laser eye surgery ??

[sq764]

anyone have it?

good experience? bad one? would you do it again?

[Tom]

My mother had it on one eye - very bad problems, pain. Totally botched.
I hear a lot of good stories, but you gotta know the risk is there.

[bigmack]

anyone have it?
Did bout 5 years ago. Worked like a charm. Get lots of testimonials from the docs patients and know that depending on your age you may still require googles for reading.

[Hosshead]

I know there have been many successful laser eye jobs done, BUT:

A few years ago I was driving, listening to a radio talk show, the subject was laser eye surgery.
A woman called in and said that she had it done.

But after some time had passed, she noticed a decrease in vision.

She then found out that the the cuts that were done with the laser, had started to scar. And the scars were getting bigger and bigger.

She was going blind, and warned anyone about having it done.
I'll never forget the despair in her voice.

[lefthandlow]

I had it done in 1999 from the best in boston.Never had a problem

best thing I ever did!!! LL

[46zilzal]

anyone have it?

good experience? bad one? would you do it again?
my sister, who works in billing at a large S. California hospital, made the most brilliant observation I have ever heard about this surgery: Do you ever see the phsyicians (you know the ones with thick glasses?) who perform the surgery ever have the surgery?


from my understanding, it is "controlled scaring" (scars all contract to a predictable degree) and it is to change the shape of the eyeball back to a shape which is closer to a younger eyeball.

[bigmack]

change the shape of the eyeball back to a shape which is closer to a younger eyeball.
http://www.steliart.com/images/eye.gif
I knew there was a reason I had it done - to have younger eyeballs.

By the way there is a new technique that doesn't require an incision

[Tom]

Geeze, mack - that's freaking me out! :eek:

There is risk with any surgery, for sure.
I think you need to weigh the risk against he benefits. If you can't read now, and really have a problem, it might make more sense than if you just don't like cleaning your glasses everyday.

[sq764]

I was looking at the bladeless surgery actually..

I want to get it for my wife first, as she has had glasses/contacts since she was around 20. I am fighting getting them, as I know I need them but am trying to hold out as long as I can :-)

[46zilzal]

Complications that may arise after PRK and LASIK surgeries include: infection, scarring, dry eye, halos or starbursts of light, light sensitivity, reduction in night or fog vision, decrease in contrast sensitivity , decrease in best corrected vision (i.e., the patient cannot see as well after the surgery even with glasses/ contact lenses), irregular astigmatism and over- or under-correction. PRK operations are more prone to dry eye, scarring, halos and loss of contrast sensitivity, while LASIK surgeries have a tendency towards flap issues including infection and dislodging or improper placement of the flap. Fortunately, complications occur in less than one percent of operations and minor complications such as dry eye and halos usually resolve themselves in a few months as the cornea fully heals.[11] Over- or under-correction is the number one complaint among patients; however, when interviewing patients, these complaints were usually the result of expecting too much from the surgery. Occasionally the surgery can induce mild astigmatism due to suboptimal positioning of the laser; in this circumstance, a second surgery can be performed to enhance the visual quality. Very few patients experience infection-related difficulties which are usually due to improper sterilizing techniques in the clinic; overall, infections make up less than 1 percent of complications. Even though both techniques are very similar, patients are usually more satisfied with LASIK than PRK at 90 and 52 percent respectively. [9]

[bigmack]

Sq - it's really a safe thing and it's outpatient. Snoop around your area and you'll find a good one. If you're not in a Metro area go to one as outlying areas offer little "cutting edge"

Be prepared though as your wife will wake up without the need of corrective lenses in the AM and be able to see you at first light. And as far as I know a ND fan at the crack of dawn is not becoming.

Should be a snap though. I know scads of folk that have had it done and it's been problem free. Some have gone back over time to have a "punch-up" but for a person that has worn glasses since she was 20 will feel like a new pers

[andicap]

I was actually thinking of having it done since the technology has improved substantially in the last few years. Dont think the former issues of hurting night vision, etc. are that relevant any longer, tho always some risk in surgery.

Now I'm looking for references, recommendations to a good surgeon in lower Westchester County. I'm not going to select a surgeon just because Tiki Barber endorses him!

