 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / April 2005Can lasik be used to increase myopia
I have mild myopia at -2/-1.75 but I would like to be as nearsighted as my girlfriend as we both have a fettish for nearsightedness. Is it possible to have my myopia increased to say -6 using eye surgery? Who would be willing to do such a procedure? Thanks! Charles It is physically possible to induce myopia (this would be called hyperopic correction), but I doubt a reasonable ophthalmologist would even consider changing you from 2.00 D myopic to 6.00 D. I politely suggest that you and your girlfriend should consider a serious evaluation of why you would want to become more nearsighted. 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. > It is physically possible to induce myopia (this would be called > hyperopic correction), but I doubt a reasonable ophthalmologist would > even consider changing you from 2.00 D myopic to 6.00 D. > > I politely suggest that you and your girlfriend should consider a > serious evaluation of why you would want to become more nearsighted. Perhaps they're watchmakers. If one can select nearsight or farsight or monovision when having a cataract replacement, why can't it be an option with lasik? There are a lot of advantages to being nearsighted. What REALLY sucks is astigmatism :-(  SignatureCheers, Bev ========================================= "Welcome to Hell, here's your accordion." > Perhaps they're watchmakers. If one can select nearsight or farsight or > monovision when having a cataract replacement, why can't it be an option > with lasik? There are a lot of advantages to being nearsighted. What > REALLY sucks is astigmatism :-( Care to list down the advantages? Thanks. > > Perhaps they're watchmakers. If one can select nearsight or farsight or > > monovision when having a cataract replacement, why can't it be an option > > with lasik? There are a lot of advantages to being nearsighted. What > > REALLY sucks is astigmatism :-( > > Care to list down the advantages? Thanks. First of all (farsighted and astigmatic), without glasses I see NOTHING clearly. Being able to read without glasses, since I spend far more time at the computer or with a book, would be a real joy. If you're nearsighted and want to see stuff far away you can just get glasses. No problem. If you don't have astigmatism, you can probably get contacts that are nearly as good. The contacts I have, after MUCH fitting, provide 20/30 and 20/40 vision AT BEST, and there's no hope at all that I could use my worse eye for reading. At worst (when I look downward for more than a half a minute) I might as well have NO correction; hey, as long as I can see that there's some kind of a car, or maybe a truck, in front of me there's no problem, right? Enough? People who complain about nearsightedness should be slapped! SignatureCheers, Bev = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = "I read about this syndrome called hypochondria in a magazine. I think I've got it." -- DA >> > Perhaps they're watchmakers. If one can select nearsight or farsight >> > or [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > clearly. Being able to read without glasses, since I spend far more > time at the computer or with a book, would be a real joy. At -3D, someone told me my eyes were made for reading books even when presbyopia sets in. Thing is I'm not really into reading books nowadays. I do most of my reading on the computer. And I have to sit pretty close to the computer screen if I want to see without my glasses. If my correction was -2D, it would have been ideal. > If you're nearsighted and want to see stuff far away you can just get > glasses. No problem. If you don't have astigmatism, you can probably [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Enough? People who complain about nearsightedness should be slapped! I read somewhere that farsighted people can usually accommodate to see near up to +4D until their 30s? > >> > Perhaps they're watchmakers. If one can select nearsight or farsight > >> > or [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > presbyopia sets in. Thing is I'm not really into reading books nowadays. I > do most of my reading on the computer. I use the same glasses for both. I have about a foot of field depth with my 2.25 add. Not necessarily easy to find frames that don't hurt my nose and shut off my nasal passages :-( Heavy-duty breathe-rite strips (DO NOT BUY THE RITE-AID GENERICS!) that didn't feel awful after 8 hours would be a real godsend. > And I have to sit pretty close to the > computer screen if I want to see without my glasses. If my correction [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I read somewhere that farsighted people can usually accommodate to see near > up to +4D until their 30s? Until I was 38 I didn't need glasses. From then on it was downhill with no brakes. Now my eyes are +3 and +5 with 2d of astigmatism and 2.25 add for reading. SignatureCheers, Bev 666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666 "I wish I had more time to seek