the eyes have it

[jrtom]

I've been putting things in place to allow me to get laser surgery on my eyes for something over a year now. Today I finally made an appointment to get it done.

In my case, this is not going to be a trivial operation: my myopia is sufficiently extreme (about -12 diopters in each eye; I literally cannot focus two inches in front of my face) that they're going to use two different forms of LASIK (conventional and WaveFront) for the operation, and the chances that I'll have 20/20 vision afterwards, while probably better than 50-50, are not great. Hopefully the benefits will be worth the risk (and the cost)...but if nothing else, I should at least be able to function without corrective lenses, which I simply can't do now.

Crossing fingers...

Comments

[gwyd.livejournal.com]

Good luck with that. Even having more functionality might be worth it for you.

[jrtom.livejournal.com]

Oh, I know. But I'm still going to be kind of annoyed if I go through this (and pay the money) and then still have to wear glasses or contacts. It worked great for my sister, though, and her eyesight is almost as bad as mine, so I'm hoping it will work as well for me.

[darcydodo]

All I can say is: LASIK is good! Where are you getting it done?

I thought they couldn't do WaveFront if your eyes were too bad. (They did it on one of my eyes and not the other.)

[hukuma.livejournal.com]

My cousins and advisor all had eye surgery done not too long ago with quite positive results; I hope your experiene is similar. Good luck!

[red-frog.livejournal.com]

I am so excited for you! You're going to love it: it's amazing being able to see without contact lenses or glasses.

Use lots of drops during the healing. They'll tell you, but you've got to give me something to do here. :)

[jrtom.livejournal.com]

I'm getting it done at TLC in Newport Beach (Dr. Tom Tooma). I've heard from a few different sources that he's very good.

As for WaveFront: in fact what they'll be doing to me is 80% WaveFront and 20% conventional, in part because if they'd done all WaveFront then they'd have used more cornea up than they prefer. I'd considered doing IOL/ICL (intraocular/implantable contact lens) but I decided not to for several reasons: it doesn't correct astigmatism (of which I don't have a lot, but enough to be annoying), the potential complications are nastier, they only do one eye at a time (so I'd be half-blind for at least a couple of weeks), and Dr. Tooma hasn't done many of them. (Oh, and it costs a couple thousand more dollars.)

[jrtom.livejournal.com]

thanks... :)

[darcydodo]

I'd much rather have LASIK. :) It's so neat to open your eyes a couple hours after the surgery and be able to see.

[jrtom.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I've heard that. :) How bad was your myopia before, and what are you at now?

[darcydodo]

I can't precisely remember; I think one eye was -6 or -7, and the other -9 or something. But I'm not positive. Anyway, I now have 20/20 vision.

[jrtom.livejournal.com]

So, not quite as bad as my sister's. But bad enough that it gives me hope. :)

[jrtom.livejournal.com]

I am amused by the general tendency to italicize "see" in this context, as manifested by these comments. :)

As long as my vision is at least 20/40, I'm sure I'll be more or less OK with it. (What can I say?--I'm picky.)

merry late xmas I suppose

[amnesiadust.livejournal.com]

hmm. eyesight is good. hard to imagine what not being able to focus 2" in front of your face must be like.
good luck w/that.

Re: merry late xmas I suppose

[jrtom.livejournal.com]

It's something like not being able to focus 200' in front of your face, except a lot more so. ;)

To make it somewhat more concrete: I cannot reliably identify faces at 2 feet; heck, I can't even reliably read my alarm clock's 3-inch-high seven-segment LED display at 2 feet (in the dark, with high contrast). Nor can I reliably see my glasses (from a standing height) if I drop them on the floor. It's pretty much like things look through a telescope, or binoculars, that are as far out of focus as they go--except probably somewhat more so.

On the other hand, I *can* see fine details on objects < 2" from my eyes (although for obvious reasons of geometry, my binocular vision isn't much). I can't focus on anything much *closer* than 6" with my glasses on (don't know how this works for you), so I expect I'll lose the really-close-up detail I can see now with my unaided eyes. But I guess I'm willing to give that up. :)

Re: merry late xmas I suppose

[mrlogic.livejournal.com]

The loss of fine detail has been the main reason I haven't gone for LASIK. My prescription is nearly as strong as yours was (in fact you're one of very few people I've met whose prescription was worse than mine). In addition, I'm old enough that LASIK would probably make me more or less instantly presbyopic, so I'd have to wear reading glasses pretty soon. I'd be very interested to talk with you about your experiences as a post-LASIK hypermyope.

Re: merry late xmas I suppose

[jrtom.livejournal.com]

Post-op, I can focus on things no closer than 5". I brought this up with my sister (red_frog) and she pointed out the existence of magnifying glasses. :) I honestly don't think I've lost much in terms of really close-up fine detail, though.

As for the presbyopia: as I understand it, you'll be presbyopic eventually with or without LASIK; getting LASIK would just mean that you would need reading glasses rather than bifocals.

As for my experiences: I've now made three post-LASIK posts in my LJ (Google on " "post-LASIK" Joshua" to find the first two); feel free to ask questions in the comments (or to email me).