[the_fat_man]

Let me see, different ways I've lost when I've had the best horse;

1) bad trip by the jockey (given the pace)

2) blocked when making a winning move

3) wired the field but got taken down for gate impropriety

4) clear lead, looked like a winner---broke down

5) lost the jockey

6) equipment problems

etc.

yeah, lazer surgery sounds like a real good idea

cause

what are the odds of something going wrong? :bang:

especially for a "LUCKY" fat man. I'm always lucky

[keilan]

Now Fat’s would have you using your 3rd or 4th choice eye-surgeon just because the #1 guy might not be laser-sharp today, tough beats will get a guy thinking all kinds of things.

Maybe a guy should study some video before throwing his cash down………
:)

[CryingForTheHorses]

anyone have it?

good experience? bad one? would you do it again?


My wife who couldnt see without glasses or contacts had the laser surgery.It worked perfect for her with a small amount of pain..1 year after she had to have a enhancement in her left eye as that was the weakest one..She is fine now.you guys are confusing laser and lasik surgery..The lasik is where they cut the flap in the eye..The laser is the safest of at least the most pain free.

[falconridge]

46Z, you have plagiarized from Issue #2 of The Science Creative Quarterly (Sept-Nov, 2006). Unless your real name is Kirk Mulatz, your post #10 in this thread lays PA open to charges of copyright violation and to the severe penalties attendant thereto; in fact, it may do so even if you did author, for that publication, the remarks you have cut-and-pasted without proper citation or permission. (http://www.scq.ubc.ca/?p=144)

I've noticed several such improprieties on this board, and already called at least one to your attention, Zilz, and another to PA's. Understand, this is no trivial matter; I know that PA works very hard to keep the board free of comments that may be libellous or contain copyright violations, but he is just one man trying to police a membership that now numbers more than 3,000. How about a little respect, hmmm? :mad: :ThmbDown:

Saddest of all, perhaps, is the lazy, ham-handed manner of your theft. Those fugitive, unresolved footnotes, "[11]" and "[9]," are a dead giveaway.

[46zilzal]

quoting a small portion of a large article is NOTHING.

No one is profiting monetarily from this and I won't tell the English teacher either, since it is not for publication.

so sue me for information theft.

[falconridge]

quoting a small portion of a large article is NOTHING."Quoting"? Where are the quotation marks? Is that key on your console in need of repair?

Granted, quoting a brief passage lies within the compass of "fair use." Still, it is legally (to say nothing of morally and ethically) incumbent upon anyone who does so to indicate which passage(s)--or idea(s) (intellectual property)--are derived from another work or are transcribed from another's remarks, and to cite or otherwise acknowledge said source(s). Moreover, you have lifted some 227 words, the entirety of "your" post--hardly what Kirk Mulatz or The Science Creative Quarterly or the University of British Columbia or their attorneys would likely consider a "small portion."

Of course I've no interest in suing anybody. Nobody stands to "profit," monetarily or otherwise, from such dishonesty. My point is that this kind of unprincipled behavior compromises PA's--your host's--position even as it erodes your own credibility among your colleagues.

I would have preferred not to air this as I have, but apparently the gentler, more discreet admonitions have gone unheeded. Public humiliation should always be a course of last resort, but, as the Carmelites nuns I knew in middle school so amply demonstrated, it can be effective.

[46zilzal]

This goes back to a long tradition: whenever patients of mine needed fruther information about a disease entity, I had my secretary copy the relevant pages of Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine so that they could take the INFORMATION home.

Intellectual property CRAP: they are just ideas. Once ideas are out in the public they become part of the recipient. Simple as that. Even Jefferson thought so as he was working on the constitution.

I didn't run to the publisher WORRIED that I had "taken" anything without permission. I just knew where the information was and provided it where it was needed. This was not "published" as it was only to quicken the informational transfer so that I was not going to have to go through a long oral transfer of the same.

SAME THING HERE. No one is taking anything for profit so no one needs have the copyright and patent attorney out here.

[46zilzal]

Thomas Jefferson on ideas: "If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it."

