Medical Forum / General / Vision / October 2004
contacts are great but can't read with them
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Bob - 19 Oct 2004 00:27 GMT I am considering Lasik or something similar to correct my nearsightedness. I have some astigmatism in one eye, but nothing too exciting. I currently have contacts, but mostly wear glasses.
My glasses are an old prescription and don't correct my myopia all that well, but good enough. At least I can read the newspaper with them on and can sort of see distant things.
If I wear my contacts - a recent exam (last summer) is when I got them - I have great vision - probably 20/15 or so, but I can't see anything within a 4-6 ft. radius clearly. They're a pain for that reason.
Now - if I get Lasik - will my eyesight be just like with contacts or what? My wife has pretty good distance vision, but only needs glasses for tiny print. I'd hate to have to wear glasses for everything within 4-6 ft. With my contacts I can't clearly read the speedometer in the car. Now, I can't drive with reading glasses. Is this normal presbyopia? If so, I'll stick with my current glasses which aren't too great for distance, but good enough. I don't know too many people in their 50s who have such bad close up vision problems as I do with my contacts in.
I'm hoping that Lasik's version of 20/20 will reduce the presbyopia radius to something normal like tiny print at 12" or so! But I guess that's too much to ask for, huh? And I don't like the idea of monovision really.
I'm a 51 yr old male, with moderate myopia, some astigmatism.
Mike Tyner - 19 Oct 2004 01:32 GMT If you have LASIK and get "perfect" results (zero distance refraction) then you can expect the same trouble as with your contacts.
Possible solutions include leaving one or both eyes a little "undercorrected," like your glasses.
Don't discount monovision until you've tried it with (temporary) contacts. At your age (same as me) I seldom fit contacts "perfect" in both eyes. Most people can tolerate _some_ degree of undercorrection in one eye, and "some" is lots better than "none".
-MT
>I am considering Lasik or something similar to correct my nearsightedness. >I [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > I'm a 51 yr old male, with moderate myopia, some astigmatism. Glenn - USAEyes.org - 19 Oct 2004 01:36 GMT For a detailed article on monovision LASIK, visit http://www.usaeyes.org/faq/subjects/monovision.htm
Glenn Hagele Executive Director Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
Dr. Leukoma - 19 Oct 2004 02:54 GMT > For a detailed article on monovision LASIK, visit > http://www.usaeyes.org/faq/subjects/monovision.htm [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > I am not a doctor. I like this warning on Glenn's monovision web page.
"... however monovision is not for everybody and some people really dislike it effect."
DrG
Glenn - USAEyes.org - 19 Oct 2004 03:00 GMT >I like this warning on Glenn's monovision web page. > >"... however monovision is not for everybody and some people really dislike >it effect." I done real good English too.
Glenn Hagele Executive Director Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
Dr. Leukoma - 19 Oct 2004 03:31 GMT >>I like this warning on Glenn's monovision web page. >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > I am not a doctor. Guess I have not room to brag. Whoops, I mean "no" room to brag.
DrG
Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org - 19 Oct 2004 06:23 GMT BTW, will you be in New Orleans for the AAO?
Dr. Leukoma - 19 Oct 2004 12:53 GMT Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org wrote in news:p599n05mialdgpv5cc470mcarraqctkqqm@4ax.com:
> BTW, will you be in New Orleans for the AAO? I didn't realize that optoms were welcomed.
DrG
Glenn - USAEyes.org - 19 Oct 2004 15:24 GMT >I didn't realize that optoms were welcomed. Oh yea. I forgot. Yet another of the turf war tactics. I wonder if the folks involved realize how silly they look to the outside. My goodness, they let ME in, but not optometrists. What logic is THAT?!
Glenn Hagele Executive Director Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
Mike Tyner - 19 Oct 2004 18:23 GMT > Oh yea. I forgot. Yet another of the turf war tactics. I wonder if > the folks involved realize how silly they look to the outside. My > goodness, they let ME in, but not optometrists. What logic is THAT?! You aren't seeking surgical priveleges in Oklahoma. ;)
They do take registration fees from PA's, nurses, ophthalmic assistants and the occasional stray dog.
Next they take away our library cards.
-MT
Ragnar Suomi - 19 Oct 2004 21:39 GMT I'm sure they let in ODs also, just not the ones that they know are quacks, which are often the ones that are most anxious to show up at these soirees. When they show up at the door with a t-shirt that reads "LASIK SUCKS!" they probably don't let that doctor in.
>>I didn't realize that optoms were welcomed. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >I am not a doctor. Dr. Leukoma - 19 Oct 2004 23:50 GMT > I'm sure they let in ODs also, just not the ones that they know are > quacks, which are often the ones that are most anxious to show up at > these soirees. > When they show up at the door with a t-shirt that reads "LASIK SUCKS!" > they probably don't let that doctor in. I'm sure you're right, Ragnar. However, they might be better served if they did let in the occasional critic who has something useful to contribute.
I would like to meet you at the door.
DrG
Dr. Leukoma - 20 Oct 2004 00:03 GMT >>I didn't realize that optoms were welcomed. > > Oh yea. I forgot. Yet another of the turf war tactics. I wonder if > the folks involved realize how silly they look to the outside. My > goodness, they let ME in, but not optometrists. What logic is THAT?! ...or how silly you look not knowing it.
Yes, what logic is that?
If there is a genuine interest in informational exchange, then I am open to a "parlay." Otherwise, I guess I can go another 54 years without attending.
DrG
Glenn - USAEyes.org - 20 Oct 2004 04:11 GMT It just means that there will be more medical presentations at the optometrists conventions. I don't think ASCRS has slammed the door shut as yet.
