3 ms·
This, and other summaries of trials / research in here, do indeed imply dramatically more complications than I've ever heard. Gonna have to dive in deeper, I s
by Groxx 8y ago
This, and other summaries of trials / research in here, do indeed imply dramatically more complications than I've ever heard. Gonna have to dive in deeper, I suppose, but the fuzziness around this kind of stuff has been part of the reason I haven't done it already :|
>A recent clinical trial by the F.D.A.[1] suggests that the complications experienced by Mr. Ramirez are not uncommon.
>Nearly half of all people who had healthy eyes before Lasik developed visual aberrations for the first time after the procedure, the trial found. Nearly one-third developed dry eyes, a complication that can cause serious discomfort, for the first time.
[1]: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaophthalmology/fullarticle/2587831 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaophthalmology/fullartic...
Or this one:
>even after [5] years, nearly half had dry eyes at least some of the time. Twenty percent had painful or sore eyes, 40 percent were sensitive to light, and one-third had difficulty driving at night or doing work that required seeing well up close.
Like... one third have difficulties after 5 years? That's potentially insane if representative.
- toast0 8y agoI suspect a lot of people who have these procedures and don't like the results don't make a big fuss about it, because it's not like they can undo it. And they usually spent a bunch of money on it. You might as well try to be happy with the results. For me, it never seemed worth it to deal with the permanent change leading to potential side effects for a temporary benefit. If my corrective lenses were big and heavy, I might reconsider.
- OrwellianChild 8y agoIt helps to understand the benefits of the procedure to understand why folks would undertake the risk... I had correction at -6 diopters, which is equivalent to about 20/500 vision. My near vision uncorrected was bad enough that the focal distance was closer than the distance needed to resolve 3D vision. This means that to read my phone without correction, I had to close one eye and hold it in front of my face. Further, I was developing an astigmatism, which results in double vision, even when optically corrected (glasses can fix this, contacts do so poorly). I got PRK in Vancouver, BC for less than $2K USD. Recovery took about 5 days to functional vision, and maybe 1-2 months for complete recovery. It is a world of difference. I wake up and can see the world immediately. I can go hiking/camping without gear that requires a sanitary environment just to wake up and go to sleep. Cheap sunglasses work. I can participate in sport with no notice or prep. I can swim without eye protection. My day-to-day experience is dramatically improved. If you don't perceive the benefits, LASIK/PRK may not be for you. For some people, though, life with glasses or contacts is a noticeable burden, and correction can provide measurable upside. In these cases, it can be well worth the perceived risk.
- pretendscholar 8y agoHows your night vision?
- newfoundglory 8y agoI got LASIK in February for my -6.75 vision, and my night vision now seems the same as before the surgery. I've had no complications at all.
- OrwellianChild 8y agoMy night vision has been completely fine since the surgery, with no major haloing or aberrations. I do not know whether this is a function of PRK vs LASIK, a good doctor/procedure, or luck. (Maybe a bit of all 3?)
- npunt 8y agoDid you get the TransPRK (SmartsurfACE) procedure? I ask because people from the US typically go to Canada to get it since its not available here. Seems like the much better bet for long term results vs Lasik.