THE ENGINEER wrote:I can see well enough to function without glasses or contacts at this point, but vision quality is what I care about. With glasses or soft contact I felt that my vision was perfect. Having a reduced dependance is worth nothing to me as I want good vision quality. I was fed statistics and success stories that led me to believe this could/would be achieved. It was not.
Is your vision quality good with glasses after lasik? How does it compare to contacts before lasik? I also read success stories, of course they don't show you the less than perfect stories. One has to research the outcome of others online to find out. Not everyone gets a perfect outcome and even those who get 20/20, the quality may be 20/30. Alot of people have unrealistic expectations, I once did. Doing some research on the internet let me know that lasik isn't a "cure" but a tool that can greatly improve your vision and reduce your dependancy on glasses and often let you see "well enough to function". For people like you, it wouldn't be worth the cost or risks. For others, a reduced dependancy on glasses is great.
I have researched Lasik and other procedures off and on for a few years. My expectations were essentially perfect vision as that is what I was led to believe would be achieved.
I wish surgeons would be more upfront that perfect vision is unrealistic. It does happen for some people, others get to enjoy seeing well enough to drive without glasses or see well enough not to need glasses fulltime. At one of my PRK consultations, I was shown a form that said "would you be happy to see better without glasses even if you don't see as well as you do with glasses before lasik" I said yes because I dislike glasses and to see well enough to function without them would be great. I always have the option of wearing glasses whenever I feel like to sharpen things. I just want not to be blind(20/800) without glasses.
The problem is that unless you run into issues and are looking for answers you don't always know what to research or how prevalent issue are. Even when you find issues it is easy to downplay them due to the overwhelming amount of material stating how safe the procedures are and how high the success rates are. I wish I was turned away by the doc.
Did you post on any forums before you got lasik? Im sure there are things even I don't know about regarding lasik/prk. I am aware of many different issues and I am aware my vision isn't going to be 100% after prk, but very likley decent and functional without glasses with glasses giving me the option in the few circumstances I would find them a benefit. You stand correct that the risks are downplayed. I had researched lasik over 5 years ago and saw a bunch of websites created by those with serious complications(way, way, way worse than yours) and they warn everyone not to get lasik. I posted on some lasik forums and those with good results say I am "missing out" while those with bad results warn me away. I think it boils down to how much risk is acceptable and what your expectations are.
I would have chosen to stay with contacts, I have not worn glasses in 20 years and only wore contacts. A huge reduction in dependancy means squat to me as I will now be wearing glasses or contacts once again since it is quality vision I prefer, not just functional. I have now paid $3600 to see better for the few minutes it takes me to go to the bathroom and put in contacts. Not what I consider money well spent.
May I ask why you even looked into lasik when contacts were working so well for you with minimal time and hassles? Even if lasik gave you the same vision as you got with contacts, what would be the point to save a few minutes? From other stories ive read, most contact wearers end unhappy after lasik since lasik usually doesn't give perfect vision, but functional vision. Contacts themselves allow you to see without glasses(unless presbyopic) I did try contacts myself but could never tolerate them. So in my case, if I get PRK, a huge reduction in dependancy means everything. It won't be "perfect" like contact lenses but contacts aren't an option for me unfortunately.
I do not understand why a lasik surgeon would not perform an enhancement for an unhappy patient. The risks are the same if the residual prescription is -.50 or -3.0. I would be willing to take the risk in order to be happy. I will give it a few more months to see if things improve. As far as vision quality goes, I can see things fairly well that are in a room with me, but outdoors it is different. Everything seem soft and a little out of focus. I also now have an astimatism in one eye that is driving me crazy.
As you have seen, lasik didn't give you perfect vision. Someone who's a -3 and ends up a -0.5 after lasik(or enhancement) would have come out ahead. If you are only a -0.5 to begin with, there's no benefit, why take the same risks? Maybe you could get an enhancement in the eye with astigmatism if it's a full diopter or more. Otherwise, glasses will correct that.
If I was told that the recover time would be months, not days or weeks I also would have walked away. Those promoting these types of procedures are often good at word games where they do not lie to you, but mislead you knowing that you will likely take the bait. Anyway, thanks for the encouragement.
I was told lasik would take a few days to recover while PRK would take a few weeks. I am still choosing PRK over lasik because PRK does not involve a flap, dries the eyes less, removes less cornea and has less risks overall. The question is whether I should get PRK with today's technology or keep waiting. I do feel today's lasers are reasonably good, but there's still a "rare" chance of really serious complications. What you have would be counted as a "success" by the surgeon. I am still doing more research and asking around. Thanks again for your time.