Lasik - pros and cons ?

I really can't say when, after surgery, the studies were done.
My personal acquaintance network data reflects yours, with most people
happy, but with at least one or two horror stories lurking in the wings.
Again, it's up to the person to assess the risks. For folks who are deeply
afflicted, even the "horror story" success level might qualify as an
improvement. For those with otherwise correctable vision, the odds of being
disappointed are greater.
The level to which one depends on one's eyesight is also crucial in the risk
assessment. For those whose life is entirely contained between the office,
restaurant, and bunk, the priorities and risks are perhaps different. For
those with activities (often more than one) such as astronomy, aviation,
birdwatching, shooting sports, crafts, and a host of other
eyesight-intensive pastimes, it's a decision where any downside, however
tiny the odds, may become unacceptable.
Right or wrong, that was where I ended up in my own decision process.

Regards,

John




I'm wondering, in all fairness and objectivity, if the studies were done
at
least 6 months after the operation, in which time, reportedly, many of
those
symptoms lessen greatly or even go away altogether. 3 people at my
workplace have had it done; 2 of them are estastic about their decision,
and after a year or more, remain so. The 3rd guy was something of a
horror
story, but listening to him at length, I couldn't help but wonder if he
really did any research about who he decided to have the procedure done
by.
None of them, however, are amateur astronomers. They're mostly computer
professionals.

"John Ford" wrote in message
...

A few years ago (1999 or 2000)...
snip

1999-2000, is IMHO, eons ago when it comes to the LASIK technology. The
surgery gets better and better every year. I have had the surgery, and I
know many people that also have it. None have had major problems. My only,
minor problem, is occasional dryness.


BV.

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
snip
The problem for visual astronomers is that the corrected area of the
cornea is
usually smaller than the fully dilated pupil. This means that there may be
a lot
of aberration when viewing with a fairly large exit pupil. Depending on
corneal
thickness, however, it may be possible to correct a larger area, which
would
make the procedure much more reasonable for visual astronomers.
snip

This is not so with the modern surgery and equipment. If you know of a
surgeon that does the surgery with a laser that cannot correct an area
greater then your fully dilated pupil, you need to find a better surgeon. My
surgeon did an hour long survey of my eyes, and found the proper piece of
equipment and procedure to ensure my corrected area was larger then my
dilated pupil. The end result is that after proper healing, I have no halos
which are the aberration you are referring to.

BV.

"Axel" wrote in message
om...
I didn't see any threads already discussing this subject, so I ask:
Does anyone know of any absolute pros or cons regarding Lasik vision
correction where stargazing is concerned ?

I'm not sure if the surgery has improved, but it used to be that
they'd only correct part of the lens. At night your pupil would open
up enough to allow the uncorrected part of the lens to be exposed.
Thus a lot of people would get a mixture of corrected and uncorrected
vision, causing halos and other artifacts around bright point sources.
Most of the people I know who had this done are quite pleased with
the results (even though a couple of them mentioned halos etc.), but
they're not astronomers! Since proper night vision is so important to
this hobby, I wouldn't risk it if I were you.

Your lens is not affected by this surgery, it's your cornea that is altered.
The halo's you speak of and the cause of them are as you say, these people
have a cornea that opens larger then the corrected area, so at night they
get out of focus halos around bright objects. Modern equipment and surgery,
avoids this effect in the long term by ensuring a larger burn area. My
surgeon had three different lasers to choose from, all with different sized
scatter patterns which determine the burn area size. I fit into the central
category, and today, I have NO halo's.

BV.

"Jon Isaacs" wrote in message
...
Now 2 1/2 years later, I can say it's the best thing I have ever done for
myself. My vision is 20-15 in one eye and 20-20 in the other. I have
noticed
no drop in night vision performance, although I'm new to astronomy, and
really can't compare my "dark sky"

vision to what it was before the
procedure. My night driving vision is better than before. Looking through
binoculars is better than ever.

My eyeglasses were bi-focals. As we get older, the muscles that help
the eye
focus on close up seeing begin to weaken. Since I had the Lasik, I now
have to carry reading (cheaters) glasses everywhere I go.

his is the only
problem, for me, that I find annoying. As far as I know, there is no
procedure to eliminate this problem.

