 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / March 2007From Macular Hole to Retinal Detachment to Cataract
I am facing a cataract surgery in my right (bad) eye, but after my visit with the cataract doc I am having serious doubts and concerns. Brief history: About 8 months ago, while driving, I closed my left eye for a moment and the school bus in front of me disappeared. I realized that I had a problem and went to see an ophthalmologist, expecting it to be a cataract. To my surprise I was diagnosed with a macular hole instead. I went to get a second and third opinion, and all agreed -- stage 3 mac hole, which was demonstrated to me with no doubt in an OCT printed image. I had hard time making the decision to operate, but was finally convinced to do it when considering the much higher risk of same occuring in my other eye at some future time. I must add that at that point my overall vision (with both eyes with glasses) was good -- I had no problem functioning and I felt "whole". My nyopia was mild and I had progressive glasses that enabled me to drive or read with no difficulty. The 40-minute surgery (vitrectomy and gas-fluid exchange) went well and was almost painless, and the hole closed. My recovery was spectacular, my vision returned as the gas bubble diminished, and I thought that I was out of the woods. One month after the surgery I already had a cataract in the operated eye but this was anticipated, although not so soon (all articles that I had read stated a cataract within 6-12 months, and I still have no clue of why I was so fast). What little did I know then! 8 weeks after the surgery, again while driving, I suddenly noticed very dark cloudy sky in front of me. I closed the "bad" eye and the sky was blue! Further tests revealed to me that I had no vision above my eyebrows line, as if a curtain was pulled down my right eye field of vision, but no floaters or flashes of lights. I saw my ophthalmologist the following day and BOOM! Retinal detachment, emergency surgery, no time for preparation or information gathering. I was rushed to the hospital for a 3-hour surgery (another vitrectomy + laser + stitches + scleral buckle) and woke up with another gas bubble and pain. The recovery was slow and painful. I had a variety of strange sensations in my eye -- prick, squeeze, sting, pinch, punch, itch, tingle and plain deep pain. It's now 3 months after the second surgery and I still have very mild pain. My vision in the bad eye went from -3.5 to -7.75 and my cataract is HUGE. However, the retina is still attached and the macula still closed. The recent OCT looks absolutely perfect. So here I am, needing a cataract removal. First, I don't like this cat-doc. He seemed to me as a money-making machine, didn't give me a chance to ask questions, and before I knew it I was presented with consent forms to sign. But what was disturbing most was his "plan": to install an IOL that would correct my distant vision, which will require me to have reading glasses (and I presume also intermediate distance glasses), and then do the same in the other eye, my one and only GOOD EYE that has no cataract and so far no problem except mild myopia. This doesn't make sense to me. I would hate to take a risk of possible retinal detachment and more complications and more surgeries. I don't want to tamper with my good eye unnecessarily. I also think that I'd rather have my vision corrected for intermediate distance, which is what most of my activity is involved, and have glasses for driving and another pair for reading. But he didn't allow me to ask questions! I still don't know what's the right plan for me. I understand that it's not a good idea to create a big gap between the vision in both eyes, although a small gap is OK. Maybe I should just wait? I am not sure that my operated eye is fully healed and ready for another trauma. I am functioning OK meanwhile, with the exception of glare that makes night driving almost impossible. What to do? Any advice, either from professionals or people who have had similar experiences? I would appreciate any feedback. Thanks! >I am facing a cataract surgery in my right (bad) eye, but after my >visit with the cataract doc I am having serious doubts and concerns. > >Brief history: [snip] >So here I am, needing a cataract removal. First, I don't like this >cat-doc. He seemed to me as a money-making machine, didn't give me a [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >glasses for driving and another pair for reading. But he didn't allow >me to ask questions! So get a second or third opinion regarding cataract surgery. In your case (as in most cases), the need for cataract surgery is probably not urgent. You should have the time to consider your options and find a ophthalmic surgeon who you feel comfortable with. >I still don't know what's the right plan for me. I understand that >it's not a good idea to create a big gap between the vision in both [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >What to do? Any advice, either from professionals or people who have >had similar experiences? I would appreciate any feedback. Thanks! Impossible to give you medical advice across the Internet without physical examination, but getting a second or third opinion as long as the timeframe isn't immediate for intervention is reasonable and prudent IMHO. > I still don't know what's the right plan for me. I understand that > it's not a good idea to create a big gap between the vision in both > eyes, although a small gap is OK. Maybe I should just wait? I am not > sure that my operated eye is fully healed and ready for another > trauma. I am functioning OK meanwhile, with the exception of