Results of Lasik not always clear

Millions of people are estimated to undergo the Lasik procedure each year in the United States at academic clinics, private practices and corporate centers.

[Scared to do it]

I know of four people who have had the surgery: two were fine and the third one has never had good eye sight since both eyes were done and the fourth one had to get glasses again after 3 years.
My eyes can be corrected with glasses and with all the floaters in my eyes, I don't even want to consider messing them up further.

[I did it]

I recently had the procedure- in May, and I couldn't be happier. I have very large pupils and (of course) had to go for the most expensive surgery- it is the best thing I have ever done for myself. I don't know what will happen years from now, but I researched very carefully who I wanted to perform my procedure- and I made my appointment with him.(I have to admit I took the option for valium)
I did experience dry eye in the beginning- it's definitely improved and I'm only putting drops in when I wake up and before I go to bed.
I did have halo in the beginning but it's supposed to improve by about 6 months- since I'm home with my 18 month old every night I haven't had the opportunity to see if it's improving yet. I have my hopes!

[Steve]

While knowing only a couple people who have undergone this procedure, I believe that expecting "perfect results" from "practicing Drs." who get paid regardless of the outcome is naive. And offering cheaper prices is not an endorsement for the quality, it only appeals to one's crass, "Jack Benny" mentality. Enough said.
Steve

[Janette]

I have had LASIK twice and dry eye was the only after effect that remained after my eyes healed, and has improved over the last few years. My ophthmalogist strongly suggested a certain clinic, which charged considerably more than others advertised, because "you get what you pay for."

At first, I did have the starburst effect, but that has lessened, too, over time. The screening procedure was extensive, the surgeon used a different blade for every procedure, and the follow-up with my ophthamalogist was mandatory. My eyes were quite severely nearsighted, and now I do not need glasses to read, which for me is a wonderful result. I can wear soft lenses for the first time in my life, and the dryness is worth the advantages otherwise.

I believe that the adage quoted above, "you get what you pay for," is very apt here.

[hoosier by birth]

I recently chose to have LASIK after years of being afraid to. It was the best decision I have ever made. I am one of the fortunate patients who has had absolutely no side effects or problems. In fact, I had night halos before the surgery which have now disappeared completely. I feel very badly for those for whom the results have not been good.

At the practice I chose, LASIK was not presented as any type of cure-all or as risk free. Anyone who has used a reputable surgeon will have been warned of all possible risks, including permanent blindness. If a patient decides to pursue this surgery after being informed of the risk involved, I believe he or she has to be aware the results may fall anywhere between fabulous and disastrous. I have to agree with the previous posts; you definitely get what you pay for.

As for the statement,"I believe that expecting "perfect results" from "practicing Drs." who get paid regardless of the outcome is naive,"
I contend medicine is not an exact science. To attach compensation to outcome is absurd. If no negligence or malpractice is involved, the doctor bears no responsibility for an undesired outcome.

[Dr Foulkes]

Janette wrote:

I have had LASIK twice and dry eye was the only after effect that remained after my eyes healed, and has improved over the last few years. My ophthmalogist strongly suggested a certain clinic, which charged considerably more than others advertised, because "you get what you pay for."
At first, I did have the starburst effect, but that has lessened, too, over time. The screening procedure was extensive, the surgeon used a different blade for every procedure, and the follow-up with my ophthamalogist was mandatory. My eyes were quite severely nearsighted, and now I do not need glasses to read, which for me is a wonderful result. I can wear soft lenses for the first time in my life, and the dryness is worth the advantages otherwise.
I believe that the adage quoted above, "you get what you pay for," is very apt here.

Actually several studies have not really shown this to be true. The payment issue is really just a business model and doing more surgery at a somewhat lower fee does not necessarily mean you are more or less conscientious as a surgeon. A very high priced center in this Chicago has a surgeon fly in to do your surgery and when you might most need him he is in another state. What is charged for the procedure should not be in the mind of the surgeon. Your safety and the optimal use of the technology currently available on the other hand should be his or her passion if they do this work. For instance my center is research based, uses the latest technology including the laser flap which eliminates the blades that were used on your eyes, and yet we are moderate in cost. Barbara in this article was done at a high cost center. So maybe you get what you pay for but value is not increased by excessive cost.