Glenn Hagele Executive Director Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
Dr. Leukoma - 20 Oct 2004 12:51 GMT > It just means that there will be more medical presentations at the > optometrists conventions. I don't think ASCRS has slammed the door > shut as yet. When I was in optometry school, quite a number of my professors were MD's.
DrG
Ragnar Suomi - 19 Oct 2004 21:28 GMT >Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance >glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org wrote in [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >DrG I doubt they put armed guards on the doors barring ODs.
The most vocal doctors are often the biggest quacks, as has been demonstrated in this newsgroup. It's no wonder that various organizations only want credible qualified physicians attending their seminars instead of every Tom, Dick and Greg.
Dr. Leukoma - 19 Oct 2004 02:51 GMT > I am considering Lasik or something similar to correct my > nearsightedness. I have some astigmatism in one eye, but nothing too [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > I'm a 51 yr old male, with moderate myopia, some astigmatism. If you elect to go with monovision LASIK, make sure that you try it out first with contact lenses. Some surgeons neglect this important step.
DrG
Glenn - USAEyes.org - 19 Oct 2004 03:06 GMT >If you elect to go with monovision LASIK, make sure that you try it out >first with contact lenses. Some surgeons neglect this important step. Yes they do, and for the life of me I can't figure that one out.
Without the contact lens trial the doctors have no way of knowing if the patient will like monovision at all, if 0.75 or 1.75 diopter undercorrection is better, if the patient will be able to drive at night with monovision, etc. If they get it wrong, then they have all the overhead expense of doing the surgery again. Doing monovision without a contact lens testing just makes no sense to me.
EVERYONE considering surgically induced monovision should try it with contacts for several weeks before they have it lasered into their eyes.
Glenn Hagele Executive Director Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
>>If you elect to go with monovision LASIK, make sure that you try it out >>first with contact lenses. Some surgeons neglect this important step. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the overhead expense of doing the surgery again. Doing monovision > without a contact lens testing just makes no sense to me. One of the forgotten problems in the statement above from Glenn is the increase of presbyopia over the years. It is not only about either 0.75 or 1.75 diopters at the specific moment you measure. If done on a relative young presbyopic you have most certainly a lesser addition as done on an older presbyopic.
Which addition should you choose, to strong and thereby having some spare for the without any doubt increasement of presbyopia but at the same time having a short reading distance, or a lower addition, knowing later on the client has to wear glasses or contactlenses to overcome the increasment in needed addition?
One of the advantages in contactlenses is the possibility to change the addition when needed , when having LASIK it is impossible. This has to be explained IMHO before surgery.
 Signature Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
Neither pro, nor anti, LASIK,LASEK,PRK etc......
Glenn - USAEyes.org - 19 Oct 2004 15:25 GMT Absolutely on target, Jan. Being undercorrected with LASIK at 45 does not mean you will be reading the newspaper without glasses at 60.
Glenn Hagele Executive Director Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
CHip - 19 Oct 2004 16:39 GMT If you opt for monovision, you may have trouble with close-focus work. I had monovision and found afterwards that surgery was quite difficult, as was threading needles, removing splinters and even fly-tying fish lures. With time I became quite farsighted in the eye that was originally 20:20 and am now approaching 20:20 in the eye that was burned for reading. Now when I wear glasses and look in the mirror one eye looks grossly enlarged in the lens.
Dr. Leukoma - 19 Oct 2004 23:47 GMT > If you opt for monovision, you > may have trouble with close-focus work. I had monovision and found [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > wear glasses and look in the mirror one eye looks grossly enlarged in > the lens. Because I value my stereopsis (3D vision) in the examination room, I cannot tolerate monovision. A sense of depth is very important when performing binocular retinoscopy.
Drg
Mike Tyner - 20 Oct 2004 08:29 GMT "Dr. Leukoma" <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com>
> tolerate monovision. A sense of depth is very important when performing > binocular retinoscopy. Which do you like better, Copeland, or W-A? :)
-MT
Dr. Leukoma - 20 Oct 2004 12:37 GMT > "Dr. Leukoma" <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > -MT OK. Go right ahead and have a good laugh at my expense. I just wanted to see if you were on your toes.
I meant binocular (indirect) ophthalmoscopy, of course. I use Keeler for BIO, and prefer WA for retinoscopy and direct ophthalmoscopy.
DrG
Robert Martellaro - 19 Oct 2004 20:54 GMT >>>If you elect to go with monovision LASIK, make sure that you try it out >>>first with contact lenses. Some surgeons neglect this important step. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> the overhead expense of doing the surgery again. Doing monovision >> without a contact lens testing just makes no sense to me.
>One of the forgotten problems in the statement above from Glenn is the >increase of presbyopia over the years. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >client has to wear glasses or contactlenses to overcome the increasment in >needed addition? Right. So if you shoot for 1.25 the patient will find this helpful, if they can handle having one eye blurred for distance and the other eye blurred for near, for only a short period of their life, probably about four to eight years, dependent on the frequency and distance of close tasks. One might argue that the use of monovision in refractive surgery is foolhardy since the efficacious window is so short term, and that creating a moderate degree of permanent anisometropia (more than 1.25D of unequal refractive power) seems to be at odds with "first do no harm".
>One of the advantages in contactlenses is the possibility to change the >addition when needed , when having LASIK it is impossible. >This has to be explained IMHO before surgery. My two cents
Robert Martellaro ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Optician/Owner Roberts Optical robopt@execpc.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself." - Richard Feynman
Ragnar Suomi - 19 Oct 2004 21:23 GMT >>>If you elect to go with monovision LASIK, make sure that you try it out >>>first with contact lenses. Some surgeons neglect this important step. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >One of the forgotten problems in the statement above from Glenn is the >increase of presbyopia over the years. Presbyopia increases over the years? Astonishing. I don't suppose you knew that presbyopia literally means "old eyes".