out the dark forces and join their hellish crusade." -- Clarice >Until I was 38 I didn't need glasses. From then on it was downhill with >no brakes. Now my eyes are +3 and +5 with 2d of astigmatism and 2.25 >add for reading. Were you farsighted when you were younger, as well? In other words, had you had a cycloplegic refraction done? It sounds to me as though you probably always had that prescription--other than the +2.25 reading add--but that your accommodative mechanism was . . . well . . . quite accommodating. I'm jealous, by the way ;-) Did you have eyestrain symptoms through school, not wearing glasses? Doesn't seem very likely to my little pea brain that you would *develop* the kind of refractive error that you have now. More likely that you lost your ability to overcome it with age and presbyopia. What do you think? >> Bev wrote: > >>Until I was 38 I didn't need glasses. From then on it was downhill with >>no brakes. Now my eyes are +3 and +5 with 2d of astigmatism and 2.25 >>add for reading. > Doesn't seem very likely to my little pea brain that you would > *develop* the kind of refractive error that you have now. More likely > that you lost your ability to overcome it with age and presbyopia. Latent farsightedness is common but even heavy-cycloplegic refractions don't usually match the "eventual" plus. There's some other common process that adds plus from 40 to 60, probably affecting myopes as well as hyperopes. It's likely her astigmatism resulted from another independent process. The cornea is skin, and skin ages in a predictable fashion, while the crystalline lens becomes more unpredictable as it ages. The mirror-image symmetry of astigmatism seems to hold true whether it's life-long or acquired. On average, astigmatism increases with age, but 2 diopters of increase is more than most people experience. She could have been asymptomatic with +200-100 as a kid, but symptomatic at 38 and +500-200 is still a pretty natural (typical) progression. Now that she's 43. :) -MT > There's some other common process that adds plus from 40 to 60, probably > affecting myopes as well as hyperopes. My aunt's prescription improved from -5 to -3. Same with my mom but hers was more like -2.5 to -0.5, which is my estimate as she refuses to go for an eye test. I believe researchers call it the hyperopic shift. When I presented my findings to the ophthalmologist I saw, he said it was due to pseudomyopia. > test. I believe researchers call it the hyperopic shift. When I presented > my findings to the ophthalmologist I saw, he said it was due to > pseudomyopia. Most of it is. But then cycloplegic refractions at age 15 would show the same values as at age 50, and they don't. -MT >> There's some other common process that adds plus from 40 to 60, probably >> affecting myopes as well as hyperopes. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > presented my findings to the ophthalmologist I saw, he said it was due to > pseudomyopia. Just got my mom to go for an eye examination. As I suspected, her myopia has totally cleared off and she's now plano. It's been replaced with some astigmatism. Let me guess, mom is around age 60. The natural lens changes shape with age. This often results in a hyperopic shift. 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. Does this hyperopic shift happen with all people when they reach a certain age? and, what about pepole who've had IOL's implanted during cataract surgery? > Does this hyperopic shift happen with all people when they reach a > certain age? and, what about pepole who've had IOL's implanted during > cataract surgery? All we can say is it happens enough to influence the average. Until 30, the average shifts toward myopia. Between 30 and 60, the average shifts back. People with IOLs are pretty stable. -MT > The mirror-image > symmetry of astigmatism seems to hold true whether it's life-long or > acquired. I have a buckle on my right eye, which distorts the eyeball, causing irregular astigmatism. My OD told me that they don't make glasses to correct for that. Why not? Is it so rare that it isn't worth designing the test instruments and tools? SignatureDan Abel Sonoma State University AIS dabel@sonic.net > I have a buckle on my right eye, which distorts the eyeball, causing > irregular astigmatism. My OD told me that they don't make glasses to > correct for that. Why not? Is it so rare that it isn't worth designing > the test instruments and tools? "Regular" astigmatism is a simple bend, a distortion from spherical to spoon shape, theoretically defined by a difference in curvature at the steepest and flattest points, i.e. a major and minor meridian, exactly 90 degrees apart. It's easy to grind spectacle lenses to a spoon-shape. More importantly, the spectacle correction is (roughly) the same no matter which direction of gaze. But what if the cornea is distorted in multiple locations, yielding a rippled or wavy surface with significant hills and valleys? What if the major axes aren't exactly 90 degrees apart? That's "irregular" astigmatism. Grinding equipment can't be