glare > that makes night driving almost impossible. Wow. what an unfortunate series of events. you seem quite intelligent and understand a lot about your situation and what you want. i would encourage you to find another doctor who will spend a little time with you to discuss your concerns, your ideas, and give you a deeper explanation about why he/she proposes the course of treatment that they do. sounds like you've been to a doc who has poor bedside manner or is too busy to spend much time talking to you. either way, i wouldn't feel comfortable either and would pause to consider the situation further as you have done. yes-- it is problematic when cataract surgery results in a large prescription difference between both eyes. oftentimes this problem is sufficient reason to have surgery in the "good eye" even if there is no cataract. in such situations many surgeons simply implant a lens that instead makes the operated eye have approximately the same refractive error as the "good eye". in your case this approach makes sense to me. why risk surgery on a healthy eye when it is pretty much the only good eye that you have? actually i agree with you that performing surgery on your good eye at all is something that is questionable and possibly even not medically-advised in your situation. and your idea of implanting a lens to focus at intermediate distance is quite reasonable. actually i suggest to many of my patients to have their cataract surgery set them at approximately -0.50 to -0.75 afterwards. that type of refractive error is quite small and gives a person reasonably good distance vision (~20/30) while also providing reasonable vision for computers, reading larger to standard sized print, etc. i also think that your concern about having another operation on your affected eye so soon is a reasonable concern. i don't think there is any downside to waiting for awhile and it would give that eye a little more time to heal and basically "settle down" after scleral buckle surgery. there is a risk of re-detachment and that risk diminishes the longer that an operated eye heals. in some situations retinal surgeons will "weld" the peripheral edges of a suspicious-looking retina down firmly to the sclera before cataract surgery using either a laser or freezing so as to reduce the risk of detachment. i am not sure if that is appropriate in your case but a good cataract surgeon actually likes that to be done so that it minimizes the risk that the surgery they are performing might turn out badly and that they could be held accountable. i don't know what your relationship with your retinal surgeon is but you should consider discussing your cataract surgery with them. they will know who the best cataract surgeons are for people in your circumstances and they will also know whether preparative retinal procedures (laser, freezing) is advised for you. good luck. > What to do? Any advice, either from professionals or people who have > had similar experiences? I would appreciate any feedback. Thanks! I would not have surgery in the good eye if at all possible. My experience was a cataract in only one eye, had surgery, had the YAG laser, and then had a retinal detachment. The difference in the two eyes was such that glasses did not work, but by wearing contacts, that solved the problem of the two eyes having a big gap in vision. The retina specialist recommended not having any surgery in the good eye as long as possible if I could get good vision with the contacts. I followed that advise but in my case the contacts solved the problem of the gap. Any surgery is risky and the past history is something that should be taken into consideration. Ten years after the cataract and the detachment the good eye did start developing a cataract. Soon I will probably have to have cataract surgery in the second eye soon as it has been getting worse but it is not something I look forward to because of the past experience, but I got by with 12 year good years of good vision by waiting. And with the advances in cataract surgery in the years since, smaller incisions, hopefully a detachment won't follow.  SignatureCharles Thanks for the responses. I am to see my retina specialist in a couple of days and will discuss the situation with him, but alas, this will be my last meeting with him because he is leaving the state to relocate elsewhere by the end of the month. I really like him and trust his experties, and his departure is a great loss for me. You all advised me to get another opinion(s) and look for another cataract sergeant, which is what I intend to do anyway. FYI, I chose the ophthalmology department of my local University Medical Center (which is on the list of the 5 best hospitals in the U.S.) to take care of me, and both the retina and cataract specialists are in the same group. However, there is a huge difference between their personalities and the way they relate to their patients, or at least to me. So it seems that I am now forced to find somebody outside the UMC, and hopefully I will. There are many options available where I live, and communication with my doctor + REAL consultation is essential, in addition to his/her skills, qualifications, experience, etc. I was informed about the possibility of multifocal intraocular lens, but my cat-doc said it would not be the right thing for me. Why? I don't know, and when I asked he scolded me and ordered me not to interrupt his lecture. When he finished he filled out some forms (I was not allowed to interrupt this activity either), and then left the room and submitted me to his assistant for some procedural tasks. I think I deserve better than this. Hopefully I will be able to get