>>One of the forgotten problems in the statement above from Glenn is the >>increase of presbyopia over the years. > > Presbyopia increases over the years? Astonishing. > I don't suppose you knew that presbyopia literally means "old eyes". Indeed, I did not.
The same to myopia which is translated for laymen in "shortsightness"?
Which reminds me Ragnar, your myopia may be fixed having LASIK done , your shortsigtness ain't.
 Signature Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
Neither pro, nor anti, LASIK,LASEK,PRK etc......
Ragnar Suomi - 20 Oct 2004 17:17 GMT >>>One of the forgotten problems in the statement above from Glenn is the >>>increase of presbyopia over the years. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Which reminds me Ragnar, your myopia may be fixed having LASIK done , your >shortsigtness ain't. You really surprise me. I thought you were smarter. If someone is a myope, they will always be a myope. It can't be fixed. Glasses, contact lenses, and surgery are merely compensating for the refractive errors caused by the myopia.
>>Which reminds me Ragnar, your myopia may be fixed having LASIK done , your >>shortsigtness ain't. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > fixed. Glasses, contact lenses, and surgery are merely compensating > for the refractive errors caused by the myopia. Peanuts to surprise someone with such a lack of knowledge in eyecare. I surprise you even more, you are right.......... when glasses and contactlenses are involved and necessary to compensate for an optical error such as myopia. But Ragnar, I did not mentioned glasses or contactlenses, it is refractive surgery I am talking about. Your refraction error of the eye is brought back to zero if your surgeon did his job in a proper way. Having non errors in refraction of the eye is called emmetropia. But you are still shortsighted in my opinion.
 Signature Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
Neither pro, nor anti, LASIK,LASEK,PRK etc......
RM - 20 Oct 2004 22:23 GMT No, you are wrong. While LASIK does correct the refractive error, it does not eliminate all the problems associated with the myopic eye. There is more to myopia than refraction. For instance, the "film" in the back of the eye called the retina is "stretched" in the myopic eye which is not a good thing. There is really nothing that can be done about that. It's people like you that give out misinformation. I would hate for any person contemplating LASIK surgery to think that they are going to have perfect vision for the rest of their lives. They will still get presbyopia and cataracts and the possibility of glaucoma and retinal detachments, etc. just like patients who don't have surgery do. It's pretty ridiculous to assume that removing a paper-thin circular disk about 7mm in diameter is going to miraculously solve all the problems in an organ the size of a golf ball.
>>>Which reminds me Ragnar, your myopia may be fixed having LASIK done , your >>>shortsigtness ain't. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >Having non errors in refraction of the eye is called emmetropia. >But you are still shortsighted in my opinion. Dr. Leukoma - 20 Oct 2004 22:55 GMT > No, you are wrong. While LASIK does correct the refractive error, it > does not eliminate all the problems associated with the myopic eye. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > disk about 7mm in diameter is going to miraculously solve all the > problems in an organ the size of a golf ball. Well, for once I agree with Ragnar. Not only does LASIK NOT eliminate all of the problems associated with the myopic eye, it introduces a few more problems as well, i.e. dry eyes, vitreous floaters, etc.
DrG
serebel - 21 Oct 2004 03:28 GMT "Dr. Leukoma" <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote in message news:<.
> Well, for once I agree with Ragnar. Not only does LASIK NOT eliminate all > of the problems associated with the myopic eye, it introduces a few more
> problems as well, i.e. dry eyes, vitreous floaters, etc. > > DrG Not always.
SErebel
Ragnar Suomi - 21 Oct 2004 06:38 GMT >"Dr. Leukoma" <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote in message news:<. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >SErebel Exactly SErebel. Notice how Dr. Quack has once again forgotten to mention that the benefits of LASIK far outweigh the problems of it. BUT, by the same token, if someone doesn't have any significant eye problem to begin with, or if they are otherwise inappropriate for LASIK, it would be silly to have LASIK done. I have seen a guy with -.50 eyes have LASIK done, and one 68 year old man got PRK (both at LVI).
Otis Brown - 21 Oct 2004 16:58 GMT > >"Dr. Leukoma" <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote in message news:<. > >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > > >SErebel Question:
How often is Lasik done at -0.5 to -1.0 diopters, and who decides this issue.
Best,
Otis
> Exactly SErebel. Notice how Dr. Quack has once again forgotten to > mention that the benefits of LASIK far outweigh the problems of it. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > -.50 eyes have LASIK done, and one 68 year old man got PRK (both at > LVI). RM - 21 Oct 2004 22:57 GMT >> >"Dr. Leukoma" <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote in message news:<. >> >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >Otis I don't know how often it's done, but it's too often. LVI does it. In fact, one of the criteria to qualify for those $499 prices in their ads is that your refractive error has to be less than -1.25.
Glenn - USAEyes.org - 21 Oct 2004 23:05 GMT >Question: > >How often is Lasik done at -0.5 to -1.0 diopters, >and who decides this issue. To my knowledge exact information does not exist, but from my experience working with the industry the answers are: 1) not often, 2) patient and doctor.
Usually when correction is performed on this low of a myope it is an enhancement surgery and the flap already exists plus actual knowledge of how the patient's eye responds.
Glenn Hagele Executive Director Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
Rebecca - 22 Oct 2004 00:01 GMT > Question: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Otis Not as rarely as it should be!
RM - 22 Oct 2004 17:55 GMT >> Question: >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Not as rarely as it should be! I believe I said the same thing yesterday, but on the other hand, refusing treatment to a patient is a touchy issue.
Glenn - USAEyes.org - 22 Oct 2004 22:46 GMT >Not as rarely as it should be! I concur. LASIK on a virgin eye with only 1.50 myopia is a worrisome thought.
