I still see better at distance than before because I now have no astigmatism; the only issue is less than optimum focus. And my distance eye can focus closely enough to read with even if I close my “reading” eye, though I would end up holding the book at almost arms length.
Forgive me for committing the horrible crime of simplifying things.
I had PRK about 2 years ago. My doctor was against LASIK. He said that the flap could come off in case there was increased eye blood pressure.
It was quite painful for the first one and a half days. The doctor had to prescribe me anesthetic drops that I used every two hours. Other than that, I am very pleased from the operation. The only problem is that strong lights in darkness produce something like a halo around them. It was very pronounced at first, but it goes away as time passes
I didn’t have much pain after mine, which surprised my opthalmalogist. That doc is not my friend, but my friend said he would not have done the operation on me since I needed about -7 diopters of correction and he would do only -3, as most docs. Eight slits was considered the maximum, but I needed twice that many and two operations on each eye, and still need glasses. However, I only need slight corrections now. I was terribly bothered by the glare at night for several months. This dissipated slowly. My vision also fluctuated greatly in the dark. This has also got better, but I still wear a stronger pair of glasses at night, one diopter greater. All-in-all I’m satisfied with the surgeries, but wished I had waited for the laser; however, there is no guarantee that laser would be better.
The OP has been answered. Operations are done only when the vision is stable, which is at least 18 years of age. Since PRK has some history now, it has been seen that in some cases a person’s cornea may continue to contract, and what was perfect vision immediately after the operation, becomes hyperopia down the road. (Since I’m still myopic, I don’t have to worry about that.) I don’t think they have enought long-term studies yet on the laser surgeries, and everyone who gets it is part of the study. 
I “drugged” up this old thread especially for Smeghead since he said he could not get LASIK due to a thin cornea and had to settle for PRK. I guess it’s too late, since the surgery has been performed, but the April 2004 issue of Review of Refractive Surgery gives two possible alternatives. To summarize, the article by Dimitri T. Azar, MD, one of the modifiers of the PRK procedure called LASEK, is as follows. LASEK modifies the usual PRK by treating the epithelium with dilute alcohol (18-20%), separating it as a sheet, and replacing it in its original position after ablation. More recently, a technique was developed with a mechanical approach (without the use of alcohol), called “Epi-LASIK.” These techniques, PRK, LASEK, and Epi-LASIK, avoid several flap-related complications including interface debris, perforations, button holes, epithelial ingrowth, striae, diffuse lamellar keratitis and late traumatic flap dehiscence. Additionally, in patients with thin corneas, those with high myopia who require deep ablations, and in forme fruste keratoconus, surface ablation may also avoid corneal ectasia.
It is not clear whether LASEK and Epi-LASIK have definitive advantages over PRK. Clinical studies are not in complete agreement, but the former two procedures may cause less corneal pain and haze and may enhance visual recovery compared to PRK.
Thanks for the info. It’s always nice to be thought of… 
Yeah, it’s too late for me - I’ve had the surgery and I’ll pretty much all recovered now. I’ve got 20/15 vision in both eyes, and though my night vision is still a bit blurry, it’s improving nicely and on schedule. I’ve been somewhat aware of the new options they’re coming up with all the time, but honestly, I probably would have stuck with PRK anyway. I have a lot of trust in my doctor, and he said it would be a few more years before any of the new techniques were to the point where he’d feel comfortable recommending them. So, I’m happy with what I got. But thanks!
20/15! Great. I bet you’re happy with that. Congrats.