Mine wouldn’t promise a thing.  All he would give me was 60/40 odds
that I would be able to qualify to drive a car without glasses, since
that was my goal when I started.

: I think you are misinterpreting what people mean when they say RK or PRK
: cured them of needing glasses.  When I say PRK cured me of needing glasses
: what I mean is that I don’t need glasses in order to carry out my day to
: day life.  Naturally as I age various parts of my body will no longer
: function as well as before and I may need assistance – including reading
: glasses.  Needing an aid to perform a particular task is very different to
: needing an aid to function at all.  Prior to PRK I couldn’t do anything
: safely without wearing my glasses, not even walking from the bedroom to the
: bathroom.  Moreover I didn’t _look_ for my glasses on the bedside table
: when I woke up, I _groped_ for them.  It is difficult to describe the
: euphoria I felt when I woke up after PRK, opened my eyes and could _see_.

  Amen.  Hitting 20/20 on that stupid chart, even though my eye was
still watering like mad, made it all worth it the morning after the
first operation.  They didn’t stay 20/20 over time, but they stayed
good enough that I haven’t worn glasses in over a year now.

–
Brian W. Antoine        "… and all of your family too!" laughed Jon from the
Senior Networking Eng       center of the crater below me.  I didn’t even stop
Olivetti North America \|/     to think, I just acted.  Powered by my rage and
E. 22425 Appleway     –*–     a star, the largest laser in existance flashed
Spokane, WA 99219      /|\  into being and the Lunar Farside became his grave.
http://tau-ceti.isc-br.com/ =========== From the Stories of the Family Nas Kan

: In article <Pine.A32.3.91a.941027200952.61820A-100…@mead1.u.washington.edu>
: William Kreuter <bil…@u.washington.edu> writes:

: >Similarly, is RK or PRK able to prevent the onset of presbyopia?  I’m 39
: >and have perfect reading vision.  In ten years I probably won’t.  Don’t
: >RK and PRK completely ignore this problem?

: They certainly do — and I think it is absolutely scandalous that this
: industry does not inform potential patients about this problem.

: My evidence comes from reading this group and some others. Many
: peoiple ask about the safety and compliocation rate of the procedures,
: but every one of them so far seems to believe that if the procedure
: works, they will never need glasses.

  Well, I guess I’ll be the first to speak for the other side.  Before
I had the 2nd operation on either eye, my doctor asked me directly if
I wanted him to go for 20/20 or if I wanted to be a little near sighted
to correct for going far sighted in my 40′s.  I choose staying slight
near sighted, and my sight varies a little either side of 20/30 today.
I strongly suspect it depends upon the doctor and how long they’ve been
doing RK’s or PRK’s.  I choose one who had been doing them for about 7
years as opposed to the dozen or so "me too’s" who have started advertising
locally the last year or so.

: So, if you have *very* large correction needs, consider corneal
: surgery — but if you’re comfortably near-sighted, and expect to live
: past 40, don’t listen to those repair-hawkers.  In my opinion, because
: of this seemingly universal misconception, the FDA should require all
: advertisments to include a warning line: this "operation will not
: permanently keep you from wearing eyeglasses."

  My sight at the time of the first operation was:

       Sphere     Cyl     Axis
O.D.    -8.75   +1.50     130
O.S.    -8.25   +1.50      55

  or so the card I kept as a keepsake says.  I had gotten to the point
where I had to stare at my computer screen using a small portion of the
center of my glasses.  If I didn’t scan the screen slightly with my head,
I got to watch the color dots seperate into static because of the color
aberations caused by my thick lens.

  I drove my doctor nuts asking questions he’d almost never heard from
any of his other patients.  He always tried to answer them though and
was always _more_ than willing to discuss possible problems or drawbacks.

