To Lasik, or not to Lasik....

[AEROMechanic]

I am nearsighted and wear glasses but after 28 years of doing so and having to deal with fogged up lenses and having continuously clean them I'm rather tired of them. I am seriously considering some form of lasik and would like some feed back from you guys who've made the switch yourselves on how it's working out for you?

I've read some reviews that state that some times in getting this process done you give up some clarity in your close in vision while others have said no such issue exists. Then there have been others who've had their vision go blurry both near and far though I'm hoping this is because they decided to go cheap on the lasik center they chose and not a real possibility otherwise.

Have any of you experienced problems like these? I guess what I'd really like to know is, is the risk worth the reward?


Thanks
LarryA

 

[ZLBubba]

Re: To Lasik, or not to Lasik....

The Army fixed my eyes in 2008 and I couldn't be more grateful. It will not only improve your shooting but your overall quality of life. Do it and don't look back.

 

[AEROMechanic]

Re: To Lasik, or not to Lasik....

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ZLBubba</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Army fixed my eyes in 2008 and I couldn't be more grateful. It will not only improve your shooting but your overall quality of life. Do it and don't look back. </div></div>

Thanks for responding. About how long of a recovery time is there for said surgery, and where there any side effects?

 

[hondo1312]

Re: To Lasik, or not to Lasik....

Having had laser corrective eye surgery, I can honestly say it was one of THE BEST decisions I ever made. I had it done about 3 years ago, and I still see 20/15 with both eyes. The actual procedure lasted about 30 minutes, but I was at the eye doctor for about 2 hours for pre- and post- care/evaluation. I could see clearer than I had ever seen in my life about 4 hours after I got home (I slept about 3.5 hours after I walked in the door). The only side effects I had were dry eyes, but copious amounts of eye drops took care of it.

Just do it. You'll be glad you did.

 

[buggsb]

Re: To Lasik, or not to Lasik....

How old are you? that will have a lot of bearing on whether or not there is degradation to your near vision. At the time I was looking to have it done, I was advised this might happen so I waited until the near vision started going anyway before getting the Lasik. It has definitely taken a turn for the worse after the surgery, though they older you are the more pronounced this will be.

My distance vision is still excellent 10+ years later.

 

[ollie]

Re: To Lasik, or not to Lasik....

I had it done four years ago and i can honestly say it was the best money i ever spent. It took 18seconds for my right eye and 38 seconds for my left. Took a nap after surgery for 4hrs then went to a bar to watch the hockey game. My shooting has improved more that i can say, as well as all my other interests. I was 35 when i had it done.

 

[ZLBubba]

Re: To Lasik, or not to Lasik....

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LarryA</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ZLBubba</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Army fixed my eyes in 2008 and I couldn't be more grateful. It will not only improve your shooting but your overall quality of life. Do it and don't look back. </div></div>

Thanks for responding. About how long of a recovery time is there for said surgery, and where there any side effects? </div></div>

I got LASEK, which is supposed to be the surgery with longer recovery. My eyes felt a little scratchy the first two days, and then I was fine. I wasn't supposed to swim or jump out of a plane for a month I think. It was by far the easiest surgical procedure I've ever had.

Go get your eyes fixed!

 

[LanceS4803]

Re: To Lasik, or not to Lasik....

Deploying to Iraq in 03/04 was the final straw for me before getting LASIK when I got home.
I was concerned about inserts and pro-mask, losing glasses during an attack, fogging, etc.
My vision was 20/400 (big E was fuzzy), and doc said after LASIK I would still need glasses or contacts.
Had the procdure. Eyes so bad, had 45 seconds of burn time! Was able to see within hours. Had dry eyes for about 6 months, until nerves reconnect.
Vision ended up 20/20 and 20/30. Much better than predicted.
Doc said you will lose near vision and need reading glasses. But, this would happen anyway with age. He was right, no big deal. No change in shooting ability.
Pick a reputable doc, check references and follow every single post op instruction. You only get one set of eyes.

 

[ddavis]

Re: To Lasik, or not to Lasik....

My experience mirrors yours. My vision was 20/400 and is now 20/20 in the left eye and 20/30 in the right. I always hated contacts and glasses. Both are horrible if you live an active life.