A coworker who had the surgery also mentioned this.

It was my understanding that the eyeball/lens becomes less flexible as one
ages, muscles can be strengthened, but since the problem is flexibility,
older
people such as myself really just have a limited focusing range.

Even without the need for correction, I believe it is important to wear
glasses when outside during the day for UV protection.


I am still amazed at the things I notice with my new eyes. The detail in
a
birds feathers, seeing all the way to the horizon while fishing on the
ocean, scanning the crowd at an Angels baseball game.

How was this different than when wearing glasses?? What do you wear for
UV
protection of your eyes at those Angels games?

My vision was always better with contacts than glasses. I guess it's because
I was looking through a flat lens some distance from the eyeball. It's hard
to describe the difference. It's almost more 3-D like, if that makes any
sense. It's even better since the Lasik A lot better depth perception, for
me. I notice the "distance" between my eyes and the object I'm observing.

I actually had problems looking at the moon, stars or far off lights.
Because the contact lens moves on the eyeball, I'd see double. When you have
an astigmatism like I had, the contact lenses have to be weighted on the
bottom to keep them in position. If I turned my head sideways, the lens
would slide and my vision blurred. Looking for books on a shelf at the
bookstore was a pain in the...!

I always wear good quality shades when I'm out in the sun. As a kid and
young adult, I neglected to wear sunglasses while outdoors. I now have a
small, cream colored "thing" on one eye. The Dr. told what it was called,
but I've forgotten what it's called.

You all bring up good valid points. That's why one needs to ask a ton of
questions before going ahead with the Lasik.
Mike

It seems to me that since the older peoples eyes have limited range of
focus,
this surgery is really often just trading one situation for another. THe
fact
that someones eyes are 20-20 means that at 20 feet they work nicely. But
a
full test would include close focus, say 16 inches. And it seems Lasik
actually causes problems here.

Personally I think ones vision is too important to risk for cosmetic or
convience reasons.

jon

"Jon Isaacs" wrote in message
...
Now 2 1/2 years later, I can say it's the best thing I have ever done for
myself. My vision is 20-15 in one eye and 20-20 in the other. I have
noticed
no drop in night vision performance, although I'm new to astronomy, and
really can't compare my "dark sky"

vision to what it was before the
procedure. My night driving vision is better than before. Looking through
binoculars is better than ever.

My eyeglasses were bi-focals. As we get older, the muscles that help
the eye
focus on close up seeing begin to weaken. Since I had the Lasik, I now
have to carry reading (cheaters) glasses everywhere I go.

his is the only
problem, for me, that I find annoying. As far as I know, there is no
procedure to eliminate this problem.

A coworker who had the surgery also mentioned this.

It was my understanding that the eyeball/lens becomes less flexible as one
ages, muscles can be strengthened, but since the problem is flexibility,
older
people such as myself really just have a limited focusing range.

Even without the need for correction, I believe it is important to wear
glasses when outside during the day for UV protection.


I am still amazed at the things I notice with my new eyes. The detail in
a
birds feathers, seeing all the way to the horizon while fishing on the
ocean, scanning the crowd at an Angels baseball game.

How was this different than when wearing glasses?? What do you wear for
UV
protection of your eyes at those Angels games?

It seems to me that since the older peoples eyes have limited range of
focus,
this surgery is really often just trading one situation for another. THe
fact
that someones eyes are 20-20 means that at 20 feet they work nicely. But
a
full test would include close focus, say 16 inches. And it seems Lasik
actually causes problems here.

Personally I think ones vision is too important to risk for cosmetic or
convience reasons.

jon

I agree that no one should weigh the decision lightly, but in my opinion, it
goes far beyond mere asthetics or convenience.
I would wager that those who have never had to wear glasses don't fully
realize how lucky they are, much like men who don't experience baldness,
although that is more or less just asthetics. (Although recent social
studies indicate that "good looking" people get better jobs, more money, and
more respect)
Having naturally good eyesight affects the very quality of your life. It
affects sports, swimming, and general safety. Good thing this isn't the
stone age, we myopes would all have been eaten by sabre tooths before we
were 15 years old.
I'm so "lucky" as to have rotten eyesight, started losing my hair at 25, had
to deal with moderately severe acne, and if it weren't for the braces I wore
for 7 years, I'd be bucker than Bugs Bunny. OTOH, I have all ten fingers
and toes, no down syndrome, etc. could be a lot worse :-)

That's a creative approach!
I tried the disposables, they all dried out quicker than regular daily wear,
and I (as well as my opthamologist) gave up on them for me. Still, I could
use the daily wears the way you do if I'm careful to not lose them, but that
sounds like a potential hassle and a half.
How long are your observing sessions ? Did you ever start to get a headache
?