–
Brian W. Antoine        "… and all of your family too!" laughed Jon from the
Senior Networking Eng       center of the crater below me.  I didn’t even stop
Olivetti North America \|/     to think, I just acted.  Powered by my rage and
E. 22425 Appleway     –*–     a star, the largest laser in existance flashed
Spokane, WA 99219      /|\  into being and the Lunar Farside became his grave.
http://tau-ceti.isc-br.com/ =========== From the Stories of the Family Nas Kan

>> min…@transit.ai.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky) writes:
>>>  William Kreuter <bil…@u.washington.edu> writes:
>> They certainly do — and I think it is absolutely scandalous that this
>> industry does not inform potential patients about this problem.

>> My evidence comes from reading this group and some others. Many
>> peoiple ask about the safety and compliocation rate of the procedures,
>> but every one of them so far seems to believe that if the procedure
>> works, they will never need glasses.

>The doctor I consulted for PRK emphasised both in the documents he gave me
>and in conversations with him that PRK would not prevent me from needing
>reading glasses when I got older.  All he was willing to promise was that
>there was a good chance (not a guarantee) that I would not need glasses to
>correct myopia after PRK.

        My doctor did the exact same thing, but my own commoon sense
        made this deduction also.

>I think you are misinterpreting what people mean when they say RK or PRK
>cured them of needing glasses.  When I say PRK cured me of needing glasses
>what I mean is that I don’t need glasses in order to carry out my day to
>day life.  

        I’m 24 so probably for the next 20+yrs I won’t need visual
        assistance.  Well worth US$3000.  While as I aged my vision
        would have gotten better I doubt theat in the next 50yrs my
        vision would have gone from 20/425 to 20/20.

>Prior to PRK I couldn’t do anything
>safely without wearing my glasses, not even walking from the bedroom to the
>bathroom.  Moreover I didn’t _look_ for my glasses on the bedside table
>when I woke up, I _groped_ for them.  It is difficult to describe the
>euphoria I felt when I woke up after PRK, opened my eyes and could _see_.

        Hear, hear.  It seems Barbara and I were in the same boat.  SCUBA
        was OK when I wore glasses, fun when I wore contacts and is downright
        exciting now that I need no assistance.  Parachuting, rollerblading,
        biking, going to the bathroom at night :v)  Intimate situations.  I can
        actually look at my alarm claock across the room at night
        and read it!

        I can go someplace and not have to ask my host if they have a
        glass I can put my contacts in and some close-to-sterile-water
        and hope that nobody drinks my contacts as I sleep.

        David

——————————————————————–
David E. Stewart                        Slavic Language DTP
Mir DeskTop Publishing                  Documentation, Graphics, Flyers,
2647 Ellendale Pl #201                  Restaurant Menus, Letters
Los Angeles, CA 90007-2235  USA         Newsletters, Manuals,
email deste…@usc.edu               Business Cards
VOX/FAX 213 731 1775                    

>>Similarly, is RK or PRK able to prevent the onset of presbyopia?  I’m 39
>>and have perfect reading vision.  In ten years I probably won’t.  Don’t
>>RK and PRK completely ignore this problem?

>They certainly do — and I think it is absolutely scandalous that this
>industry does not inform potential patients about this problem.

        Being a biology major, Navy Hospital Corpsman (we have no such
        thing as former), and a thinking individual I figured out for
        myself that as I got older I would have the same problems
        people with normal vision at my age have as they got older.
        But my doctor also informed of this and also informed me that
        he tries to keep his patients a little myopic so that as they
        get older they will get closer to 20/20.

>My evidence comes from reading this group and some others. Many
>peoiple ask about the safety and compliocation rate of the procedures,
>but every one of them so far seems to believe that if the procedure
>works, they will never need glasses.

        ****************************
        It is unfortuante if somebody would think this, but I’m sure that if
        they thought it through they would see that as they got older
        they would need correction just like everybody else.

>So, if you have *very* large correction needs, consider corneal
>surgery — but if you’re comfortably near-sighted, and expect to live
>past 40, don’t listen to those repair-hawkers.  In my opinion, because
>of this seemingly universal misconception, the FDA should require all
>advertisments to include a warning line: this "operation will not
>permanently keep you from wearing eyeglasses."