One of the best decisions I ever made. My eyes have always been dry, even with contacts, and they are still dry. I can put eye drops in or yawn and it's fine. Much better than wearing corrective lenses. For the first 5-6 days my eyes were scratchy and uncomfortable, but nothing unbearable. Within 2 weeks I was 100% back to normal.

 

[Gunfighting Inc]

Re: To Lasik, or not to Lasik....

A friend just had a newer procedure done instead of LASIK: lens replacement. It corrected both near and far sightedness in the same eye. It is the same concept as what is done for cataracts, but replaces your lens with a permanent corrective. Because of this, it also eliminates the possibility of getting cataracts later in life. He is very happy with it and glad he spent the extra money over LASIK.

 

[pyplynr]

Re: To Lasik, or not to Lasik....

I'm debating this myself, I'm 31. My biggest problem is astigmatisms in both eyes. I don't know what 20/20 thing I am I just know my contacts are -1.25 and -1.75 in the power range. Has anyone had it done that had astigmatisms?

 

[TwoGun]

Re: To Lasik, or not to Lasik....

I had mine done in 1997, the second year Lasik was being offered in Scottsdale, Casebeer Hale Eye Clinic. At the time, it was the only laser west of the Mississippi and was not yet approved by the FDA. I was -6.25 & -6.75 and losing about a .25 diopter every two years and yes I had astigmatism. I'm still 20/20 (was 20/15 for 13 years) but I'm now on the verge of needing reading glasses. Best $5,000 I ever spent. I'm going to have it done again if I ever need, too. Still plenty of cornea left. I'm tempted to get lens transplants, too, if I can avoid reading glasses.

 

[ThreeDub]

Re: To Lasik, or not to Lasik....

I was a slave to glasses for 35 years until I had lasik in 1999. I had a healthy dose of nearsightedness AND astigmatism both so that I was completely off the 20/XX chart and was described as "fingers at 4 feet" in one eye and "fingers at 5 feet" in the other. The aide held up her hand and walked toward me until I could tell her how many fingers she was holding up then looked to see how close she had to come.
Prior to the surgery, glasses still corrected me to near 20/20; after the surgery I was about 20/25 but things still seemed a little out-of-focus at all distances. I finally figured out I had a case of the "multiple images" side effect they tell you about.
I have a little astigmatism in my left eye now (it took about 10 - 12 years to develop enough to be noticeable) so it is about 20/30; but, the bottom line is I am still FREE of glasses, except I do use reading glasses half the time on the computer.
Don't expect the lasik to be a permanent fix. A 5-year younger co-worked who turned out about 20/15 after lasik has degraded a little to where he wears glasses with a slight correction again. Then again, he is 50 now.

 

[s4b1106]

Re: To Lasik, or not to Lasik....

I had mine done in February, 2000. My vision was bad enough that I couldn't make out anything on the eye chart. I had astigmatism in both eyes, too. I am 49 now, and my eyes are just starting to slip a bit. Still 20/20 or better in both eyes, depending on the day. My night vision has been an issue as bright lights now give off a large corona of light. It is distracting, but not blinding. I drive ok, fly at night ok, it just takes a bit more concentration. I'll take the tradeoff. I am so glad I got it done, I just wish I hadn't waited so long!

 

[NOMAD]

Re: To Lasik, or not to Lasik....

I diid it in 2000 as well best decision and money I have every spent. It will change your life forever.

Goto a good place dont goto some billboard place offering you a bargain and stuff. You only have one set of eyes.

Good luck and do it you wont regret it.

 

[threetrees]

Re: To Lasik, or not to Lasik....

recommendation by two master-opticians:

consider lasik, lasek or PRK to be about repolishing a lens. here, the first layer of skin (the cornea) will be planed away (flipped over), to then correct the lens underneath with a laser. the cells in the cornea are not used to the high oxygen concentration in air (they ever only experience water), suck up all the oxygen and may burst. this results in a clouding of the cornea _which can not be corrected and will always happen_. yes, they put a drop of water (with a bit of salt) on the cornea when they flip it over, still it does happen to a certain degree. this will result in a sort of halo when you look at bright light sources (example: when you face a car during the night with lights on) under 'normal' conditions the effect might not be as obvious.

we know several cases where there were (up to 4) subsequent cornea-transplatation required (which have to match your blood-type) because the cornea became foggy after some time ...

keep in mind:

- your eyes _are_ good. (almost) everything that is not some kind of clouding can be corrected. (no matter when they eye-ball is too long/short, or the lens can not adapt anymore)

- if you don't like your glasses to fog up, consider contact lenses.