Glenn Hagele Executive Director Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
DoctorMyEye - 23 Oct 2004 14:59 GMT I have seen LASIK performed on eyes that were pre-operatively +.75 spheres (because the patient "wanted" it)
> >Not as rarely as it should be! > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I am not a doctor. Glenn - USAEyes.org - 23 Oct 2004 15:21 GMT There is a tremendous difference in the visual quality effect of a +0.75 hyperope (farsighted) and a -0.75 myope (nearsighted). The potential benefit to the patient is very different. This thread started discussing myopes.
Glenn Hagele Executive Director Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
Ragnar Suomi - 24 Oct 2004 03:23 GMT Heh.. I swear I didn't read this message before I posted the same thing 5 minutes ago.
Leave it to the ilk of Minarik to omit any comment about how +.75 is much more significant than -.75
>There is a tremendous difference in the visual quality effect of a >+0.75 hyperope (farsighted) and a -0.75 myope (nearsighted). The [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >I am not a doctor. Ragnar Suomi - 24 Oct 2004 03:20 GMT I wish you would have said H-Lasik instead of Lasik. They are in many ways opposite procedures. hyperopic +.75 is a lot more significant than myopic -.75 but I still am not crazy abou the idea of H-Lasik. Since H-Lasik is primarily for patients over 40, they should be presented with the idea of having IOLs of some sort put in rather than have LASIK. Then they don't have to ever worry about cataracts.
>I have seen LASIK performed on eyes that were pre-operatively +.75 >spheres (because the patient "wanted" it) [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> >> I am not a doctor. Dr. Leukoma - 21 Oct 2004 22:43 GMT >>"Dr. Leukoma" <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote in message news:<. >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > -.50 eyes have LASIK done, and one 68 year old man got PRK (both at > LVI). For some people, the benefits do outweigh the risks. For some, they do not.
DrG
Dr. Leukoma - 21 Oct 2004 12:54 GMT > it introduces a few more >> problems as well, i.e. dry eyes, vitreous floaters, etc. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > SErebel Point taken. Not always.
DrG
RT - 21 Oct 2004 05:23 GMT > Well, for once I agree with Ragnar. Not only does LASIK NOT eliminate all > of the problems associated with the myopic eye, it introduces a few more > problems as well, i.e. dry eyes, vitreous floaters, etc. I think you forgot the word "sometimes"
ie. sometimes it introduces a few more problems as well, i.e. dry eyes, vitreous floaters, etc.
> No, you are wrong. While LASIK does correct the refractive error, it > does not eliminate all the problems associated with the myopic eye. > There is more to myopia than refraction. For instance, the "film" in > the back of the eye called the retina is "stretched" in the myopic eye > which is not a good thing. Many laughs Ragnar, you really are a joke, each myopic eye has a stretched retina? May I remind you an error in the optic system of S+0.25 diopters already is called a myopic eye? What a great knowledge in eyecare you have hahahahahahahahah............dammmmmm.... my pants are wet.
I would hate for
> any person contemplating LASIK surgery to think that they are going to > have perfect vision for the rest of their lives. Serious, this last part of your rubbish is quit acceptable and good information Ragnar.
 Signature Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
Neither pro, nor anti, LASIK,LASEK,PRK etc......
Dan Abel - 20 Oct 2004 20:16 GMT > You really surprise me. I thought you were smarter. > If someone is a myope, they will always be a myope. It can't be > fixed. Glasses, contact lenses, and surgery are merely compensating > for the refractive errors caused by the myopia. I'm not sure I can agree with your definition. I'm a layperson, but it seems like this refractive error *is* myopia. If the refractive error is gone, then there isn't any myopia.
 Signature Dan Abel Sonoma State University AIS dabel@sonic.net
Glenn - USAEyes.org - 20 Oct 2004 20:45 GMT Myopia is caused by the eye being too long. Hyperopia is caused by the eye being too short. Presbyopia is when the natural lens of the eye is unable to change focus from distance to near.
Refractive surgery does not change the length of the eye. It only changes the shape of the cornea to compensate for the length of the eye.
Glenn Hagele Executive Director Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
> Refractive surgery does not change the length of the eye. It only > changes the shape of the cornea to compensate for the length of the > eye. Better said, it is to compensate for the error in refraction related to the lenght of the eye. The optical error is brought back to non error and therefore you might say the eye is emmetropic Besides, when you want to split hairs, the eye-lenght is shorter as before in this former myopic example
 Signature Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
Neither pro, nor anti, LASIK,LASEK,PRK etc......
RM - 20 Oct 2004 22:37 GMT >> Refractive surgery does not change the length of the eye. It only >> changes the shape of the cornea to compensate for the length of the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Besides, when you want to split hairs, the eye-lenght is shorter as before >in this former myopic example Yes.. it's shorter.. by about a quarter of a millimeter.. which is nothing compared to the elongated eye. You should cease posting on this topic to avoid making a total fool of yourself.
And Jan.. don't go blaming Marsha Marsha Marsha.
>>> Refractive surgery does not change the length of the eye. It only >>> changes the shape of the cornea to compensate for the length of the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > And Jan.. don't go blaming Marsha Marsha Marsha. Again it shows you have not the slightest idea what you are talking about. With great pleasure I hear you call me a fool. I should be really scared the time you call me an intelligent person. Ask your ( former ?) friend the optometrist about the definitions in ametropia. I know, it is cast pearls before swine but give it a try maybe you catch it.
 Signature Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
Neither pro, nor anti, LASIK,LASEK,PRK etc......
RM - 20 Oct 2004 22:34 GMT >Myopia is caused by the eye being too long. Hyperopia is caused by >the eye being too short. Presbyopia is when the natural lens of the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >I am not a doctor. I find it ironic that the people giving out the most accurate and unbiased information in this newsgroup are not eye doctors. No wonder some of these doctors get banned from meetings. You would think they would take the hint from their peers.