"Russell Chase" wrote in message
om...
"Cyberchondriac" wrote in part message
...
Contacts don't work well for me either, because my eyes tend to be very
dry,
even with the newer contacts and solutions designed to address that.

I use daily disposible contacts. I remove the contact from my eyepiece
eye as my observing session begins. When I finish my observing, I pop
the other contact out and put on glasses. At least for me, my mind
has no problem relying on the in focus eye when I'm away from the
eyepiece looking at the sky unaided or through the telrad.

I agree that no one should weigh the decision lightly, but in my opinion, it
goes far beyond mere asthetics or convenience.
I would wager that those who have never had to wear glasses don't fully
realize how lucky they are, much like men who don't experience baldness,
although that is more or less just asthetics.

I lost the hair on the top of my head 25 years ago, been wearing glasses for
considerable longer than that, though my correction is not huge.

Being bald just means I have to wear a hat when I am outside, being nearsighted
just means I need to wear glasses. Of course these days, I am basically the
fixed focus model......

I consider myself lucky to be heathy and born in the USA, baldness and wearing
glasses are tiny issues compared to what most people in the world face
everyday.

jon isaacs

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 15:20:11 -0400, "BenignVanilla"
wrote:

I disagree. When I had my surgery, I had several options. One system had
a
limited burn zone. I was not a candidate for this system because my
dialited
pupil was larger then this system could handle. The next step up, for
lack
of a better term, was capable of a burn zone large enough to handle my
pupil.

Yes, there are different approaches to the procedure. However, the bottom
line
is that there is a minimum thickness that the central cornea can reach,
and the
more correction a patient requires, the smaller the maximum corrected zone
will
be. This has nothing to do with the equipment used. In almost all cases of
Lasik
the corrected zone is smaller than the dilated pupil, because for most
people
this produces little or no problem and it is preferable to ablate as
little of
the cornea as possible. You were fortunate to have enough corneal
thickness to
allow a large ablation zone. This is probably true for less than half of
the
general myopic population, however, particularly those with extreme myopia
who
are most likely to undergo the procedure.

As I said before, I agree about the thickness. That is one factor in many
that determine your personal success rate. But it is also true, as I
mentioned, that some of the newer systems are capable of larger burn areas.
Even if you had a corner a foot thick, the older technology systems would
not be able to prevent halo's as their burn are is considerably smaller in
diameter. The newer techniques and equipment allow for a larger burn area,
thereby reducing halo possibilities.

BV.

The disposables that I wear are meant to be thrown away at the end of
the day. So when I take one out to start my observing session I throw
the contact away.

I've never had headaches having one contact in and one out, but it did
take a few observing sessions before my brain was able to quickly
dismiss the out of focus image. I only do this procedure when I plan
to observe for more than an hour. The last time I did this was a 5
hour session at a 10K' altitute site - no headaches.

"Cyberchondriac" wrote in message ...
That's a creative approach!
I tried the disposables, they all dried out quicker than regular daily wear,
and I (as well as my opthamologist) gave up on them for me. Still, I could
use the daily wears the way you do if I'm careful to not lose them, but that
sounds like a potential hassle and a half.
How long are your observing sessions ? Did you ever start to get a headache
?

"Russell Chase" wrote in message
om...
"Cyberchondriac" wrote in part message
...
Contacts don't work well for me either, because my eyes tend to be very
dry,
even with the newer contacts and solutions designed to address that.

I use daily disposible contacts. I remove the contact from my eyepiece
eye as my observing session begins. When I finish my observing, I pop
the other contact out and put on glasses. At least for me, my mind
has no problem relying on the in focus eye when I'm away from the
eyepiece looking at the sky unaided or through the telrad.