information from my retina specialist as much as I can, but when I inquired in the past about cataract surgery he referred me to the cat-doc, so this is where I am stuck. > I was informed about the possibility of multifocal intraocular lens, > but my cat-doc said it would not be the right thing for me. Why? multifocal implants do not give optically-sharp images. in order to gain some near vision, there is some blurring of distance vision and vice versa (i.e. "ghosting"). many patients do not find multifocal implants to be satisfactory. however there are now "accommodating" implants that have more recently been introduced (eg. Crystalens) that seem promising. these implants can allow some patients to restore a portion of their ability to focus at near. results vary, and it is a relatively new development. this is something to discuss with your new doctor. PS - oftentimes the best doctors are not associated with a university medical center. you are not giving up anything by going with someone who is fully private nor are you gaining anything by going with a university-affiliated group. On Mar 18, 12:44 pm, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote: > there are now "accommodating" > implants that have more recently been introduced (eg. Crystalens) that > seem promising. these implants can allow some patients to restore a > portion of their ability to focus at near. results vary, and it is a > relatively new development. this is something to discuss with your > new doctor. Do you have any additional information on this? any website? link? > I would not have surgery in the good eye if at all possible. My > experience was a cataract in only one eye, had surgery, had the YAG > laser, and then had a retinal detachment. The difference in the two > eyes was such that glasses did not work, but by wearing contacts, that > solved the problem of the two eyes having a big gap in vision. What's the advatage of contacts over glasses? How are they different in this context? > What's the advatage of contacts over glasses? How are they different > in this context? I can't wear glasses because the difference in diopters between my two eyes is so large it is uncomfortable. The glass causes a magnification. That does not happen with a contact lens which is on the cornea. One of the Opticians or Optometrist can explain it better. If I could not wear a contact lens then I probably would have had an implant in what was then a good eye. SignatureCharles >I >So here I am, needing a cataract removal. First, I don't like this [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >myopia. > With the economics as they are, if he's a money making machine doing cataracts, he's probably pretty doggone good at it. One of the most important things about choosing a surgeon is: How many do they do in a day? If the answer is 1 or 2, run away. If it's 10 or 12, you've found someone who has the technique down. I especially like that he dismisses multifocal IOLs, which are in my opinion garbage optically. I would not shoot for perfect distance vision in the bad eye, but a little myopia. There's always some slop in the calcs, and the buckle surgery has added more slopt to the mix, so do yourself a favor and err a bit on the myopic side. >This doesn't make sense to me. I would hate to take a risk of >possible retinal detachment and more complications and more [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >had similar experiences? I would appreciate any feedback. Thanks! > If he's suggesting you do the good eye as well, it most probably has a cataract under development. But I agree with getting the bad eye done, take a break, then decide. > > But what was disturbing most was his "plan": > >to install an IOL that would correct my distant vision, which will > >require me to have reading glasses (and I presume also intermediate > >distance glasses), and then do the same in the other eye, my one and > >only GOOD EYE that has no cataract and so far no problem except mild > >myopia. > With the economics as they are, if he's a money making machine doing > cataracts, he's probably pretty doggone good at it. > > One of the most important things about choosing a surgeon is: How many > do they do in a day? If the answer is 1 or 2, run away. If it's 10 or > 12, you've found someone who has the technique down. I have no doubt about his skill or experience. He apparently does hundreds if not thousands of them every year. The UMC records indicate that he has made $325K last year. But consultation with the patient and consideration of the patient's special needs and wishes are equally important. For instance, I doubt very much my ability to endure the surgery with topical or local anesthesia only, which my retinal doc detected without me even telling him. My 2 previous surgeries were done under general anesthesia, although this is not the standard. Because of my eye history, and the fact that my vitreous is gone forever and my retina is somewhat flimsy, there are more risks and the cataract surgery will be longer and more complicated than usual. However, he didn't want to hear about general, and I don't think I can agree to such a procedure otherwise. This is, of course, in addition to the considerations of what will be inplanted in my eye(s) and how it will fit my lifestyle and needs. > I especially like that he dismisses multifocal IOLs, which are in my > opinion garbage optically. Interesting. I have a glossy brochure issued by HIM, recommending this wonderbar as the best thing since indoor plumbing. >I would not shoot for perfect distance > vision in the bad eye, but a little myopia. There's always some slop in > the calcs, and the buckle