- if you don't like contact lenses, consider ortho-k lenses; to be worn while you sleep, they correct the cornea such that you can see for an entire day without glasses. this effect wears off after about 20 hours, so they might not be suitable for certain jobs/hobbies

you can buy a pair of new glasses every day if you want to. once your cornea is screwed, only transplantation can fix that ...

i would be really very careful.

another consideration: it's easy to get a lens 'roughly right' (say you have 8 diop., end up with 0.5 diop, and this will be a large effect), but it's really hard to get a decent eye/lens to perfect (say from 1.5 diop to 0 diop). so unless you have strong glasses, you might not only risk clouding of the cornea, but the effective correction might not be as good as you would like (again, from 8 to 1 is huge, from 1.5 to zero is a) small and b) challenging)

bottom line: don't risk a correctable eye sight (external correction via glasses or lenses) for something potentially cloudy that can hardly be fixed anymore without operation.

 

[AEROMechanic]

Re: To Lasik, or not to Lasik....

I appreciate all the input fellas, it seems I'll be getting one of these surgeries done! Now I just have to do a BUNCH of homework on prospective doctors.

 

[TwoGun]

Re: To Lasik, or not to Lasik....

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: threetrees</div><div class="ubbcode-body">recommendation by two master-opticians:

consider lasik, lasek or PRK to be about repolishing a lens. here, the first layer of skin (the cornea) will be planed away (flipped over), to then correct the lens underneath with a laser. the cells in the cornea are not used to the high oxygen concentration in air (they ever only experience water), suck up all the oxygen and may burst. this results in a clouding of the cornea _which can not be corrected and will always happen_. yes, they put a drop of water (with a bit of salt) on the cornea when they flip it over, still it does happen to a certain degree. this will result in a sort of halo when you look at bright light sources (example: when you face a car during the night with lights on) under 'normal' conditions the effect might not be as obvious.

we know several cases where there were (up to 4) subsequent cornea-transplatation required (which have to match your blood-type) because the cornea became foggy after some time ...

keep in mind:

- your eyes _are_ good. (almost) everything that is not some kind of clouding can be corrected. (no matter when they eye-ball is too long/short, or the lens can not adapt anymore)

- if you don't like your glasses to fog up, consider contact lenses.

- if you don't like contact lenses, consider ortho-k lenses; to be worn while you sleep, they correct the cornea such that you can see for an entire day without glasses. this effect wears off after about 20 hours, so they might not be suitable for certain jobs/hobbies

you can buy a pair of new glasses every day if you want to. once your cornea is screwed, only transplantation can fix that ...

i would be really very careful.

another consideration: it's easy to get a lens 'roughly right' (say you have 8 diop., end up with 0.5 diop, and this will be a large effect), but it's really hard to get a decent eye/lens to perfect (say from 1.5 diop to 0 diop). so unless you have strong glasses, you might not only risk clouding of the cornea, but the effective correction might not be as good as you would like (again, from 8 to 1 is huge, from 1.5 to zero is a) small and b) challenging)

bottom line: don't risk a correctable eye sight (external correction via glasses or lenses) for something potentially cloudy that can hardly be fixed anymore without operation. </div></div>

How old is that? PRK is way dead (was obsolete in 1998, longer in Canada) and we have opthamologists here in the states.

 

[threetrees]

Re: To Lasik, or not to Lasik....

twoguns, your information is unprecise. prk does not require to create a flap of the cornea and is therefore a last resort for those seeking an improvement for people that, for whatever reason, not not undergo a standard lasek treatment.

(but i agree, it's an older method ... but old does not necessarily mean bad)

 

[Nukes]

Re: To Lasik, or not to Lasik....

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LarryA</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am nearsighted and wear glasses but after 28 years of doing so ... </div></div>

...then you are closing in on the age when presbyopia will find you needing reading glasses. LASIK will then give you great distance vision, but you won't be able to read your range card or your turrets.

As you age, your need for near vision "power" changes, so a static monovision correction, one eye for distance, one eye for near, is not a satisfactory solution.

