Intraocular Corrective Lenses superior to LASIK & PRK? L

[Summit]

My STORY:
I figured I was probably going to do PRK or one of its derivatives because of the potential complications of LASIK (unless a doc could talk me out of it). I have a consult scheduled. My dad, a doc but not an eye doc, said to be sure to research intraocular corrective lenses. After reading about these, everything I've been able to read says that ICL complication rates are lower than PRK (and complications are less severe or more correctable) and the recovery time is as fast or faster than LASIK, plus the procedure is reversible and no structure is removed.

My QUESTIONS:
1. Is there any reason other than cost not to choose something like Visian ICL?

2. Additionally, with a very mild astigmatism on the R eye, is Toric ICL the way to go or combining ICL with LRI?

3. Does LRI have altitude complications like RK did?

My EYES:
L -5.25
R -3.75 /w around .5 or .75 astigmatism
Age: 27
No other eye problems ever. No significant medical history except some broken bones.
Brother had successful PRK (not a LASIK candidate)
Two uncles had LASIK (one went well, the other ok)

My LIFE:
Live @ 9300ft ASL play up to 15000ft
Incredibly physically active:
Extreme skiing (woohoo!)
White Water Kayaking (cold swims)
Downhill mountain biking (breaks bones)
Mountain Search and Rescue (including flying around in helicopters)
SCUBA (rescue diver)
Mountaineering (up high)
Computer work (not active, but makes money)

[craighallett]

I was always under the impression that Inter Ocular lenses were only for extremely high prescriptions or prescriptions that were not possible to treat surgically. Most surgeons only treat the second eye once the first eye has healed.

I found the information on this site to be very helpful. They also answered a whole bunch of other questions I had. Have a look.

http://www.londonvisionclinic.com/laser ... r-lens.php

[Summit]

I was always under the impression that Inter Ocular lenses were only for extremely high prescriptions or prescriptions that were not possible to treat surgically. Most surgeons only treat the second eye once the first eye has healed.

I found the information on this site to be very helpful. They also answered a whole bunch of other questions I had. Have a look.

http://www.londonvisionclinic.com/laser ... r-lens.php

Well there was this study all on people -3 to -7.88
Power point
http://www.sightway.com/staar/jingyanwo ... o%20-7.ppt

seems to show ICL as more reliable.

[Summit]

OK, here is something that has me a bit freaked. Posted this question exactly the same way in the ICL forum of asklasikdocs.com . Their moderator approved the post and let it go up, but then deleted the question after one day with no explanation.

[beingbobbyorr]

My dad, a doc but not an eye doc, said to be sure to research intraocular corrective lenses.

Good idea.

http://iclquestions.angelfire.com/

1. Is there any reason other than cost not to choose something like Visian ICL?

ICLs present cataract, retinal detachment & endo cell loss risks .... and, because the eyeball is being cracked open, generally considered more of an infection risk than Lasik/PRK (which merely peels back the epithelial layer).

..... but the risks for all those things is pretty small.

2. Additionally, with a very mild astigmatism on the R eye, is Toric ICL the way to go or combining ICL with LRI?

Most ICL docs I've talked to say: ICL for the myopia, Lasik/PRK for the astigmatism.

My EYES:
L -5.25
R -3.75 /w around .5 or .75 astigmatism
Age: 27

Unless your corneas are too thin or you're susceptible to dry-eye, most doctors will try to get someone like you to do Lasik/PRK.

My LIFE:
Incredibly physically active:
Extreme skiing (woohoo!)
White Water Kayaking (cold swims)
Downhill mountain biking (breaks bones)
Mountain Search and Rescue (including flying around in helicopters)
SCUBA (rescue diver)
Mountaineering (up high)

See questions 29 & 30.

http://iclquestions.angelfire.com/

[beingbobbyorr]

OK, here is something that has me a bit freaked. Posted this question exactly the same way in the ICL forum of asklasikdocs.com . Their moderator approved the post and let it go up, but then deleted the question after one day with no explanation.

Evidently you shamed them into putting it back up:

http://asklasikdocs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=546

When I first read your question, my first thought was to say that the name of the website suggests that it's obvious they're in the business of selling Lasik, not competitors to Lasik .... but clearly they're onside with some ICL dialog.

[LasikExpert]

Evidently you shamed them into putting it back up:

Or it was just a technical mistake.

I have several concerns about the use of an ICL when an alternative like Lasik or PRK appears to be appropriate. Please read P-IOLs.

[highflyer]

I am 66 years young and was not a canidate for lasik, i have worked as a pilot and have not needed glasses for my distant vision,only reading glasses for close up and had a mild form of cataracts, My Dr. advised me to go with crystalens as this is the latest and greatest, it will provide excellent vision not only at near and far but intermediate as well, the only drawback is the cost to me would be $2,600 per eye above what my insurance would cover. I had the crystalens surgery 12/04/08, it is almost 3 weeks out of surgery now and my near, intermediate vision is good but my distant vision is horrible , now my Dr. wants to place a piggyback -1.0 lens to correct my distant vision, but in doing so will diminish my near vision, i have worn a -1.0 contact in this eye for almost a week and the near vision is gone, i would have to use readers, i would be back to where i had started except out $2600 out of pocket expense and no telling what future problems the crystalens may bring .
Anyone with any constructive input on my problem please feel free to converse.

Thanks

[catnmus]

My opinion is, you just made your eye doctor $2600 x 2 and did nothing effective. You are 66 years old. You need readers. You will not be able to get perfect near, far and intermediate vision (unless they make a tri-focal crystalens?). So your doctor corrected your near vision, which ruined your distance vision. And now he wants to correct your distance vision, which will worsen your near vision. Putting you right exactly back where you started, right? He is just trying to make money off of you.

I'm sorry I have no constructive information, except to say that you MAY be able to sue your doctor for advising you to correct a problem you didn't even have. And you can get a second opinion about whether removing the crystalens altogether will restore you to your original vision situation.

Of course you do have to say whether it is the "pilot" part that is more important to you, or the "no readers" part. Maybe your doctor got confused about your priorities with vision correction.

[LasikExpert]

Your Crystalens is not a lost cause yet. The Crystalens is a hinged intraocular lens that is able to move forward and backward within the eye. This movement allows the Crystalens to change the point of focus. This commonly allows very good distance vision and improved intermediate and near vision. The physics of the Crystalens and the eye are such that there will be limited near vison improvement; about 1.50 diopters (plus or minus) is the max. This would be the same near vision as if you put on 1.50 reading glasses.

The Crystalens relies on the same muscles that reshaped the natural lens to move the Crystalens to change focus to see near objects. If these muscles have atrophied and ar not working, then the Crystalens will not be able to change focus.

At age 66, the muscles to manipulate your natural lens have probably not been used for the better part of 20 years. The brain has likely stopped asking for them to change. You are now suddenly asking for these muscles to operate as they did over two decades ago. You are not going to get the "20 Minute Miracle" with a Crystalens. It often takes months for the system of accommodation to work again, and sometimes it never does.

The poor distance vision with good near vision indicates that the power of the lens or its placement within the eye is making you about 1.00 diopter myopic (nearsighted). This myopia is in effect over-riding the need of the Crystalens to work. There is no need to focus to see near objects if the eyes are already set to see near objects.

The 1.00 diopter contact lens will give you good distance vision and will make the Crystalens start working. You are really only now starting the process of "training" the Crystalens.

Of the premium intraocular lenses available for cataract patients, the Crystalens has the advantage that even if it does not accommodate, it reverts to a good monofocus lens. With the multi-focal lenses, if you don't like the multifocal effect, you need to remove them.