surgery has added more slopt to the mix, so do > yourself a favor and err a bit on the myopic side. Yes, I agree with this, but this is not HIS "plan", which I have had no opportunity to even discuss or express my concerns. Most of my daily activity does not involve long distance vision. > >This doesn't make sense to me. I would hate to take a risk of > >possible retinal detachment and more complications and more [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >What to do? Any advice, either from professionals or people who have > >had similar experiences? I would appreciate any feedback. Thanks! > If he's suggesting you do the good eye as well, it most probably has a > cataract under development. But I agree with getting the bad eye done, > take a break, then decide. No, there is no cataract in the good eye, not even a beginning. My cataract did not develop "naturally", but was rather caused by the vitrectomy. And this is my main concern. It seems (from my own experience and from reading the numerous messages on this site) that once tampering with an eye begins, there is more and more to come. Actually, I did the first surgery (the macular hole) for the purpose of securing a spare eye in the event the other eye gets bad in the future. As I said, I was "whole" prior to the first surgery and the loss of central vision in one eye was not noticeable when I used both eyes. But I was afraid of future problems in the good eye, which could leave me legally blind. So I went ahead. Now, here is MY "plan": To wait another 3 months for further healing, then do the bad eye with a lens to match the other eye, which has been stable for quite a few years, and leave the good eye untouched. I will need progressive glasses for various distances, which is fine with me. BTW, being myopic I can read (even small print) without any glasses, but have to be closer to the print. What's your opinion? >O > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >standard. > Well, topical anethesia only is kind of a misnomer, as they actually put an IV line in and dope you up pretty well with Versed or something similar, which will make you pretty much not care what they do. I'm a big chicken and had it done with no problems, well almost no problems. My second eye I did feel some discomfort, almost to the point of asking for a little more in the IV, but I braved it through and was fine. This is MUCH safer than having a general, which can kill you, or make you wish you were dead. >Because of my eye history, and the fact that my vitreous is gone >forever and my retina is somewhat flimsy, there are more risks and the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Just make sure you get a Valium or 2 before they put in the IV and make sure you tell them you want no pain. You'll do fine. Forget the general. > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Yes, unfortunately market forces are strongly at work here. They are garbage optics. Stick with single vision and ask for prolate optics if possible. >>I would not shoot for perfect distance >>vision in the bad eye, but a little myopia. There's always some slop in [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Tell him you want a little myopia post op. If he still balks, go elsewhere which is what it sounds like you want to do anyway. Tell the same thing to the next surgeon candidate. >>If he's suggesting you do the good eye as well, it most probably has a >>cataract under development. But I agree with getting the bad eye done, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >once tampering with an eye begins, there is more and more to come. > Actually, I'm a big proponent of refractive lens exchanges, which is what it sounds like he's recommending. If so, I'm amazed because I'm having trouble finding a gutsy enough surgeon who's also competent to send people to. I'm still against it in your case because the myopia makes you at risk for another retinal detachment. Small risk, but real. I'd probably wait, unless it gets worse. (I'm sure there is "some" loss of clarity in that lens if you've been around more than 40 or 50 years, which may not be technically a cataract, but in reality is the beginning). >Actually, I did the first surgery (the macular hole) for the purpose >of securing a spare eye in the event the other eye gets bad in the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > As above, and I mostly agree with your ideas. Most importantly, do NOT let anyone talk you into a multifocal IOL or a "focusing" (hinged type). Good luck, and report back the results. w.stacy, o.d. > Well, topical anethesia only is kind of a misnomer, as they actually put > an IV line in and dope you up pretty well with Versed or something > similar, which will make you pretty much not care what they do. I'm a > big chicken and had it done with no problems, well almost no problems. What is "Versed"? > My second eye I did feel some discomfort, almost to the point of asking > for a little more in the IV, but I braved it through and was fine. This > is MUCH safer than having a general, which can kill you, or make you > wish you were dead. Indeed, there is a risk in general anasthesia, but the occurrance of not waking up is rare. I am generally healthy and my 2 recent experiences with general were wonderful and very smooth. > Stick with single vision and ask for prolate optics if possible. What is "prolate optics"? > Actually, I'm a big proponent of refractive lens exchanges, which is > what it sounds like he's recommending. What is "refractive lens exchanges"? Does it mean replacing the already replaced lens in the future as the ever changing situation dictates? >If so, I'm amazed