4 ms·

Has anyone tried refractive lensectomy for astigmatism and/or myopia? Think cataract surgery, but for improving near/far sightedness, etc. So you end up with ar

Has anyone tried refractive lensectomy for astigmatism and/or myopia? Think cataract surgery, but for improving near/far sightedness, etc. So you end up with artificial intraocular lenses. It costs about double what LASIK does, but doesn't seem to have the side effects.

toomuchtodo 8y ago
My father had it done due to cataracts, and was satisfied with the artificial lenses and resulting vision. I had PRK done instead of LASIK (the top layer of the cornea is discarded [it regenerates] instead of being cut and lifted prior to abalation; recovery time is longer, but corneal integrity is preserved) 8 years ago. The recovery time was a few weeks, but I had no LASIK side effects. I highly recommend it versus LASIK.
- peatmoss 8y ago
  Did the same. I really think it’s a pay now or pay later affair. PRK was a more painful recovery for sure, but I’ve had no issues and no restrictions. I healed very quickly. I did a review of medical research and did a few things to make PRK better for me: 1. Vitamin C supplements leading up to and after treatment. Reduces risk of corneal haze (though risk is very low with modern PRK which uses Mitomycin off-label for prevention) 2. Extra omega 3 supplements before and during recovery. Keeps the tear coatingon your eye from evaporating / breaking up as quickly which supposedly shortens re-epithelialization time (the epithelium is what is removed on the surface of your cornea). 3. Wetting drops way more frequently than the minimum that the doctor prescribes. You basically can’t use these fast enough for the first few days. The wetter the surface of your eye, the faster the regrowth of your epithelium (fun fact: this is the fastest growing tissue in the body—at least according to the surgeon who did my eyes). Also, pick a surgeon with the latest and greatest laser. I believe the latest ablation tech had some benefits from an optics / recovery perspective.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    All great points!
zdragnar 8y ago
My mother had it done. Side effects are mostly limited to eyes so dry she needed her ducts plugged to retain fluid and no/ limited night driving due to halos. With all of that said, compared to the coke bottle glasses she had before, I don't think she would have done anything differently. Me, I can still comfortably wear contacts (astigmatism is mild enough) so she suggested that I not get it. YMMV
mschaef 8y ago
I had cataract surgery done. For cataracts. At age 42. The doctor was able to correct out something like -12D myopia in both eyes with a precision that was mainly limited by the fact that lens implants only come in 0.5D increments. She was also able to use a laser to ablate the cornea in a way that corrected out astigmatism. In the span of two relatively brief surgeries, I went from >35 years of needing to use glasses to now, where I'm typing this post without any external correction at all. It's an amazing result, particularly considering the risks involved with such a high degree of myopia. That said, I'd never do it just for the purpose of correcting nearsightedness. The implants work, but you mostly lose the ability to focus. There are ways around this, but the technology is still relatively new, and carries with it risks of visual artifacts. There are also the literally 500 eye drops you have to take and risks of various complications during surgery. (One noteworthy risk is that if the lens's bag ruptures during the phacoemulsification, the lens drops into the posterior chamber of the eye and requires a vitrectomy to retrieve.) It's an amazing procedure, I'm thankful to have had the option to have it done, but I wouldn't recommend it unless and until you absolutely need it.

toomuchtodo 8y ago

My father had it done due to cataracts, and was satisfied with the artificial lenses and resulting vision. I had PRK done instead of LASIK (the top layer of the cornea is discarded [it regenerates] instead of being cut and lifted prior to abalation; recovery time is longer, but corneal integrity is preserved) 8 years ago. The recovery time was a few weeks, but I had no LASIK side effects. I highly recommend it versus LASIK.

peatmoss 8y ago
Did the same. I really think it’s a pay now or pay later affair. PRK was a more painful recovery for sure, but I’ve had no issues and no restrictions. I healed very quickly. I did a review of medical research and did a few things to make PRK better for me: 1. Vitamin C supplements leading up to and after treatment. Reduces risk of corneal haze (though risk is very low with modern PRK which uses Mitomycin off-label for prevention) 2. Extra omega 3 supplements before and during recovery. Keeps the tear coatingon your eye from evaporating / breaking up as quickly which supposedly shortens re-epithelialization time (the epithelium is what is removed on the surface of your cornea). 3. Wetting drops way more frequently than the minimum that the doctor prescribes. You basically can’t use these fast enough for the first few days. The wetter the surface of your eye, the faster the regrowth of your epithelium (fun fact: this is the fastest growing tissue in the body—at least according to the surgeon who did my eyes). Also, pick a surgeon with the latest and greatest laser. I believe the latest ablation tech had some benefits from an optics / recovery perspective.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  All great points!

zdragnar 8y ago

My mother had it done. Side effects are mostly limited to eyes so dry she needed her ducts plugged to retain fluid and no/ limited night driving due to halos. With all of that said, compared to the coke bottle glasses she had before, I don't think she would have done anything differently. Me, I can still comfortably wear contacts (astigmatism is mild enough) so she suggested that I not get it. YMMV

mschaef 8y ago

I had cataract surgery done. For cataracts. At age 42. The doctor was able to correct out something like -12D myopia in both eyes with a precision that was mainly limited by the fact that lens implants only come in 0.5D increments. She was also able to use a laser to ablate the cornea in a way that corrected out astigmatism. In the span of two relatively brief surgeries, I went from >35 years of needing to use glasses to now, where I'm typing this post without any external correction at all. It's an amazing result, particularly considering the risks involved with such a high degree of myopia. That said, I'd never do it just for the purpose of correcting nearsightedness. The implants work, but you mostly lose the ability to focus. There are ways around this, but the technology is still relatively new, and carries with it risks of visual artifacts. There are also the literally 500 eye drops you have to take and risks of various complications during surgery. (One noteworthy risk is that if the lens's bag ruptures during the phacoemulsification, the lens drops into the posterior chamber of the eye and requires a vitrectomy to retrieve.) It's an amazing procedure, I'm thankful to have had the option to have it done, but I wouldn't recommend it unless and until you absolutely need it.