Thanks for clarifying the Myopia definition Glenn.
Dr. Leukoma - 20 Oct 2004 22:42 GMT > I find it ironic that the people giving out the most accurate and > unbiased information in this newsgroup are not eye doctors. No wonder > some of these doctors get banned from meetings. You would think they > would take the hint from their peers. > > Thanks for clarifying the Myopia definition Glenn. You need to check your premises.
One group of eye doctors has been banned from another group's meetings. There is not a doctor in this group who has been "singled out" for exclusion.
DrG
Ragnar Suomi - 21 Oct 2004 05:57 GMT Again, that is not true. While not freely admitted, just about anybody can get in if approved. There are only 2 eye doctors posting in this newsgroup, neither of which are permitted to do what they constantly try to discredit.
It's a shame that a few unprofessional doctors have caused such a rift that such protective measures are required.
>> I find it ironic that the people giving out the most accurate and >> unbiased information in this newsgroup are not eye doctors. No wonder [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >DrG Glenn - USAEyes.org - 21 Oct 2004 23:09 GMT >You need to check your premises. > >One group of eye doctors has been banned from another group's meetings. >There is not a doctor in this group who has been "singled out" for >exclusion. For further clarification, the optometrists are not being excluded from the American Academy of Ophthalmology meeting because they don't know anything, they are being excluded because the ophthalmic organization is afraid they will learn too much.
Glenn Hagele Executive Director Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
RM - 22 Oct 2004 17:56 GMT ahh... I don't think not attending a meeting is going to keep anyone from learning too much... that is silly I'm sure an optometrist could get in if they asked. It's just not an "open invitation" because the small number of psycho docs out there don't behave themselves at these meetings in which they forget that they are guests.
>>You need to check your premises. >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >I am not a doctor. RM - 20 Oct 2004 22:29 GMT I was pointing out the more precise definition. The layperson interpretation is fine with me, but Jan felt it necessary to say that the more precise definintion is wrong.
>> You really surprise me. I thought you were smarter. >> If someone is a myope, they will always be a myope. It can't be [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >seems like this refractive error *is* myopia. If the refractive error is >gone, then there isn't any myopia. >I was pointing out the more precise definition. The layperson > interpretation is fine with me, but Jan felt it necessary to say that > the more precise definintion is wrong. Put on your reading glasses Ragnar.
"better said'' is used not the word "wrong" Glenn's posting is correct but he did not explained why someone who is fixed by LASIK is to be called an emmetropic (if done correct), not a myopic.
 Signature Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
Neither pro, nor anti, LASIK,LASEK,PRK etc......
DoctorMyEye - 19 Oct 2004 14:23 GMT I agree, Glenn. When I see an unhappy post-op LASIK monovision patient, they always look at me like I'm from another planet when I ask them if they tried monovision in contact lenses before they had it lasered into their eyes. Trial fitting MUST BECOME a standard of care.
Incidentally, I have stumbled upon a "new" way to explain monovision. I mention to the patient that his/her brain is always making choices between the two sides of the body that they never "think" about. For example, if you approach a curb and have to "think" about how to step, you could simply fall while deciding. So, you simply step with your "favorite" foot.
When monovision works, the brain decides at a subconscious level to use both pictures simultaneously and share the best of both sides, picking one when it "has to."
This is consistent with the work of Dr. Jan Jurkus from the Illinois College of Optometry, who has shown that people who have total "one-handedness", as if the second half of their body can't catch anything, are very poor monovision wearers. Their brains don't want to share the picture from side to side, as they have never done so for anthing else.
> >If you elect to go with monovision LASIK, make sure that you try it out > >first with contact lenses. Some surgeons neglect this important step. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > I am not a doctor. Rebecca - 19 Oct 2004 16:02 GMT > If you elect to go with monovision LASIK, make sure that you try it out > first with contact lenses. Some surgeons neglect this important step. Very important. Reportedly at least 1 in 5 people are not ABLE (for physiological reasons) to adapt to monovision, to say nothing of those who simply decide they don't like it. For a surgeon to fail to perform this step is altogether against the patient's interests because if the patient is in that 20+%, either the surgery will have been a waste of time because the patient will have to wear glasses again, or the patient will find himself subjected to the significantly increased risk of a second surgery.
It should also be a proper trial - the patient should wear the lenses for several days so that they can see how their vision will fare during all different kinds of activities they normally engage in.
Rebecca Petris www.lasermyeye.org
RT - 19 Oct 2004 16:40 GMT The way monovision was presented to me was, oh well, if you don't like it, you can always have your undercorrected eye retreated to be corrected for distance as if it were a no big deal everyday thing. Kind of like, if it doesn't fit you can always return to the store for an exchange.
> > If you elect to go with monovision LASIK, make sure that you try it out > > first with contact lenses. Some surgeons neglect this important step. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Rebecca Petris > www.lasermyeye.org > The way monovision was presented to me was, oh well, if you don't like > it, you can always have your undercorrected eye retreated to be > corrected for distance as if it were a no big deal everyday thing. Kind > of like, if it doesn't fit you can always return to the store for an > exchange. The above is correct when wearing contactlenses, having had LASIK or an other refraction surgery is a totally different story.
 Signature Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
Neither pro, nor anti, LASIK,LASEK,PRK etc......
Dr. Leukoma - 19 Oct 2004 23:46 GMT > The way monovision was presented to me was, oh well, if you don't like > it, you can always have your undercorrected eye retreated to be > corrected for distance as if it were a no big deal everyday thing. > Kind of like, if it doesn't fit you can always return to the store for > an exchange. Well then, there you go.