because I'm > having trouble finding a gutsy enough surgeon who's also competent to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > or 50 years, which may not be technically a cataract, but in reality is > the beginning). If you are correct in this speculation, I should have been informed about it. I have no reason to assume a beginning of a non-technical cataract in my good eye. I had none in the bad eye either prior to the first surgery, which included vitrectomy and 2 months with a gas bubble. The second surgery (retinal detachment) repeated the vitrectomy and the bubble, which helped the cataract to grow. > Most importantly, do NOT > let anyone talk you into a multifocal IOL or a "focusing" (hinged > type). Good luck, and report back the results. What is "focusing - hinged type"? Thanks for your response. I have learned a lot, and will certainly keep you updated. >What is "Versed"? > It's Midazolam Premedicant - Sedative - Anesthetic commonly used in minor surgical procdeures. Also has an amnesic action so you can't remember if it hurt or not. >Indeed, there is a risk in general anasthesia, but the occurrance of >not waking up is rare. I am generally healthy and my 2 recent >experiences with general were wonderful and very smooth. > > >> What is your age? >What is "prolate optics"? > > It's used in some IOLs to reduce/eliminate spherical aberration. Gives superior clarity and contrast sensitivity. May or may not be indicated for some Rxs, but for most, works great and also apparently allows for some decentration of the IOL without loss of vision. >>Actually, I'm a big proponent of refractive lens exchanges, which is >>what it sounds like he's recommending. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > No it means removing a human lens that has no (or minimal) cataract, and replacing it with an IOL for refractive reasons (such as strong hyperopic Rx). Also pre-empts the cataract which will eventually come anyway. You don't want to do it more than once on an eye. >>If so, I'm amazed because I'm >>having trouble finding a gutsy enough surgeon who's also competent to [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >vitrectomy and the bubble, which helped the cataract to grow. > That's why I want to know your age. If you're over 50 you have some cataractous changes for sure, even if sub-clinical (not diagnosable for insurance persons as "cataract"). It's like if you're over 50 you have some atherosclerosis, even if not clinically significant. Wear and tear on the body is not completely preventable. >>Most importantly, do NOT >>let anyone talk you into a multifocal IOL or a "focusing" (hinged [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > The Crystalens for example is an IOL which is designed to move forward during accommodative (reading) effort. It doesn't work very well, in my experience, and even if and when it does work, it only works a little bit, never enough to really focus well up close. Not worth the effort and added risk (larger incision, longer operation, etc). >Tell him you want a little myopia post op. If he still balks, go >elsewhere which is what it sounds like you want to do anyway. Tell the >same thing to the next surgeon candidate. I'd strongly recommend matching the Rx of the healthy eye instead of setting it up with a "little myopia". She said the right eye was -3.50 post-detachment, and if the left eye Rx is similar then that's what I'd shoot for. Moreover, we don't know the clients age- if she's mid 40's she'll have a +2.50 add in the right and +1.50 in the left, leaving her anisometropic at near, even if the distance Rx is the same in both eyes. (Not much fun wearing a progressive addition lens with two different add powers). If you under-power the right Rx you'll exacerbate the image size disparity and introduce vertical prism imbalance, resulting in increased discomfort at near, and potentially in the distance gaze as well. Regards, Robert Martellaro ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Optician/Owner Roberts Optical Wauwatosa Wi. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself." - Richard Feynman >I'd strongly recommend matching the Rx of the healthy eye instead of setting it >up with a "little myopia". She said the right eye was -3.50 post-detachment, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > We've had this discussion before and I have no problem with your opinion, only that I personally like having less myopia than when I started. Gives me freedom to not wear glasses when watching TV mostly. Since I wear glasses the rest of the time, it wouldn't matter if they were -3 instead of -.75, although I also like having such thin lenses. I also ended up with .75 aniso which I find handy when shaving and not a problem with the glasses. In the above case, I'd probably have the surgeon target -1.00, knowing that the end result could be between 0 and -2.00 and I would have a hard time justifying more than -2.00 unless the person insists on it. The aniso will be an issue, but one that can be dealt with easily with contacts, glasses, and/or refractive lens exchange. For sure, nothing is perfect and everything is a compromise... >>I'd strongly recommend matching the Rx of the healthy eye instead of setting it >>up with a "little myopia". She said the right eye was -3.50 post-detachment, [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >-2.00 and I would have a hard time justifying more than -2.00 unless the >person insists on it. This is a different situation though, with a -3.50 or so in the left eye that's not going to be touched until there's an age related cataract, and that may be many years or decades down the road. In