customized to produce more than two principal meridians. It's possible that a wavefront could be mapped into a computerized lens casting system, but more importantly, once you mount a _spectacle_ lens that corrects for higher-order distortions (like wavefront LASIK) the correction only works in one position of gaze. Wavefront-designed _soft contact lenses_ are already available. I haven't used them, only seen an ad. -MT > > I have a buckle on my right eye, which distorts the eyeball, causing > > irregular astigmatism. My OD told me that they don't make glasses to > > correct for that. Why not? Is it so rare that it isn't worth designing > > the test instruments and tools? > computerized lens casting system, but more importantly, once you mount a > _spectacle_ lens that corrects for higher-order distortions (like wavefront > LASIK) the correction only works in one position of gaze. Thanks for the info. That makes a lot of sense. So glasses are not a concept. > Wavefront-designed _soft contact lenses_ are already available. I haven't > used them, only seen an ad. I'll ask my OD next time I'm in. I currently use (occasionally) a plano 1.75D toric soft contact. My vision is correctable to 20/25 in that eye with plain cylinder (or a pinhole). SignatureDan Abel Sonoma State University AIS dabel@sonic.net > >> Bev wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > It's likely her astigmatism resulted from another independent process. The > cornea is skin, and skin ages in a predictable fashion, And that's another thing somebody has to answer for... > while the > crystalline lens becomes more unpredictable as it ages. The mirror-image > symmetry of astigmatism seems to hold true whether it's life-long or > acquired. Mirror-image angle, right? Yup, but the left eye is worse than the right. > On average, astigmatism increases with age, but 2 diopters of increase is > more than most people experience. Latest contacts -- if they worked right all the time they'd be OK: R +3.50 -1.75x100 L +5.25 -1.75x80 Distance glasses: R: +2.50 -1.25 100 L: +3.75 -1.5 79 Big difference, but I guess they're both right. The glasses are better. > She could have been asymptomatic with +200-100 as a kid, but symptomatic at > 38 and +500-200 is still a pretty natural (typical) progression. > > Now that she's 43. :) 39. My mother, her friend, my daughter, my daughter-in-law and I are all 39. So is my cousin who's 3 years older than me, but she doesn't believe it because she's a Buddhist. No, I don't understand, so don't even think about asking! SignatureCheers, Bev $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ "If you put the government in charge of the desert, there would be a sand shortage within ten years." -- M. Friedman (?) > >Until I was 38 I didn't need glasses. From then on it was downhill with > >no brakes. Now my eyes are +3 and +5 with 2d of astigmatism and 2.25 > >add for reading. > > Were you farsighted when you were younger, as well? In other words, > had you had a cycloplegic refraction done? Don't know what "cycloplegic" means... OK, thanks to google I do now :-) Never. I could see to read and to drive without glasses, no problems that I noticed. > It sounds to me as though you probably always had that > prescription--other than the +2.25 reading add--but that your > accommodative mechanism was . . . well . . . quite accommodating. I'm > jealous, by the way ;-) > > Did you have eyestrain symptoms through school, not wearing glasses? Headaches, you mean? Things where you rub your eyes for some reason? Nope. > Doesn't seem very likely to my little pea brain that you would > *develop* the kind of refractive error that you have now. More likely > that you lost your ability to overcome it with age and presbyopia. > > What do you think? That seems reasonable. When I was 16 I tried a friend's glasses on and was amazed to find that edges were sharper. Got some prescription glasses but never wore them because while they did sharpen up the edges they DID cause something that I guess must be eyestrain (I had to sort of force my eyes to focus together, I think -- it's been a long time). I was young and stupid and didn't go back to complain, I just never wore them. When I was 38 I got distance glasses which helped more with reading, and in what's probably the usual progression I eventually ended up needing bifocals. What kind of idiot designs eyes that don't work? SignatureCheers, Bev ================================================================ I didn't break it! It was doing that before I broke it... er... Dear Charles, Lasik can in fact produce -6 diopters -- easily. The "ethics" of it are in doubt. Very few people want their eyes "worse" -- but that might be your choice. Ask around -- you might find a "supporting" MD. Best, Otis > Lasik can in fact produce -6 diopters -- easily. From -8 it would be easy. From -2, it wouldn't be "easy" and LASIK isn't the best technique. > Ask around -- you might find a "supporting" MD. So you encourage this person to pursue their goal? -MT Can't you yokels tell this person is