Lasik - pros and cons ?

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 13:15:17 -0400, "BenignVanilla"
wrote:


"Bob May" wrote in message
...
Don't do it. Lasik modifies the outer part of the lens so that you can
see
better in the daytime. Unfortunately, this ends up destroying night
vision
when the edges are unmasked by the iris.
Better to keep what you have and refocus the eyepiece to match your eyes.
Astigmatism can be corrected by the addition of a cylinder lens that you
can
put on the end of the eyepiece - just get a lens from your optician with
only the cylinder part of your prescription and you can make a cover to go
over your eyepieces that will fix that problem. Also note that you need
to
mark the cover so you know which way the cylinder goes.

Bob, I do not think that is true. As it was explained to me before surgery.
LASIK modifies only your cornea. Your lens is not affected, which is why
when you get older, LASIK does not prevent you from needing reading glasses,
which is typically caused by a hardening of the lens.

LASIK re-shapes your cornea, allowing your eye to focus properly. The
surgery is not aimed at day vision OR night vision, just vision.

I think the Canadian military has banned this procedure owing to it's
negative effects on night vision.
-Rich

Can we be sure that terrorism and WMD will join together?
If we are wrong, we will have destroyed a threat that, at
its least is responsible for inhuman carnage and suffering.
That is something I am confident history will forgive.
But if our critics are wrong and we do not act, then we will
have hesitated in face of this menace, when we should
have given leadership. That is something history will not forgive.
-Tony Blair

I also had Lasik correction, and I'm also pleased by the results.

Obviously, you should investigate the situation and the surgeon
carefully before going ahead with the procedure. Several factors may
apply to your situation. From my research, your prescription seems to
be rather "mild" and well-suited for the Lasik procedure, assuming that
you don't have any severe astigmatism. That is, as understood, the
procedure is apparently most effective and the results most consistent
for the treatment of nearsightedness, particularly less severe cases. I
had the opposite condition, hyperopia (far-sightedness) combined with
astigmatism, which I understood is a more difficult condition. (Along
with presbyopia, which requires that I wear reading glasses for close
viewing.

Regarding the issue of burn size relative to your maximum pupil size, I
do think that some machines are better than other in this regard. The
one my doctor used, the Bausch & Lomb Technola, is supposed to be
capable of treating a large area evenly and consistently. For astronomy
work, that factor is important and worth investigating. (Don't just sign
up for the least expensive special.)

I also think the newer techniques and machines can provide significant
advantages. (Along with other considerations, of course, such as the
Dr's. experience and reputation.) For example, the new "wave-front"
diagnosis and measurement systems are said to provide significantly
improved 3-D mapping of your eyes, permitting Lasik treatment customized
more precisely for your particular condition. From the reports, this
seems to be a significant technical advance, providing better than 20/20
vision in many cases. Because few ophthalmologist have this equipment so
far, I suggest that you get opinions from those who do use it and and
those who don't.

As mentioned above, my condition was particularly difficult, and the
results weren't perfect in all respects. However, I don't have any
problems with night vision, halos, etc., and I'm glad I had the
procedure. While perhaps not a direct result, I was able to make
substantial progress on the Messier list at TSP last Spring, getting
through the Virgo cluster for the first time after several previous
attempts. Also saw some beautiful DSOs. - For what it's worth.

Jim Cate







Cyberchondriac wrote:
Hi all,

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 am never happy when wearing my glasses, the eye relief just doesn't quite
cut it, even in eyepieces with good eye relief, partly because you still
don't have the benefit of the eyeguard cupping your socket and blocking
stray peripheral light.
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 seem
okay at distant viewing with the contacts in (I'm nearsighted, diopter is
approx -3.25 L and -3.75 R), but if I try and read something or view
something up close, it blurs out, I can't focus. If I pop a contact out, of
course, I can read fine print and small things easily.. but distance viewing
is shot.
There are, of course, other reasons to wish for normal good eyesight, such
as being able to wake up in the middle of the night and focus without having
to feel around for eyeglasses, or being able to jump in a pool or lake and
go swimming without removing glasses, worrying about them getting wet (mine
smear really bad if wet and I try to clean them without soap - I have an
oily complexion), or, having to remove contacts .. basically, to swim
*confidently*, you wind up having to go without vision correction.. which
makes it impossible to swim confidently.
So, that brings me to Lasik, which as far as I know, is still the most
advanced and best method of surgical vision correction.
I do remember seeing something in this ng about a year ago however, that
stated that due to the corneal flap cut , or maybe the laser itself, it's a
baaad thing to do if you're an amateur astronomer.
Could somebody please expound on that, because I'm really thinking about
taking the plunge, and even though for me astronomy's only a part time
hobby, I'd hate to end it.

Thanks
CC