I had it done in 2002. It took less than 5 minutes and the results were 20:15 for 15 years.
I loved being able to see while swimming, and to pass a drivers license eye test.
My night vision changed to where I see star bursts around lights at night, but no other complaints.
Now my eyes have gone back to 40:20 but as others have said, redoing it now means reading glasses. Heck, even if I get contacts to fix my slight near sided-ness, I would have to use reading glasses because of age. So I wear one contact and close that eye when reading a menu. I can see a computer screen just fine.
Ask your eye doctor about multi-focal contact lenses. That’s what I ended up getting, and they work really well.
I have also been contemplating the procedure. In reading online about it, one thing gave me pause.
Please please disabuse me of anything I got wrong in this: my understanding is that the procedure peels the upper layer of your cornea open like a lid, carves out material underneath, then flips the lid back in place. One result is that the lid layer never actually “heals” back in place, and is now permanently at risk of being dislodged by rubbing the eyes, etc.
Is this true? Do you have to spend the rest of your life being extree careful not to rub the eyes?
I shall, thank you
I had mine done ~ 6 months ago - best choice ever for regular work - I still need reading glasses as I am ‘old’.
Thats the part that aggravates the most - now that I no longer ‘need’ glasses for 98% of things - its a PITA trying to remember to have a pair of readers handy when trying to read menus and things at the store.
I also still have some ‘halos’ - but those just take time to fix themselves - I don’t notice them nearly as bad as when I first had the procedure.
As others have said - do research with qualified people - find a center you can trust and then relax with it.
Part of that is true - they do flip back part of the cornea, and then flip it back over.
You could move this the first 24-48 hours if you rubbed your eyes hard enough, - which is why they want you to sleep in goggles - but after a few days of healing -its just like it was before. This is, however, the reason people talk about having halos, as the nerves in this area have to have time to regrow and heal to correct - and it is slower in some people than others.
Dry Eyes is also the most common issue after the procedure- and they load you up with drops to help with that - if your eyes feel itchy, put drops in.
I had it done at the end of the year 2000. Never regretted it. First, I had a vision plan with my work benefits, and they had a half-price offer for that year. I had a HCRA that I could put some money in. Plus, there was some other discount that I’m blanking on now. I got both eyes done for around $1000. At the time I had hockey season tix and since we could only afford nosebleed seats I found it aggravating to slide my glasses up on my forehead to use binoculars (I could never adjust to using them with my glasses). Plus, it was so nice not having something always on my face.
I had cataract surgery for one eye about 5 years ago (unusual apparently), and when I told them I’d had Lasik they said “Oh, you need to go to our number one top eye surgeon!” When the next eye went bad a few months ago there was no fuss, so maybe they’re more familiar with it now.
I don’t mind reading glasses, and I have o.k. close up sight for most things, and, in a pinch, my sight hasn’t extended beyond my arm’s reach. Yet.
My wife had laser surgery for cataracts a few years ago. They also corrected her near-sightedness. But she was very upset that while she had been near-sighted, she had never had to wear bifocals and now she couldn’t read without glasses.
Unavoidable side effect? Doctor warned her but she didn’t hear it? Wrong technique for her particular eye? Malpractice? Who knows, but she never really has gotten over it.
Yes, with cataract surgery … what you’re wife is experiencing is an unavoidable side effect. The replacement lens doesn’t flex like a natural lens – that means the corrected eye is no longer capable of accomodation (natural ‘auto-focus’).
I had double cataract surgeries in 2015, one eye corrected two weeks before the other. Beforehand, the surgeon asked me if I wanted to have uncorrected distance vision (clear vision of objects ~4 feet away and greater) or uncorrected close vision (clear vision at reading distance, approx 12-18 inches). Uncorrected distance vision would mean TV without glasses, driving without glasses, and being able to do most all outdoor activities without glasses – but would mean that for reading, I would need glasses to make up for my eyes’ lack of accommodation. I was used to wearing glasses all the time, anyway, so I didn’t mind continuing with glasses for reading print, computer screens, and smart phones. Therefore, I chose uncorrected distance vision.
In practice, I need two pair of glasses: one for most reading and computer/phone screens (clear vision at 18-24 inches) and one for reading in bed (clear vision at ~10-12 inches). For 99% of the times I need to read something, my vade mecum ‘computer’ glasses are sufficient. If text is small and hard to make out, employing a bright light helps. If I need more oomph to read a pill bottle or something, my ‘bed-reading’ glasses do the trick.
Feel free to ask any questions about these kinds of issues. Either in this thread or PM.
I have been getting by with the higher-end glasses available at drugstores (~$30-40/pair). I’ve been satisfied for the most part. At the same time, I think **txjim **is on to something – I know that prescription readers would be better quality overall, especially regarding scratch resistance.
Dirt-cheap glasses (typically $10 bucks or less) have almost invariably been disappointments. I’ve tried a few, but no longer have the urge to be quite that cheap about it.
In 2013 got PRK surgery done (thin corneas; needed far vision corrected) and was told I’d need reading glasses and might have halo night vision.
I didn’t react well to the procedure and for almost three months I was battling light in a fearsome way. I kicked myself for doing it in April instead of in October when it’s a much cloudier time of the year. I work outside, and sunglasses were barely cutting it for me during those sketchy first three months.
After that setback, my vision was fine. I was glad to have shed glasses which I had worn since I was three, and have absolutely no halo night vision, and the ultimate test - reading the fine print in The New Yorker’s “Goings On About Town” section - doesn’t require reading glasses.
Thumbs up.
If you don’t mind me asking, how old was she when she had the surgery?
I typed out a pretty lengthy post on my experience last year, which you can read here.
In fact, you might want to go ahead and read the whole thread here.
I went to a local LASIK surgeon about eight years ago, and discovered I had keratoconus. That would mean a corneal transplant except that the FDA recently approved a much less invasive procedure called cross-linking, which I am having done on the 18th.
In her 60’s.
Thanks. She got the same information that I got. “If we fix your near-sightedness, you will need reading glasses, even though you don’t need reading glasses now”
I’d never heard of that before they told me that. I made my eye doctor prove it to me, since it seemed so strange to me.
Hey - I recognize that thread!
And these are why I decided not to do it. I realized that I’m used to wearing glasses all the time, but I would feel crippled if I couldn’t see to trim my nails, for instance. And also, my corrected vision is excellent and very sharp. And it drives me nuts when my glasses get dirty. I clean them regularly. And not being able to “clean” my vision would be really frustrating. Most people do have slightly less-sharp vision after Lasik, that’s a standard outside.