Also, if you care about your night vision, give due consideration to the nighttime halo effect. The effect is lessened, but not eliminated by the newer lasers.

 

[jakel]

Re: To Lasik, or not to Lasik....

I had Lasek(the longer healing time one) in August of 2011. Thank you Air Force! I couldn't be happier. Not having to deal with contacts or foggy glasses is wonderful. I was 20/375, 20/450. Now I am 20/15 and 20/20. I was told that I would need reading glasses later in life. No big deal. I was 26 at the time. Like previously said, you get dry eyes, but lots of drops. The drops gave HD like vision until you started drying out again and then it got a bit blurrier. I was able to drive/function on the second day.

 

[Baranx4]

Re: To Lasik, or not to Lasik....

I had lasik done 7 yrs ago and had post procedure complications in my left eye that caused me to take time off from work. Yrs later and I am 20/15 in my left and 20/20 in my right. With the issues I had I would still do it all over again. Just my 2 cents.

 

[ggmanning]

Re: To Lasik, or not to Lasik....

I had it done about 7 years ago....I couldn't read a school wall clock without contacts before and am 20/20 now. No halo and great vision improvement. I did have terrible dry eye as an after effect. It has improved but I still keep wetting drops in my pocket. All in all I'd do it again in a heartbeat considering I had worn correction for 27 years.

 

[FOTH21]

Re: To Lasik, or not to Lasik....

I started wearing glasses when I was in 4th grade. I got very near sighted as I got older (things started get blurry about 4 inches from my face.) I was deployed to Kuwait in 2004 and decided that part of the money I was making would be spent on Lasik. I had it done July 14, 2005.

So I was about 10 years old when I got my first pair of glasses and 34 when I had Lasik. I'm now 41 and still feel it's one of the greatest decisions I have ever made. Best money I have ever spent.

It killed a day. About 20 minutes for the procedure but travel and pre and post op stuff took maybe a total of a few hours. Went home, took a nap and never had a problem. My eyes do get dry occasionally and at night I sometimes see halos and glare on rainy nights. But I still feel none of that is a problem compared to the pain that glasses or contacts were. As for needing reading glasses for close up, not yet. But I will. We all will. That's just nature. As you get older your eyes lose their elasticity.

My brother had the procedure done a year or two after I did and he needs reading glasses for close up. But he's also 10 years older than me.

My now 78 year old father had cataracts a couple years ago and had his lenses replaced with some type of focusing lenses. He now only needs glasses for reading and driving at night. Like the rest of us (my brother and me) he needed glasses from the time he got up till the time he went to bed.

I say if your optometrist says it's an option for you... DO IT. You'll be glad you did.

 

[TwoGun]

Re: To Lasik, or not to Lasik....

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: threetrees</div><div class="ubbcode-body">twoguns, your information is unprecise. prk does not require to create a flap of the cornea and is therefore a last resort for those seeking an improvement for people that, for whatever reason, not not undergo a standard lasek treatment.

(but i agree, it's an older method ... but old does not necessarily mean bad)
</div></div>

I disagree. In the US, PRK is only used in patients who aren't suited for LASIK. And even then, I wouldn't go with PRK because there's no guarantee the cornea will grow back without complications (sometimes it grows back cloudy) plus it's painful and takes quite a bit of time, one eye at a time.

If I wasn't a candidate for LASIK, I'd stick with good old RK which while not perfect, has less potential issues than PRK. I'll admit I'm jaded with PRK. There were two of us back in 1997 that had our eyes done. PRK was half the cost of LASIK (but still twice the cost of RK) at the time and my buddy opted for PRK (St. Josephs Hospital, Phoenix). Well, he wasn't so lucky and his corneas did not grow back properly. His eyes were fucked up for two years and even afterward he still had to wear glasses.

Of course, maybe they've had advancements with PRK since then but I'd still rather keep the cornea then hope it grew back correctly.

http://www.allaboutvision.com/visionsurgery/prk.htm

 

[2/1_Kiwi]

Re: To Lasik, or not to Lasik....

What kind of stand down period did you guys have from deployment after the surgery?

And in regards to dry eyes, how long did you suffer from it and did it go away on its own? Would it make field work impossible during that first year or just have to carry eye drops?