DrG
Glenn - USAEyes.org - 20 Oct 2004 04:14 GMT And then you have all the risk of two surgeries when a pair of contacts worn for a few weeks would do the job.
Glenn Hagele Executive Director Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
MS - 19 Oct 2004 19:32 GMT Anyone 51 years old has presbyopia, regardless of whatever other eye problems you have. If you wear contacts, you will either have to wear reading glasses over them to read, or multifocal or monovision contacts.
No, Lasik does not cure presbyopia at all. If you have Lasik to reduce your myopia, you will still have to wear reading glasses to read. Or you can have the Lasik done in a manner similar to monovision contacts. If so, you should try the monovision contacts for quite a while first, to see how you like that.
It is unusual that you say you cannot read the speedometer in the car with your contacts on. I doubt that is due to presbyopia, as the speedometer is not very close to your face, and the characters are large. It may be due to your astigmatism. The contact lens prescription you have might not be as good as you think. Are they soft lenses? You might then need toric soft lenses, to correct the astigmatism, at least in that one eye.
You say you had an eye exam this last summer, in which you were prescribed the contacts. The eye doctor didn't say anything about your presbyopia, and possible solutions with the contacts to deal with presbyopia? If not, I would suggest going to a different eye doctor next time.
With monovision one eye is purposely under-corrected for the myopia, so it can be used for reading. One eye becomes dominant for distance, the other for reading. Strange idea, but the mind becomes used to it. Of course it's a compromise, but the only non-compromise is to wear reading glasses over your contacts or Lasik. The only way to have Lasik and to be able to read without reading glasses is to have the operation done with monovision, undercorrecting one eye, similar to how it is done with contacts.
There are also multifocal contact lenses now, in many different designs. I am sure if you did a search on Google Groups, you will find many discussions about them on this newsgroup, different kinds, etc. They are supposed to correct presbyopia as well as your other vision problems. Many different ways of doing that. All far from perfect. Your distance vision with those will not be as good as wearing single vision distance contacts, your reading vision will not be as good as with wearing reading glasses. But you might be able to get by, for both vision and reading, without glasses. Hopefully better designs of multifocal contacts will be developed in the future. Both the multifocal and the monovision methods for presbyopes to wear contacts and read without reading glasses, are compromises, and far from perfect, but you might get by with them. The only way to have the best vision at both distances is to wear contacts fitted only for distance (or have Lasik only for distance, if that is your preference), and wear reading glasses for reading. But reading glasses are a hassle, so it's a trade-off.
> I am considering Lasik or something similar to correct my nearsightedness. I > have some astigmatism in one eye, but nothing too exciting. I currently have [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > I'm a 51 yr old male, with moderate myopia, some astigmatism. Bryce Carlson - 19 Oct 2004 20:31 GMT Bob wrote in message news:
> I am considering Lasik or something similar to correct my nearsightedness. I > have some astigmatism in one eye, but nothing too exciting. I currently have [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > I'm a 51 yr old male, with moderate myopia, some astigmatism. From the way you describe things, Bob, it is very possible your contact lens Rx is "overminused." That is, it leaves you slightly farsighted and you use your remaining accommodation ability to bring your effective Rx to plano. In middle-aged people, this often results is truly excellent distance vision, but compromised middle-distance vision, as well as horrible close-up vision. This overminusing occurs because some people like the super-crisp distance vision they get by using their accommodation ability to fine tune a slightly plus Rx. They don't realize that by doing this they exacerbate any existing presbyopia. Even though they know better, ODs often go along with this because the patient wants it and it doesn't damage the eye in any way. Of course, it is also possible you just suffer from an age-accelerated form of presbyopia, but I don't think so, because if that were the case spectacles that give you good close-up vision would result in quite significant myopia and very poor distance vision, but from what you say that does not appear to be the case. I suggest you go to your OD and have him fit you with a set of contact lenses that have the weakest Rx necessary to bring your distance vision up to a clear 20/20. It is likely this will solve your middle-distance problem, and improve your close-up vision noticeably. This is also the vision you are likely to get with LASIK surgery. Also, as others have pointed out, you could also opt for monovision LASIK, though a contact lens trial is a must, as many people do not like monovision even though it works.
Bryce Carlson, PhD
> Bob wrote in message news: >> I am considering Lasik or something similar to correct my [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > > Bryce Carlson, PhD An OD ''overminused'' a 51 years old, you must be out of your mind. ''Overminusing'' gives you a better vision ? what an unprofessional idea. OD's often go along with ''overminusing'' ? see the above
Read the statement Bob has made about his old glasses, they do not correct his myopia completely and therefore you might consider these glasses as ''underminused'' and also as a (weak) pair of reading glasses to Bob. If Bob's myopia is exceeding the 5 diopters you have to consider the accommodation- and convergence- effects when wearing contactlenses instead of glasses. An eyecare specialist should be familiar with these effects when explaining the pro's and contra's in LASIK in my opinion.
 Signature Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
Neither pro, nor anti, LASIK,LASEK,PRK etc......
Bryce Carlson - 20 Oct 2004 04:42 GMT Jan wrote in message news:
> Bryce Carlson schreef in bericht: > > From the way you describe things, Bob, it is very possible your [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > > > Bryce Carlson, PhD Taking into consideration that English is not your native language, Jan, I will do my best to respond to your somewhat jumbled and generally misinformed post.
> An OD "overminused" a 51 years old, you must be out of your mind. > "Overminusing" gives you a better vision? what an unprofessional idea. > OD's often go along with ''overminusing'' ? Yes, at the patient's request, ODs do sometimes slightly overminus patients in this age group, even though it exacerbates any existing presbyopia. Some patients like it because it allows them to use their natural lens (through accommodation) to "squeeze" their effective Rx down to a perfect plano, even eliminating small amounts of cylinder (which non-toric RGP and soft lenses cannot do).
