laser eye surgery?

[Dyin-To-Dive]

I don't know if this is too late to help, but I had LASIK three days ago. I opted for the Custom Bladeless Lasik. This is the Intralase procedure with Wavefront technology. It was an expensive procedure, but well worth it. With insurance I paid $3790.00 for both eyes and my prescription was -3.5 in both eyes. I can now see the leaves on trees 100 yards away with EASE! My advice to you is not to opt for a "value" type surgery. Save as long as you need to and get the most advanced surgery you can.

The surgery itself took 15 minutes and it was completely painless. I would do it again in a second.

I hope that helps. Keep us posted!

 

[Krazytomdiver]

As a dive guide, I had LASIK Mono-vision surgery over ten years ago & I'm almost 60 now. It is by far the best money I have ever spent. My non-dominate left eye is 20/40 for reading & my dominate right eye is 20/15 for distance. I paid $3000usd for both eyes with a year of free adjustment. I never 'looked' back.

"living life without a hard bottom"
KT

 

[devildoc5]

I myself received Photo Refractive Keratectomy (sp?). This for me was a better option.

With Lasik they cut the lens of and it never fully heals back so there is reported to be SOME chance of the lens becoming dislodged in extreme pressures (fighter pilots and military divers etc although nothing definitive has been proven yet). With PRK they basically take a little toothbrush with a wire bristle and GRIND the lens down until they reach the point where the laser is applied. The rest of the procedure is the same.

I had some intense pain a couple of days following surgery that subsided within a week. I also had some halo and some "clouding" that is associated with both Lasik and PRK. Steroid eye drops for about a month cleared both up problems.

I have been contact free for 4 years now and absolutely do not regret any part of the procedure, before or after.

The healing time for PRK is significantly extended though when compared to Lasik as your eyes have to regrow tissue instead of it just falling back into place. For me (at the time I worked in a VERY physical field where getting hit or kicked in the eye was an everyday occurrence) the PRK was the better way to go as it completely reduced any chance of lens flap problems.

Not too sure on the costs differences between the two as mine was paid for by the American taxpayers (thank you all) via military medicine (see military medicine isnt ALL bad). However I will say that it is something you might want to look into as well if you are considering corrective surgery.

From the medical experts at Wikipedia:

Because PRK does not create a permanent flap in the deeper corneal layers (the LASIK procedure involves a mechanical microtome using a metal blade or a femtosecond laser microtome to create a 'flap' out of the outer cornea), the cornea's structural integrity is less altered by PRK.

The LASIK process covers the laser treated area with the flap of tissue which is from 100 to 180 micrometres thick. This flap can mute the nuances of the laser ablation, whereas PRK performs the laser ablation at the outer surface of the cornea. The use of the anti-metabolite mitomycin, which is referred as M-LASEK, can minimize the risk of post-operative haze in persons requiring larger PRK corrections.

PRK does not involve a knife, microtome, or cutting laser as used in LASIK, but there may be more pain and slower visual recovery. Unlike LASIK, PRK does not create the risk of dislocated corneal flaps which may occur (especially with trauma), at any time after LASIK.