[Dr Foulkes]

Actually several studies have not really shown this to be true. The payment issue is really just a business model and doing more surgery at a somewhat lower fee does not necessarily mean you are more or less conscientious as a surgeon. A very high priced center in this Chicago has a surgeon fly in to do your surgery and when you might most need him he is in another state. What is charged for the procedure should not be in the mind of the surgeon. Your safety and the optimal use of the technology currently available on the other hand should be his or her passion if they do this work. For instance my center is research based, uses the latest technology including the laser flap which eliminates the blades that were used on your eyes, and yet we are moderate in cost. Barbara in this article was done at a high cost center.

[Big Chicken]

With my correction (-7.5 OD, -11 OS) and having worn glasses and contact lenses since age 6, I have pondered corrective surgery for many years...but given that I only have one pair of eyes, I'll wait until the procedure is GUARANTEED successful with no side effects. I'll be waiting a long time. In the meantime, I'll continue on with my contacts and cheaters (it's hard being myopic and presbyopic at the same time) and hope for foolproof technology.

[Not Worth the Risk]

My opinion is that surgery (or anything else similar invasive) should be a last resort procedure for correcting something wrong with your body. I'm amazed at how many people take the LASIK risk when glasses and contacts are a decent alternative for correcting eye vision. I can't even imagine electively choosing to have this kind of procedure when the originating problem is not life threatening. If I ever visit an eye doctor who actually recommends this to me (without prompting on my part) I will walk out the door and never return. Doctors should discourage this kind of procedure unless the person's case is extreme (psychologically or physically) or life threatening.

[chicago gal]

People seeking corrective vision procedures have got to be careful. Seek professionals through referrals if at all possible.
We asked about corrective procedures 10 years ago, and the ophthalmologist suggested we wait a while until newer, better technology was available. My husband waited until this past March, when he chose to have a procedure to correct his vision.
Be honest with yourself and the doctor when going through the consult & screening process. When my husband had his procedure (at NWMH in Chicago), his initial consult with the doctor revealed that Lasik was not what he wanted, but Custom PRK.
This procedure comes with a longer, more uncomfortable recovery period, but gave my husband the results he wanted without a number of the risks Lasik carries.
His vision was better than 20/20 within three months. He knows how lucky he has been. Not bargain hunting for something so very important and waiting for procedures to improve was sage advice those many years ago.

[Jennifer]

My husband also had PRK this year, since he had thin corneas. The clinic were quite clear about this being his only option, and that there was only one chance. The initial surgery would have left his corneas too thin to withstand further correction if it didn't work.
A lot of the horror stories I have read involve people who didn't bother reading the literature provided to them, didn't read the terms of their lifetime care packages and didn't take any of what the surgeon said about risk seriously. Maybe an IQ test is what is needed in future.

[lisav]

Lasik surgery, like any surgery, is not perfect and can have complications, people need to really talk to their doctors about what specific issues can arise. Take a look at http://www.eyecaresource.com/procedures/lasik... and learn more about lasik

[Shelley]

My husband had Lasik surgery in 1998 and noticed double vision soon afterwards. He assumed that it was a problem with the surgery, but the Lasik surgeon insisted that that was not the case and that he should see a neurologist instead. It turned out that he had a fast-growing brain tumor and that the ultra-correction of his glasses had been hiding his double vision. By urging my husband to see a neurologist, his Lasik surgeon ensured that his tumor would be discovered while it was still operable... thereby saving my husband's life. I love Lasik!

[Shelley]

I don't know what universe the Tribune thinks I live in, but it is actually Chicago, NOT "Amf Ohare."