The Army doesnt cover LASIK here, so bit of a personal investment on my part. At $6500-7000 im pretty hesitant having seen some horror stories. I've been using day & night long term contacts (leave them in for 30 days no trouble) but does get annoying.

 

[threetrees]

Re: To Lasik, or not to Lasik....

how many 30days contacts can you buy for 6.5k? just curious

 

[ggmanning]

Re: To Lasik, or not to Lasik....

Not sure how many lenses you can buy but what you can buy is no dependence on corrective lenses....no problems in the freezing rain in a duck blind....no contacts washed out swimming and skiing, 20/20 vision startled out of bed by a bump in the house, etc. And the list goes on. It's not for everybody I gather but when your vision sucks it is a gift.

 

[2/1_Kiwi]

Re: To Lasik, or not to Lasik....

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: threetrees</div><div class="ubbcode-body">how many 30days contacts can you buy for 6.5k? just curious </div></div>

I pay $150(NZD) for 6 months supply. Not too expensive.

Its more the reliance on them that fucks me. I don't carry spares on task and can loose them from the most annoying shit. And having allergies doesnt help. Slight itchy eye results in either ripping a lense to bits or loosing it.

 

[ddavis]

Re: To Lasik, or not to Lasik....

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TwoGun</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: threetrees</div><div class="ubbcode-body">twoguns, your information is unprecise. prk does not require to create a flap of the cornea and is therefore a last resort for those seeking an improvement for people that, for whatever reason, not not undergo a standard lasek treatment.

(but i agree, it's an older method ... but old does not necessarily mean bad)
</div></div>

I disagree. In the US, PRK is only used in patients who aren't suited for LASIK. And even then, I wouldn't go with PRK because there's no guarantee the cornea will grow back without complications (sometimes it grows back cloudy) plus it's painful and takes quite a bit of time, one eye at a time.

If I wasn't a candidate for LASIK, I'd stick with good old RK which while not perfect, has less potential issues than PRK. I'll admit I'm jaded with PRK. There were two of us back in 1997 that had our eyes done. PRK was half the cost of LASIK (but still twice the cost of RK) at the time and my buddy opted for PRK (St. Josephs Hospital, Phoenix). Well, he wasn't so lucky and his corneas did not grow back properly. His eyes were fucked up for two years and even afterward he still had to wear glasses.

Of course, maybe they've had advancements with PRK since then but I'd still rather keep the cornea then hope it grew back correctly.

http://www.allaboutvision.com/visionsurgery/prk.htm </div></div>

I was borderline for Lasik, so I did PRK. This was last year. It's not "outdated." It has advanced just the same as Lasik has over the years, but it's a slightly different procedure. Lasik peels back the outer layer then replaces it when the correction is done. PRK just burns off out the outer layer and leaves it rough and irritated until it grows back. PRK supposedly has a longer and more painful healing time, but I didn't think it was bad at all. Sure I get some halo around lights at night, but it's not because my eyes are cloudy. It's because my eyes are dry. I can yawn, creating tears, and the halos go away.

For those saying just to stick with contacts or glasses, I feel bad for the people who are stuck with corrective lenses. If you are out hunting miles from everything and you rub your eye and lose a contact, your hunt just got pretty crappy, because now you can't see or have to use glasses, which have their own set of problems. Why handicap yourself?

 

[johnnycat]

Re: To Lasik, or not to Lasik....

I had PRK done two years ago - something about the shape of my eyes made LASIK possible but not ideal. From what I was told PRK is the safer long term method anyway - it just hurt like H3ll for 3 days. After that it was perfect (dry eyes for a few months, but no big deal). I would hate to think that I had to wear contacts or glasses full time.

I have a couple friends that had LASIK and were back at work the next day.


My only regret was that I didn't do it sooner!

If you are in Florida - drive up to Atlanta to Woodham Eye Clinic. I certainly had a good experience.

 

[dmhpro]

Re: To Lasik, or not to Lasik....

PRK certainly is not outdated and is a safer option than LASIK for patients with thin corneas. There really aren't may surgeons still performing RK. Consider the USAF completely disallows RK, while PRK and intralase LASIK are approved.

Please note that while hearing everyone else's experiences can be helpful, you would best be served by undergoing a comprehensive exam and refractive surgery screening.

-DMH O.D.