> Read the statement Bob has made about his old glasses, they do not correct > his myopia completely and therefore you might consider these glasses as > "underminused" and also as a (weak) pair of reading glasses to Bob. Yes, and that leads to the key point you obviously missed, Jan. The fact that a pair of old spectacles strong enough to give Bob "good enough" distance vision to function, also provide him with good close-up vision, indicates that he is not strongly presbyopic but, rather, retains some accommodation and is about as presbyopic as one would expect for a person of his age (51). A person of his age, properly corrected for distance vision, would not be expected to have the difficulty with mid-range vision Bob alludes to, unless he were overminused in his contacts -- ergo, it is likely Bob is overminused in his contacts.
> If Bob's myopia is exceeding the 5 diopters you have to consider the > accommodation- and convergence- effects when wearing contactlenses instead > of glasses. > An eyecare specialist should be familiar with these effects when explaining > the pro's and contra's in LASIK in my opinion. Assuming Bob is neither exophoric nor esophoric (and he indicates neither), any prism effects in spectacles -- as well as the lack of said effects in contacts -- would not be a factor causing the blurred vision he experiences at mid- and close-up distances. As to full disclosure by eyecare specialists of all pertinent facts before recommending refractive surgery, I completely agree -- as does everyone else on this BB.
Now, one closing statement. I have spent the last five years carefully researching LASIK and other refractive surgery procedures, and I have written extensively about my findings on this and several other RS bulletin boards, as well as in literally hundreds of private e.mails. I have certainly learned a lot, and I continue to learn more every day. In fact, more than one expert in the field has told me that from a theoretical standpoint I know far more about refractive surgery than do most refractive surgeons. Perhaps, perhaps not. In any case, I have paid my dues, and while I am happy to discuss -- even argue -- RS theory and practice with anyone, regardless of their expertise or background, I am not happy to put up with boorish ad hominem slams, such as "you must be out of your mind," from the likes of Jan, or anyone else. I just have better and more productive things to do with my life. Accordingly, this will be my last post on this bulletin board. I wish you all well, and I hope this site can learn to skip the personal attacks and focus, instead, on being a good source for information and civil debate on refractive surgery.
Bryce Carlson, PhD
> Jan wrote in message news: >> Bryce Carlson schreef in bericht: [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > patients in this age group, even though it exacerbates any existing > presbyopia. The simple statement "Even though they know better, ODs often go along with this" is an irritating one to any OD, it ain't true When done, certainly not often and I doubt it is done with an 51 years old. When done BTW it shall not exceed the -0.25 dpt.
Some patients like it because it allows them to use their
> natural lens (through accommodation) to "squeeze" their effective Rx > down to a perfect plano, even eliminating small amounts of cylinder > (which non-toric RGP and soft lenses cannot do). Nonsense, an effective Rx is prescribed to achieve just this perfect plano normally (when speaking of glasses) Theoreticaly speaking, a person who is overcorrected with minuspower and who is not accommodating has a lesser vision acuity don't you agree? Occasionally an OD prescribes an undercorrected Rx in early presbyopic myopics to make it possibly to read in the mid-short distance. Bob is not an early presbyopic beeing 51 years old.
>> Read the statement Bob has made about his old glasses, they do not >> correct [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > rather, retains some accommodation and is about as presbyopic as one > would expect for a person of his age (51). Certainly Bryce, assuming Bob's glasses are 1 dioptre underprescribed and Bob at his age still beeing able to accommodate 1.5 to 2.0 dioptres he can read the paper at a distance of 40 - 33 cm. Knowning driving a car in the US is allowed already with a vision acuity of 20/40 makes me think Bob's "good enough'' distance vision is about the same as this requirement. Knowing his best corrected vision acuity is 1.2 it is not that strange to assume his glasses are under corrected at least 1 dioptre to make it possible to get this vision acuity of 20/40 for distance.
A person of his age,
> properly corrected for distance vision, would not be expected to have > the difficulty with mid-range vision Bob alludes to, unless he were > overminused in his contacts -- ergo, it is likely Bob is overminused > in his contacts. Are you familiar with the comfort high myopic people have in reading when wearing glasses instead of contactlenses or having LASIK done? Obviously not. A high myopic wearing glasses has to accommodate less comparing to the same high myopic wearing contactlenses or having LASIK done to achieve the same reading distance. A high myopic wearing glasses has to converge less comparing to the same high myopic wearing contactlenses or having LASIK done to achieve a single image at the same nearby point.
>> If Bob's myopia is exceeding the 5 diopters you have to consider the >> accommodation- and convergence- effects when wearing contactlenses [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > recommending refractive surgery, I completely agree -- as does > everyone else on this BB. I am not talking about exophoric or esophoric aspects. I am talking about the possibility Bob is an higher myopic. Higher myopics have ,when wearing glasses some pleasant side effects (see my earlier statements) When changing to contactlenses or having LASIK these pleasant side effects dissapear. An "often" forgotten issue and obviously you have no knowledge about this phenomenon.
> Now, one closing statement. I have spent the last five years > carefully researching LASIK and other refractive surgery procedures, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Bryce Carlson, PhD If you play at bowls you must look for rubbers Accusing OD's of prescribing ''overminused'' Rx's very often is not correct and it is a quit irritating pronunciation which as to be corrected. Trying to show you some aspects when speaking about technical details in glasses should not be that evil I suppose, after all you still want to learn as you stated. Your knowledge about the surgery aspects maybe fine, your technical knowledge in glasses or refraction matters are subject to improvement.
 Signature Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
Neither pro, nor anti, LASIK,LASEK,PRK etc......