[46zilzal]

like Ralph Lauren.
http://weeklywire.com/ww/07-20-98/boston_feature_1.html

[falconridge]

Thomas Jefferson on ideas: "If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it."See? That wasn't so hard, was it?--putting in the quotation marks, I mean. That took, what, two keystrokes?

Happy though I am to read Jefferson again, clearly intellectual property was never the issue. My only mention of it was in a subordinate--effectively parenthetical--clause. The real point was, you made it appear that words someone else had written were your own. Now, Zil, I don't question your character or your motives, just your method. You wanted to share with several others what you know of particular medical procedures; that's admirable. You've things to do other than to fuss over your prose or to weave a new tapestry of ideas already well expressed by others; that's understandable. You provided a clear, concise, authoritative digest that both answers the original question and anticipates others that may be germane thereto; that, too, is commendable. My only beef is that, by omitting a few keystrokes (the " ... " and the link to Mulatz's article), you made it appear--despite what I sincerely believe were altruistic motives on your part--that you had authored those several sentences. That sort of thing makes for potential--and, considering the little it would have taken to set things aright, quite unnecessary--trouble for P.A.

Understand, I look forward to reading many future posts from 46zilzal, just as I've enjoyed and learned from many of your past submissions in this forum. I just want to know when it's 46 talking, and when it's someone else. While I don't presume to speak for P.A. or anyone else on this board, I suspect they'd want the same. Fair enough? :ThmbUp:

Hoping these mark my last words on the matter, :)

fr

[46zilzal]

I didn't put the quotes around it : I COPIED THEM ALONG WITH THE QUOTE.


bit of a nitpicker.....can't say I will follow YOUR rules on my expression.

[falconridge]

I didn't put the quotes around it : I COPIED THEM ALONG WITH THE QUOTE.


bit of a nitpicker.....can't say I will follow YOUR rules on my expression.Whose expression? :confused:

Zil, I tried to make nice. :bang: Just how much of my last post did you read?

Two hundred twenty-seven words makes for one HUGE nit--more like an infestation. I'm outta here.

--"Clifford Irving" :rolleyes:

[Tom]

I didn't put the quotes around it : I COPIED THEM ALONG WITH THE QUOTE.


bit of a nitpicker.....can't say I will follow YOUR rules on my expression.

I'm with you- it would have looked silly with TWO sets of ""quotes."" ;)

[PaceAdvantage]

I'm with falconridge on this one, and I apprecite him bringing this particular instance to light.

I can't understand, for the life of me, why people can't simply either:

a) acknowledge that the words they are copying are NOT their own, and note the original author/publication....

and/or

b) provide a simple link to the original source of their text, as they are invariably lifting this info off of some other website.

This is a serious issue, even if folks like 46 think otherwise. I've already had to deal privately with a very pissed off author whose work was plagiarized on this website, and I'd prefer not to have to go through that grief again....

[NY BRED]

[QUOTE=the_fat_man]Let me see, different ways I've lost when I've had the best horse;

16) equipment problems



sounds to me like you could find a surgeon walking into
surgery with blinkers on(first time):confused:

just kidding..

my wife had the surgery and thanks the lord ,she's ok

[Valuist]

I had Lasik surgery about 5 years ago. No real problems to speak of, although I've never had 20/20 vision. It was about 20/30 and now its around 20/50. I probably should get reading glasses but I was high risk; I had about 20/350 vision before Lasik and most places wouldn't do Lasik on me. But I love having no more contact lenses; no more conjuctivitis/pink eye that I used to get once or twice a year.

[so.cal.fan]

I didn't have laser surgery, I had radial kerototomy in 1995.
I was very nearsighted and I had one eye corrected to 20/20 the other eye corrected to about 20/60-20/80.
It's the same as laser but they did it with a little knife.
I haven't had any problems, and I don't have to wear any glasses at all, as one eye is for distance the other for reading.
Works pretty well.
My only knock is that I don't see as well at night, due to scar tissue, I suppose where they cut the cornea. However, I am very glad I had it done, as I used to wear contact lenses for 30 years and they were really starting to give me problems.
My son had laser eye surgery in 1999. He is very pleased with the results.
I would suggest finding out (do some research) on the best places to go and have this proceedure done. Don't go to some discount place.