        I concur, PRK could over adjust and then you’re out of luck.
        As you get older you’ll get more and more far-sighted.
        On the other hand if you’re 20/425 like I was, PRK
        correction to OD 20/30 OS 20/20 is a godsend.

        David

——————————————————————–
David E. Stewart                        Slavic Language DTP
Mir DeskTop Publishing                  Documentation, Graphics, Flyers,
2647 Ellendale Pl #201                  Restaurant Menus, Letters
Los Angeles, CA 90007-2235  USA         Newsletters, Manuals,
email deste…@usc.edu               Business Cards
VOX/FAX 213 731 1775                    

The doctor I consulted for PRK emphasised both in the documents he gave me
and in conversations with him that PRK would not prevent me from needing
reading glasses when I got older.  All he was willing to promise was that
there was a good chance (not a guarantee) that I would not need glasses to
correct myopia after PRK.

I think you are misinterpreting what people mean when they say RK or PRK
cured them of needing glasses.  When I say PRK cured me of needing glasses
what I mean is that I don’t need glasses in order to carry out my day to
day life.  Naturally as I age various parts of my body will no longer
function as well as before and I may need assistance – including reading
glasses.  Needing an aid to perform a particular task is very different to
needing an aid to function at all.  Prior to PRK I couldn’t do anything
safely without wearing my glasses, not even walking from the bedroom to the
bathroom.  Moreover I didn’t _look_ for my glasses on the bedside table
when I woke up, I _groped_ for them.  It is difficult to describe the
euphoria I felt when I woke up after PRK, opened my eyes and could _see_.

Barbara
—
b…@syseng.anu.edu.au
"A hard man is good to find." – Mae West

William Kreuter <bil…@u.washington.edu> writes:
>Similarly, is RK or PRK able to prevent the onset of presbyopia?  I’m 39
>and have perfect reading vision.  In ten years I probably won’t.  Don’t
>RK and PRK completely ignore this problem?

They certainly do — and I think it is absolutely scandalous that this
industry does not inform potential patients about this problem.

My evidence comes from reading this group and some others. Many
peoiple ask about the safety and compliocation rate of the procedures,
but every one of them so far seems to believe that if the procedure
works, they will never need glasses.

I have little accomodation left, but I consider myself fortunate to be
myopic enough to read without glasses, remove splinters, disassemble
tiny machinery, etc.  I need glasses for driving, reading distant
signs, and so forth. So, if I lose my glasses I’m not professionally
handicapped.  I do wear glasses most of the time anyway, because in my
exciting life I’ve had lots of close calls with exploding test tubes,
batteries, glowing chips flying out of grinding machines, and what
not.  The eyeglasses are Varilux (continuous multifocus) but I take
them off for reading anyhow because the in-focus field of view is not
large.

So, if you have *very* large correction needs, consider corneal
surgery — but if you’re comfortably near-sighted, and expect to live
past 40, don’t listen to those repair-hawkers.  In my opinion, because
of this seemingly universal misconception, the FDA should require all
advertisments to include a warning line: this "operation will not
permanently keep you from wearing eyeglasses."

.

: My site just started receiving this group this week, so I apologize if I’m
: repeating anything from recent threads.  I was interested in the details
: given in the FAQ of RK and PRK.  These procedures, particularly RK, are
: widely advertised in the Seattle area.  However, every optometrist that
: I’ve spoken to (three so far) has strongly advised against these
: operations.  Although my initial assumption was that it was a pocketbook
: issue for them, the more I find out, the more skeptical I feel that RK or
: PRK is a good deal.

: According to the FAQ, something like 64% of RK patients "don’t need
: glasses or contacts" after their eyesight has stabilized after surgery.
: First of all, this implies that for one-third of patients, the surgery is
: unsuccessful in eliminating the need for correction.  But with regard to
: PRK, the FAQ also reports, "After 6 months 63% (19 eyes) were within [one
: diopter] of a zero correction."  Can I safely conclude that for the RK or
: PRK practitioner, an attained prescription of one diopter needs no
: correction and ought to be satisfactory for the patient?