[Patient Advocate]

The best website for real lasik information comes from patients who have had dibilitating results. One such website is www.lasikdisaster.com . There is another website with patient information call www.usaeyes.org ; however, the person running the website is paid by the same surgeons who are causing the problem.
There are 3 excellent alternatives to a cornea transplant:
1. contact lenses (They have a 2 times incidence of causing scarring if they are the gas permeable or hard materials.
--www.synergeyes.com
2. INTACS corneal implants have been used to repair ectasia or unstable cornea after lasik since 1998. The first peer reviewed article on treating ectasia or unstable corneas after lasik was published by Dr. Joseph Fleming (www.intacsnow.com ) in 1998. Another great website is www.getintacs.com
3. Corneal Cross Linking or C3-R is a technique utilized by Dr. Brian Boxer Wachler (Three One Zero-Eight Six Zero-one Nine Zero Zero)(www.boxerwachlervision.com ) or by Dr. Mark Swanson (Five Two Zero - Two Zero Four-One three Five Three)(www.swanninstituto.com ) These are the only two doctors performing this procedure in the United States.
I would recommend that you seek out a corneal surgeon or cornea specialist for post lasik ectasia or for any refractive surgery related complication.

[Anthony D Pizzo]

LASIK ruined my 23 year old life.
I have 8.5mm pupils. Anyone with pupils over 6mm should run from this surgery.
Someone on here wrote they have large pupils and had great results. Considering American lasers only have FDA optical zones to 6.0mm, in some rare cases 6.5mm, there is no possible way someone with pupils larger than this can avoid starburts, glare, halos. With a topoguided lasik aka PRK you avoid some problems, espically floaters, since my microkeratome destroyed the fluid in my eye and gave me blinding floaters on top of the glare and starburts. This is a barbaric surgery. In Europe, their is strong trend towards topo-guided only surgeries, with no more lasik. Cutting a flap in the eye is inhumane. The flap cut in my eye causes dry eye so painful and severe that overall eyesight is useless.
For more on me, feel free to email me or search my screen name on lasikflap dot com under the name APizzo667 .
And by the way, in 2004 I paid $6,000 for the best doctor, at the best laser center. It's all lies. My life is ruined and so is my families. By all means, never get this surgery, you will have problems you never even imagined possible.
EMAIL APizzo667 at aol dot com

[Anthony D Pizzo]

Also, I forget to mention that the whole "blend zone" of lasik is worthless. Aberrometers (the machine that measure your pupils) only measure pupils to 6.00 max. Therefore, if you have an optical zone of 6.00 and a blend, to say, 9.00, that blend zone information is crap. The only part of your eye that will get the full treatment is the optical zone.

I had a blend zone out t0 8.5 mm and I am still blind at night.

[Anthony D Pizzo]

Ectasia is the least understood, soon to be most common complicaiton from lasik. When you have lasik, your cornea is severely thinned. The larger your pupil, and the stronger your Rx, the more cornea that is removed during lasik.

With age, the cornea gets thinner. That's why in 20 years, all of us that had lasik will need some type of cornea transplant or repair.

Lasikflap dot com
Lifeafterlasik dot com

[Sabrina]

I had Lasik with very good results. I agree there are risks but there are risks in anything you do. I would recommend that you do your research and choose a doctor with years of experience.

[Avoid Eye Surgery]

I've read so many comments about proper research and the right doctor. It is all meaningless, as all 'elective' refractive eye surgeries cause permanent damage all the time. The cornea does not heal or respond to cuts and the laser as skin tissue does. The various governmental agencies that exist have grossly failed to protect the public. Informed consents only protect the docters/clinics and makers of laser equipment. It's all about the money. Laser eye surgery has ruined many lives and continues to do so. If patient care was #1, Lasik and the other surgeries would not exist today. The NHI of England refuses to provide or endorse (actually they warn against) laser eye surgery. This is because big money does not hold as big a grip on its healthcare industry as it does in the U.S.A.