 

[jcrist]

Re: To Lasik, or not to Lasik....

I had mine done about 3 years ago. I still haven't taken it for granted, it's the greatest thing I've ever done for every day quality of life improvement. No more carrying around (or not) saline and/or contact holders, bullshit glasses, sore, itchy and irritated eyes, not being able to see a damnned thing. I woke up the next morning and could see the clock. It was amazing. I was 37 or so when I had it done and my short vision was rendered no worse than it was already with my contacts. I'm sure someone knows the reason but I always saw better close up with glasses campared to contacts. Anyway, I tuen 40 in a few months and I can start to feel a little difference in my close up vision but I'm not talking issues with turrets or my notebook. From what I've heard, everyones arms start to shrink at 40... nothing to do with Lasik.

Do yourself a favor and get it done. THen come back and thank all of us

 

[sadwong]

Re: To Lasik, or not to Lasik....

I had PRK approximately 3 months ago. I am very happy with the results. Prior, I had to wear glasses for 25 years. Quality of life improved dramatically. No longer constrained to the eye frame. Able to see up, down, and sideways.

I am not experiencing any side effects such as clouding, sensitivity to light, and others. 100% happy.

Wife is getting Lasiks next week. She also had to wear glasses for over 30 years.

If given the opportunity, I would strongly recommend.

Cost is $3500 for both eyes. Location = Sacramento, CA. Griffen & Reed.

Good luck and Happy New Years

 

[gunman_7]

Re: To Lasik, or not to Lasik....

Good topic. My wife wants to get it done. There is a clinic near by that boasts about the quality of their doctors and how many surgery's they have completed.

The thing is, they only charge 1K for each eye. And naturally I'm concerned about the quality when people on here talk about spending 6-9K. We are just starting to look into having this done and haven't sat down with them to talk particulars, what questions should a person ask?

 

[Lukas Koukal]

Re: To Lasik, or not to Lasik....

Over 10 years over my correction and still perfect, so I recommend taking the plunge. I had roughly 3,5D and slight aastigmatism on both eyes before.

If you do sports, you DO hate glasses cause they either get in the way, or are wet, fogged up etc... either way, your blind half the time cause you don´t see without the glasses nor with them in the given conditions. Couldn´t get used to contacts neither. Somebody stated it before me, the surgery improves the overall quality of life for me.

 

[temecula]

Re: To Lasik, or not to Lasik....

I wish i can but i can't afford for $5 grand per pop.

 

[ddavis]

Re: To Lasik, or not to Lasik....

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Michael8062</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I wish i can but i can't afford for $5 grand per pop.

</div></div>

I did interest free financing through GE Capitol for mine. I have it set up to auto-pay 200 per month. Well worth it.

 

[JJaiman]

Re: To Lasik, or not to Lasik....

I'm having my eyes done next Wednesday. I go this thursday to meet the surgeon and find out if I'm better off with Lasik or PRK. Either way, I'll post up how it goes.

 

[dang472]

Re: To Lasik, or not to Lasik....

I'm going in on Saturday to meet with them to determine what is best for my eyes. My badass insurance pays for it free of charge, so I'd be an idiot to keep paying for contacts and glasses. The place is in Chicaago and they do most of the professional sports teams like the Bulls. I think I'm in good hands.

 

[Will Fennell]

Re: To Lasik, or not to Lasik....

I had LASIK done to both eyes in 1999. I am a full time shotgun instructor, and 13 time member of NSCA( National Sporting Clay Association) TEAM USA. LASIK was a life changing experience for me.

 

[JJaiman]

Re: To Lasik, or not to Lasik....

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Michael8062</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I wish i can but i can't afford for $5 grand per pop.

</div></div>

Where did you get that quote? I'm having mine done in NYC and it's $4,800 which includes free touch-ups for life (in 20 years when my vision gets worse, I come in and have it done again for free). Also, I got 2 years interest free financing from Wells Fargo.

 

[Hueyguy]

Re: To Lasik, or not to Lasik....