yanking your collective chains? A fetish for myopia? That is truly funny. Even funnier you saps would respond! Yeah its hard to believe but that does not make it not true. There are discussion groups devoted to the worship of high minus. These people think that the myopic look is kind of sexy and so forth. Many of them do wear very high minus glasses to get the look and are actively seeking ways that they can see clearly thru this high minus. I believe some have been successful at getting worse myopia but quite how they have achieved this is uncertain to me since, by its very nature, it is a peculiar pattern of behaviour. From a behavioural/psychological perspective workship of high minus look or fashion would not necessarily be a cause of myopia. If you want to become more myopic you need to focus on your own thoughts and interests. Possibly you can do this by mimicing myopic behaviour. 0. Develope some kind of solitary interest that involves close work and does not require involvement with other enthusiasts in person. 1. Dont listen to ideas you have not thought of before. 2. Interupt other people before they finish speaking. 3. Defend your own ideas very strongly in an alientating manner that discourages friendship. 4. Attack differences rather than seek similarities 5. Cultivate the idea you are clever 6. Importantly, even if you feel something quite strongly related to some interest that is further away from just yourself, cultivate the belief it is not possible to do something about that feeling because you are fearful of the consequences (once you begin to do this it might get easier i expect. You will need to stick to the program for a while) 7. Keep your more intimate thoughts only to yourself 8. Avoid having very close intimate relationships, instead create a role or an act and keep to that at **all times** 9. Cultivate the fantasy of romantic love, that will one day change the life that you have created by the other steps, so that somehow this other person will tolerate all the bad habits that you have successfully adopted. ****but**** always ensure that you avoid getting close to this person, divorce them etc. Imagine that when with this person you will feel fantastic - because you are 'in love'. But ensure you never realise you feel crappy because of the way you have been living due to your own descisions, and become a potential burdon to this this person because of your emotional dependancy and immature attitude. Good luck Andrew >If you want to become more myopic you need to focus on your own thoughts >and interests. Possibly you can do this by mimicing myopic behaviour. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >descisions, and become a potential burdon to this this person because of >your emotional dependancy and immature attitude. ROFL.. Ann I considered the sincerity of the post before I replied, and sure it is suspect, but someone else may read it and think it a good idea, or at least an acceptable idea. That is why I chose to respond and respond in the manner I did. 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. Dear Mike, Can't you tell this guy is yanking you chain. If he said he was going to jump off a cliff, I would tell him that it was a "bad idea", but that if he insisted on it -- there would be nothing I could do to stop hiim. Best, Otis Engineer > Dear Charles, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Otis Otis , why not explained to this people your favorite theme '' the use of a minus glass causes myopia increase '' Must be a peace of cake. SignatureFree to Marcus Porcius Cato: ''Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam" In conclusion, I think that the "Otis therapy" should be destroyed Jan (normally Dutch spoken) > Otis , why not explained to this people your favorite theme '' the use of > a minus glass causes myopia increase '' > Must be a peace of cake. And yes there he is !!!!!!!!! (see the message in the thread below) I must say, it is inexcusable of me to make a joke about this fellow Otis and trying to draw him out. Me apologizes to all the real eyecare professionals. SignatureFree to Marcus Porcius Cato: ''Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam" In conclusion, I think that the "Otis therapy" should be destroyed Jan (normally Dutch spoken) > I have mild myopia at -2/-1.75 but I would like to be as nearsighted as my > girlfriend as we both have a fettish for nearsightedness. > > Is it possible to have my myopia increased to say -6 using eye surgery? > > Who would be willing to do such a procedure? Possible, but unlikely that any surgeon would agree to it. As a mother of a teen who is thinking about piercings and tattoos, my advice is to not do anything permanent and irreversible that you might regret later (ie ok for piercing, nix on tattoo). You want to match your girlfriend's myopia, but, in future, you may have a different girlfriend or her myopia may change. Would you then have more surgery? Here is a better idea to achieve reversable, changable myopia (also more affordable): Get fit with +4.00D Night and