: My own prescription is OD -0.25 -0.75, OS -2.00 -0.75.  Because I highly
: value seeing fine detail, a few years ago I resumed wearing glasses all
: the time, even though I pass the driver’s vision test easily with no
: correction.  The idea that a one-diopter prescription needs no correction
: doesn’t seem acceptable to me.  My optometrists have also told me that my
: correction is too slight for the RK surgeons to do much with, particularly
: in my good (right) eye — so I could spend $2500 and have vision not much
: better than what I see right now without my glasses.

: I also don’t see that RK or PRK provides stable results.  My prescription
: changes about a quarter diopter per year, for better or worse.  There’s no
: suggestion in the FAQ that it wouldn’t continue to do so.  Again, if one
: diopter is the standard, then I could expect many years of such
: "stability."  But if one values high resolution as I do, then an operation
: that doesn’t prevent a quarter-diopter shift is underperforming.

: Similarly, is RK or PRK able to prevent the onset of presbyopia?  I’m 39
: and have perfect reading vision.  In ten years I probably won’t.  Don’t
: RK and PRK completely ignore this problem?

: Billy Kreuter
: bil…@u.washington.edu

: I don’t think I saw this in the FAQ’s chapter on interpreting Snellen
: acuity.  Is there any practical way to estimate a person’s Snellen ratio,
: given their prescription in diopters?  

Short answer is ‘no’. There are some general ‘rules of thumb’ that can
be applied to the loss of lines of the chart and the power/prescription.
But in general this is only a rough guide since compound prescriptions,
i.e, spherical and astigmatic combinations.

: One reason why I ask is that
: Snellens seem to have gone out of use in the Seattle area.  My
: optometrists don’t seem to think that the ratio is very useful when I ask
: them what mine is.

grant
—
Grant Sayer
Optometrist
EMAIL: gra…@research.canon.oz.au                PHONE: +61-2-805-2937
SNAIL: Canon Information Systems Research Australia
       1 Thomas Holt Drive, North Ryde, Australia 2113

I’m not sure I understand why it could be dangerous to have the sun
directly fall on closed eyelids (unless the light is extremely strong,
like in high altitude mountains (snow reflexion)).

>Bates also said that eyeglasses make one’s vision progressively poorer,
>and that reading deteriorates eyesight acuity.  I’m less sure that either
>of these claims is wholly false, although I’ve heard both disputed.  What
>do the optometrists on this group think?

That’s interesting to know that Bates what claiming that reading
deteriorates eyesight acuity since some of his followers (or
ppl referring to his work) were claiming exactly the contrary and
used reading as a treatment method.

Even though I have been quite disappointed in the result of the
Bates method and would tend to adopt the current view that "it just
doesn’t work", I believe that his main idea still hold some truth:
"a good eyesight is the result of perfectly relaxed organs
performing uncontrol actions".

That would tend to corroborate by experience. Before becoming
myopic (from the age of 16) I remember that I was hardly concious
of performing any effort to see things. Also, never knew what
eye strain was. Even though from the age of 11 I had a computer
I was regularly working (or playing) with, sometime for
extended period of time, I still didn’t have any sensation/notion of
my eye being tensed.

It’s only after becoming myopic that I realized how much I had become
conscious of my eye in terms of how I was trying to control them and
also how I could feel them tensed.

So, I would naturally tend to accept the fact that going back to the
former state of relaxation and uncontrol of the vision system is
the right way to improve vision. Of course, my conceptions are
based mainly on my experience of myopia and is probably not applicable
to most of other visual problems.

Beside the Bates method, behavioral optometry and accomodation biofeedback
are probably more modern and efficient ways to provide this type of
relaxation, though I don’t believe they are final solutions (given
their limitations).

Erol Basturk