One thing to add: as mentioned here, for LASIK, the cornea is lifted, the work performed, the corneal flap is laid back down. You need to be careful not to wrinkle that flap for(if memory serves correctly) about 6 months. Not a big deal for most, but I had to schedule the procedure around my rugby season. It is something that needs consideration; even the first few days are needful of special care, ie showering, face washing, etc; doing something uncarefully could cause infection, or wrinkle the flap.
That said, 13 yrs of rugby, shooting, 4x4's, construction, sheet metal working, hydraulic fluid exposure, on and on- absolutely no problems that others have not already mentioned, so I won't, but any issues I've had were minor and the results far outweigh the risks/annoyances. You got 3 cents this time, Merry Christmas!

 

[Longs]

Re: To Lasik, or not to Lasik....

Don't hesitate. Pick a good doc with an all-laser procedure and you'll be happy. I had mine done after reading-glass age so I didn't notice a decline there. Had the surgery to correct astigmatism.
It makes a huge difference in quality of life for active folks. I always had trouble with rain/mist when doing anything outside, had to wear corrective glasses or shades for everything.
Being able to put on any commercially available eyewear for sun protection or going bare on cloudy days and being able to see well is invaluable.

 

[carlton]

Re: To Lasik, or not to Lasik....

I had it done 6 months ago.
I was nervous.
I'm a builder and a shooter.
I read everything I could find, and proceeded - fully understanding the risks. I also know that I needed some readers or bifocals if I stayed in corrective lenses. I was nearsighted, astigmatic and developing presbyopia. I'm 45, and glasses/contacts wearer for 30 years.
I THINK it took about 10 seconds for one eye and 12 for the other. I live in TX, so I picked the doc who does the Rangers', Mavs' and Stars'eyes (I think that's the best tip I can give).
I'm not embarrassed to say I cried on the way home when I could actually make out some road signs...It was unreal to me. Next day? Saw perfect. I really never had discomfort. YMMV.
Yes, there are risks, but it changed my life. I see 20/15 now and have done so since day 2. I financed interest free through my doc's website and approval took 7 minutes. About $3200 total.
Because I needed such crisp distance vision (targets turn grey quickly...lol), my doc said monovision wasn't a good choice for me. I need light readers in lower light, but don't mind AT all.
Besides, I get bifocal safety glasses to shoot through from MSC for about $8/pair. Works great for seeing the turrets.
It really did change my life and I am a staunch advocate.

 

[HillbillyfromAL]

Re: To Lasik, or not to Lasik....

I had PRK, my choice, a little under 2 years ago now. My vision is better than anytime with contacts. I would say go for it if you can afford it.

 

[The Rat]

Re: To Lasik, or not to Lasik....

I went with PRK over Lasik due to concerns over the cornea flap potentially coming open again. Longer recovery time than Lasik, but more durable in the long run. The first three days after the surgery felt like I was chopping onions all day as the corneas regrew, but after that it felt normal and my vision just kept improving.

I went from being unable to focus at all on the front sight post of an M16 to 20/15. Truly a life changer. Best money I ever spent.

 

[JJaiman]

Re: To Lasik, or not to Lasik....

Just an update: I had PRK done yesterday at 11:00 AM. My vision prior to surgery was 20/400 in both eyes. I had my 24hr Post-OP this morning at 11:00 AM and my vision is currently 20/40 in both eyes....and no that is not a missprint. I was told it will take around 3 weeks to get my full vision and they are very sure I will have 20/15 when recovery is all said and done. I am in a bit of pain.....feels like someone pushed my face in the sand with my eyes open. I'm also SUPER sensative to light. That being said, I only wish I would have done this surgery sooner. For those interested in the surgery, my wife was kind enough to record the surgery on one of my eyes on her ipad. It took a whole 4 minutes lol. If anyone is on the fence, do yourself a favor and get it done.

James

 

[Red_Beard]

Re: To Lasik, or not to Lasik....

My parents paid for mine for my 19th birthday present. At the time my left eye was 20/15 and my right 20/220. I was a college baseball player and post surgery my right eye was corrected to 20/25 and my batting average corrected from .305 to .333. It was by far the best present I have ever received and have been grateful for it every day since.

The only downside that I have noticed is that my right eye is slightly more sensitive to light. A small price to pay in my opinion.

 

[wolffman]

Re: To Lasik, or not to Lasik....

I had my LASIK 6 years ago and it's was best money I ever spent. I went to 20/10 rt eye and 20/20 in left. Being able to wake up and not need to have contacts or glasses to see is amazing!