Day or Pure Vision contact lenses that you can wear 24/7. That will make you a -6.00D myope without glasses and you can then get -6.00D glasses to satisfy your fetish. Change the contact lens powers if you change girlfriends or if her myopia changes. Dr Judy Dear Charles, While most people do not want to "make their naked vision worse", there is a way to do it. A long time ago, Russian draftees who had normal vision (refractive status zero to +2 diopters) would obtain a strong minus lens, say -3 to -4 diopters. They would wear that minus lens all the time 16/7. By the time then went for their physical, they could not read the eye chart, and they would be disqualified because they had myopia. If you wish, and can obtain it, just wear an extra -2 or -3 diopter lens (over-prescribed) and you can personally verify this prediction. This does depend on age. If you are 16 years or so -- the results (an additional 2 diopters myopic) could develop in about a year. I DO NOT RECOMMEND that you do this -- but experiments with primates show this result. The ODs insist this WILL NOT HAPPEN, and that wearing of an "excessive" minus has NO EFFECT ON THE REFRACTIVE STATE OF THE NATURAL EYE. Best, Otis > Dear Charles, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the time then went for their physical, they could not read the eye > chart, and they would be disqualified because they had myopia. Otis, I question your story. First, wouldn't it be a whole lot simpler just to lie when you were in front of the eye chart? Second, the Russian army probably didn't care very much about how well their draftees could see "a long time ago". Scott > I DO NOT RECOMMEND that you do this -- but experiments with primates > show this result. Dear Charles Disregard Otis's posts. He is not in the medical profession, therefore take his "recommendations" for what it's worth. Zilch, nothing. Allen Dear Allen, You really "fell" for this one. This is an obvious "put on". And you are attempting to "protect" him! Wonderful. > This is an obvious "put on". Otis, Everything you say is a "put on" I asked you direct questions, and you fail to produce unbiased proof of your position. You have no credibility therefore everything you say is a joke. Allen My wife is Russian. I have traveled throughput the former Soviet Union. I have friends who are Russian ophthalmologists. The directors of four of the Fyodrov Institute locations are professional acquaintances of mine. Nobody has heard anything about this minus lens foolishness to avoid the draft. Furthermore, it would be much less expensive (purchasing spectacles was very expensive during Soviet times) and much easier to simply pay the evaluating authorities a small bribe to receive a medical deferment. 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. Hi, what you report is definitely wrong. I wore overcorrecting glasses (up to minus 8 diopters while I only had minus 2.5) for years in order to become more short-sighted, and almost nothing happened - you can´t expect more than perhaps 0.5 diopters change. > I have mild myopia at -2/-1.75 but I would like to be as nearsighted as my > girlfriend as we both have a fettish for nearsightedness. > > Is it possible to have my myopia increased to say -6 using eye surgery? I would suggest counseling instead. Granted, you can have surgery to change your gender, which is more drastic. But people who want their gender changed, want it always changed. Surgeons won't do it until the person has spent at least a year being the other gender. I would suggest that you do something similar. Get contacts or glasses that give you the vision a -6 myope would have. The nice thing is, once you get tired of bumping into things, you can just remove the contacts or take off the glasses, and your vision will improve. SignatureDan Abel Sonoma State University AIS dabel@sonic.net Dear Charles, Subject: Using a +5 diopter lens to achieve your desired "look" of wearing "coke bottle" minus glasses. Why not go to an OD, and explain that you love that "coke-bottle bottom" look that myopes have who are 8 to 11 diopters myopic? As him to give you a plus contact of about 6 diopters. With your current -2.0 diopters, the plus will make you about a -8 diopter myope. Then read the eye chart through the phoropter (trial lens kit -- equivalent) and he will find that it takes about a -8 diopter lens to clear the 20/20 line in semi-darkenss. This is better than the Lasik you suggest. If you do not like the "look" just remove the +6 D contact, and go back to your -2 diopter lens. Problem solved -- with no risk to you. Best, Otis Hi Charles, I guess I might be the only person who DID have a LASIK surgery for the increase of myopia! I have the same fetish as you and your girlfriend, and it´s nice to see I´m not the only one. I succeeded in finding a surgeon in Istanbul, Turkey, who understood my life-long wish to be more short- sighted, and he lasered my eyes from -2.5 to -7 diopters. So look for LASIK and Istanbul in the internet! Good luck! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.