the above case there's little if any benefit to bringing the right eye down to -1.00 or even -2.50, with real and significant disadvantages. My point in general is that the surgeons (refractive or cataract) need to give much more consideration to how the eyes will work together (or not work together) instead of pushing so hard to eliminate or minimize refractive error. >The aniso will be an issue, but one that can be >dealt with easily with contacts, glasses, Contacts yes, glasses are problematic, especially if the difference is much more than a diopter or so. Age 45 monovision refractive surgery patients are going to be in for an unpleasant surprise when they need reading and/or distance glasses ten years down the road, and then discover that Rx glasses are less comfortable than cheap over the counter readers would have been if they had refused monovision. So I get to make eikonic lenses, charge plenty, and retire early. I wouldn't sleep well if I was the surgeon however. Regards, Robert Martellaro ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Optician/Owner Roberts Optical Wauwatosa Wi. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself." - Richard Feynman Many thanks to all of you for the thoughtful input. You certainly have been very helpful, and I mean all of you. Update: I saw my retina doc yesterday, who said that my macula looks "beautiful". Only an ophthalmologist could make such a statement! He recomended another cataract specialist, to whom he said he would send his parents if they need a cat surgery. I already set an appointment with the cat doc for Friday. I had a very good and informative discussion with my wonderful retina doc, who is now leaving town. He said my eye is healed and ready for a cat surgery, and he agreed that operating at this stage on my good eye unnecessarily is not advisable. His suggestion is to aim to -2.00 in the operated (bad) eye, and then aim to zero for the other (good) eye when the time arrives, i.e. when a cataract is formed there. THIS MAKES SENSE. He also stated that the risk of another retinal detachment in the operated eye has been DIMINISHED due to the scleral buckle, and in fact my good eye has a greater risk of detachment as a result of future lens replacement. I will keep you informed you later about the continuation of my saga in a new thread. >Many thanks to all of you for the thoughtful input. You certainly >have been very helpful, and I mean all of you. > >Update: I saw my retina doc yesterday, who said that my macula looks >"beautiful". Thank goodness. >Only an ophthalmologist could make such a statement! He >recomended another cataract specialist, to whom he said he would send [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >a cat surgery, and he agreed that operating at this stage on my good >eye unnecessarily is not advisable. Good. >His suggestion is to aim to -2.00 >in the operated (bad) eye, If the other eye is about -2.00, then yes, that's good advice. However, I would be leery of getting optical advise from a retinologist. >and then aim to zero for the other (good) >eye when the time arrives, i.e. when a cataract is formed there. THIS >MAKES SENSE. Only if you can tolerate the disparity in powers, and you feel that the distance and near vision is acceptable for your needs. Most people will be very uncomfortable and will have less than desirable vision, especially with small print and extended periods of close tasks, e.g., you're an avid reader. It's *extremely* important to do a trial run with monovision contacts before you decide. >He also stated that the risk of another retinal >detachment in the operated eye has been DIMINISHED due to the scleral [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I will keep you informed you later about the continuation of my saga >in a new thread. I hope the surgery goes well. Regards, Robert Martellaro ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Optician/Owner Roberts Optical Wauwatosa Wi. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself." - Richard Feynman > >Tell him you want a little myopia post op. If he still balks, go > >elsewhere which is what it sounds like you want to do anyway. Tell the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > it > up with a "little myopia". I did some research before my first cataract surgery. Once my surgeon realized that I wasn't "up in the clouds", he discussed my options. It was totally up to me. It was some years between the initial diagnose and the actual surgery, so I had time. >So here I am, needing a cataract removal. First, I don't like this >cat-doc. He seemed to me as a money-making machine, didn't give me a >chance to ask questions, and before I knew it I was presented with >consent forms to sign. There are plenty of very good surgeons who will give you a reasonable amount of time for questions and answers. >But what was disturbing most was his "plan": >to install an IOL that would correct my distant vision, which will >require me to have reading glasses (and I presume also intermediate >distance glasses), and then do the same in the other eye, my one and >only GOOD EYE that has no cataract and so far no problem except mild >myopia. If the other eye is healthy then use an implant that closely matches the good eye. Don't let anyone operate on the good eye. You might want to file a complaint with your state medical licensing board. I hope you have a successful surgery. Robert Martellaro ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Optician/Owner Roberts Optical Wauwatosa Wi. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself." - Richard Feynman |
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.