Bryce Carlson - 21 Oct 2004 01:29 GMT Jan wrote in message news:
> Certainly Bryce, assuming Bob's glasses are 1 dioptre underprescribed and > Bob at his age still beeing able to accommodate 1.5 to 2.0 dioptres he can [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > assume his glasses are under corrected at least 1 dioptre to make it > possible to get this vision acuity of 20/40 for distance. I can't resist one last try at a little logic and reason with you, Jan. You see the pieces but you can't see the pie. So, let me make it as simple as possible for you:
(1) We agree that Bob's old spectacles probably undercorrect him by about 1 D, or so, which gives him "good enough" distance vision of about 20/40, or so.
(2) We agree that Bob, at age 51, probably has about 1.5 D to 2.0 D, or so, of accommodation remaining, which allows him to read clearly at a distance of about 33 cm to 40 cm (13 in to 16 in) when wearing his old spectacles.
(3) So, we agree that for Bob's old specs to work as well as they do for both near and far distances, he must have some accommodation remaining -- which is typical of people of his age (51).
(4) Now, people of Bob's age, who have the amount of accommodation remaining that Bob apparently has, do not, *when properly corrected for distance*, see mid-range objects (4 ft to 6 ft) highly blurred.
(5) However, Bob does see such mid-range objects highly blurred when he wears his contacts, therefore, the conclusion is that Bob is *not* properly corrected for distance in his contacts.
(6) Now, given all the above, what sort of improper correction for distance would allow Bob to see 20/15 at distance in his contacts, but leave his mid-range and close-up vision highly blurred? The one and only answer is a slight overminusing of his Rx in contacts. Ergo, it is likely Bob is slightly overminused in his contacts.
(7) And, finally, your point about high myopia and prism effects in spectacles is just an irrelevant red herring (I imagine Holland has a lot of those ;-). Spectacles with big minus Rx's can, indeed, produce a certain amount of prism, which can affect convergence, but has little to no effect on accommodation. That is, even though convergence and accommodation are linked, the prism effects in high-minus Rx spectacles can converge the separate images of an object with less convergence effort than normal, but the converged image will be somewhat blurred unless the normal amount of accommodation effort is exerted. Consequently, to the degree that your point about prism effects in high minus Rx's has any validity, it does not pertain to this discussion about Bob and his vision in contact lenses.
If you still don't get it, Jan, I'm afraid that's your problem. I'm outta here folks. And this time I really mean it.
Bryce Carlson, PhD
> Jan wrote in message news: >> Certainly Bryce, assuming Bob's glasses are 1 dioptre underprescribed and [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > only answer is a slight overminusing of his Rx in contacts. Ergo, it > is likely Bob is slightly overminused in his contacts. I must agree Bryce, this make cense assuming the amount in accommodation is really 1.5 to 2 diopters and his undercorrection is 1 diopter.
> (7) And, finally, your point about high myopia and prism effects in > spectacles is just an irrelevant red herring (I imagine Holland has a [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Bryce Carlson, PhD A weak move Bryce but if you want me to show some of the red herring (we are used to eat them raw) issues you have to come back. A small herring: a myopic ODS having S-8.00 has to accommodate 1.60 dpt to achieve the effect of 2.00 dpt when wearing glasses, if wearing contactlenses he has to accommodate the full 2.00 dpts.
 Signature Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
Neither pro, nor anti, LASIK,LASEK,PRK etc......
Dr. Leukoma - 20 Oct 2004 12:45 GMT > Now, one closing statement. I have spent the last five years > carefully researching LASIK and other refractive surgery procedures, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Bryce Carlson, PhD Are you taking Ragnar with you? :)
DrG
Ragnar Suomi - 20 Oct 2004 17:14 GMT >> Now, one closing statement. I have spent the last five years >> carefully researching LASIK and other refractive surgery procedures, [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >DrG You would just love to have the inmates take over the asylum. It's interesting that you are pleased with the departure of Bryce Carlson.
Dr. Leukoma - 20 Oct 2004 22:44 GMT >>Are you taking Ragnar with you? :) >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It's interesting that you are pleased with the departure of Bryce > Carlson. You cannot infer from my statement that I am glad that Bryce Carlson is leaving. What you can infer from my statement is that I wish you would leave. He can stay, but if he is going, perhaps you will join him, and then the rest of us can have civil dialogue.
Bryce: Will you stay if Ragnar goes?
DrG
Ragnar Suomi - 21 Oct 2004 06:04 GMT >>>Are you taking Ragnar with you? :) >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >DrG Who is the "us" you had in mind to have civil discussions with? That requires two civil parties. Therefore, a civil discussion with you is impossible. Doctors must be upfront with people. Deception is intolerable. If someone posts an erroneous message as a lay-person, people won't accept it without being at least sceptical. If someone posts an erroneious message as a doctor, there are big problems. Many people accept what a doctor says as being accurate, which is very dangerous - especially when that doctor is intentionally misleading people.
MS - 21 Oct 2004 04:36 GMT You don't even mention multifocal contacts, which is certainly something he should try, if he is interested in going without reading glasses. Single vision contacts (or single vision Lasik) will require reading glasses for reading, while multifocal or monovision contacts, if he could get used to them, would probably enable him to read without reading glasses for most situations, except perhaps very tiny print. For Lasik there is no multifocal, monovision would be the only way to go, if he wants to read without glasses. (As you say, he would need to try that for a long time with contacts, before having his eyes altered that way with surgery.)
As I mentioned in another post, these options (both multifocal and monovision) are a compromise, a trade-off, you don't have perfect vision with them in either short or long range, but perhaps passable in both ranges, without glasses. Either can take quite a while to get used to as well, so one would have to be prepared to give a long trial.
> Bob wrote in message news: > > I am considering Lasik or something similar to correct my nearsightedness. I [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > Bryce Carlson, PhD
|
|
|