I had LASIK twenty years ago and have regretted it every day. Before that I had a -2 prescription that was perfectly correctable. I still have a -2. However, in the late evening my vision gets much worse, as the iris expands. And it's uncorrectable. I'll never be able to see stars again. I struggle with large halos when driving at night, and I lost some edge detection abilities. The cause was that the laser used had a smaller diameter than my lenses. The doctor who examined me beforehand mentioned this as a potential problem, but I was so excited to have perfect vision that I didn't listen. Also, I continued programming while healing. I needed a lot more far-sight time, so I'm told.
It sounds to me like you have epithelial in growth under your flap. Or you've had multiple surgeries to remove it and now you have major scar tissue.
Or I'm just projecting because you remind me of me :( my initial LASIK went well, but when I had it corrected years later it turned into a 7 surgery living hell spanning years. It's stabilized as what you described, primarily in my left eye, while weirdly my right eye has more in growth
I suspect it is dim light where the pupil size grows near or larger than the corrected area. You will get corrected light entering the center of the eye, and halos from the uncorrected light entering the uncorrected lens of the eye around the edges of the surgery. They're supposed to measure your eye, your pupil and tell you about this stuff before the surgery.
Now me - I had the surgery in one eye, it wasn't great and I never did the other eye.
Except for completely uncorrected vision, the non-surgery eye was significantly better in all aspects than the surgery eye. (both with correction)
Nobody asks the lifetime of the surgery, but I can tell you after a few years the surgery eye was back to where it started. It will need cataracts earlier. It has halos at night. It has continued to need correction, and now needs more correction than the other eye. So now the non-surgery eye is the best in all respects.
With correction (astigmatism contacts), the non-surgery eye has more immediate focusing, less glare, and better corrected vision than the surgery eye.
oh wait, I couldn't get correction of the surgery eye when it started needing it, since contacts were too thin.
In my specific case, I couldn't wear glasses because the low correction of the surgery eye could not work with the high correction in the non-surgery eye. (two different image sizes, brain couldn't put them together)
If I had known, I would have asked two questions:
- will I get the best corrected vision from the surgery or from no surgery + contact lenses.
(the doctors typically try to compare no correction pre surgery to no correction post surgery, which is ridiculous)
- what will happen to my eyes in 5 years, 10 years, etc
How many of those end up with life-altering complications? For being a website trying to highlight how problematic something is, it oddly is missing a bunch of data to back it up.
> From the report: "In [FDA] studies, ~15% of patients experienced night vision symptoms that were worse or significantly worse than preoperative night vision symptoms. Approximately 20% of patients experienced dryness symptoms that were worse or significantly worse than preoperative dryness." View complication table from report.
As someone who never had any issues with my eyes, is worse night vision and/or increased dryness something that is considered "life-altering complications"?
An extremely important (and grave) misunderstanding is that "eye driness" is just a feeling of burning or similar.
Tears are a crucial part of the vision. With less tears, the eye has worse vision. So one can end in a paradoxical situation where they have a better vision in theory (and tests!), but in practice, they may see considerably worse. And there's nothing one can do - eye drops only last a short amount of time.
I had considerable eye dryness that improved over several (5+) years, which is almost entirely recovered. A couple of years ago I've tried contacts and they wouldn't hold (it wasn't the case pre-op).
The (licensed) doctor was a liar (about the risks), and they actually didn't care about me post-op.
Well I've definitely heard of cases where they needed eye drips every evening before sleep or they'd wake up in pain from dryness, which I'd say is pretty life changing. Like having a chronic disability that requires constant medication.
I couldn't go outside for months. I'd wear double sunglasses and a hat. I'd just cover myself completely. I couldn't open my eyes to see, it was blindly bright. I couldn't use an oven, the hot air instantly and painfully burned the moment I'd open the over door. Etc.
As others have said, it depends. What is weird to me is that the citation doesn't state whether these side effects are permanent. I also had LASIK, and did experience severe dry eye afterwards, but it went away within a month or two. I still have halos/bad vision at night, but I don't consider it life-altering. I would have the operation again in a heart beat.
They also mentioned they ignored potential red flags and didn't follow correct post-op care, so blaming the technique seems like barking up the wrong tree
People seem to google "lasik best prices" then wonder why their experience sucks?
Don't go for the first google links when researching something, avoid sensationalistic BS
The question had nothing to do with that. It was whether LASIK can have life-altering complications. The answer is Yes.
But to your point: I will assume the HN who posted here was smart, and that the procedure was performed by a licensed professional within a standard risk profile, using equipment that was functioning as expected.
"Can $procedure have life-altering complications?" Yes, every procedure has a non zero chance of having complications. Yes even stuff at your dentist, or having a mole taken out etc.
> within a standard risk profile
Well, not following post-op guidelines takes it out of the risk profile, still, it is good to have a second opinion and understanding the risks for your case
> laser used had a smaller diameter than my lenses
Given that it was 20 yrs ago it is possible that this was an effect that was not well known and it is better controlled today.
It is very possible that this result would have been better with modern equipment and techniques (especially if this was not bladeless Lasik) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31353955/
> Given that it was 20 yrs ago it is possible that this was an effect that was not well known and it is better controlled today.
This was known at the time. If you think about it, it's an obvious effect if you can't correct all of the surface that will admit light in. I had a great outcome with my eye surgery from around that time, with my vision needing no correction for 20 years now. However I distinctly recall the doctor saying that if some features were a bit wider (iirc iris), then his equipment wouldn't be viable for me. I feel strongly that the poster who had this situation had an unethical doctor.
I know the plural of anecdote isn't data, but I question those numbers.
I know lots of people who've gotten LASIK or PRK, and nobody I know personally has regretted it. I only see the horror stories online.
I myself have gotten LASIK, and have had no issues outside the original healing period, except a slight tendency towards dry eyes in the morning, but it's mild.
Eye surgery happens in such large quantities that the small percentages of edge cases will keep coming up. I have for e.g. met someone who got lasik whose cornea was thinned enough that it resulted in keratoconus and needing corneal transplants to even see. That is very uncommon but is apparently possible
There is no surgery without risks but this FUD website caused me a lot of anxiety and had me to delay getting lasik.
I can without a doubt say it has been the best money I've ever spent. I spend a lot of time outdoors and hike and camp. Doing that with glasses or contacts absolutely sucks. Either your glasses get finger oil on them, or your contacts get some dirt and you have to take them out (but first you have to find clean water to wash your hands). I'm so much happier now.
Since then, a lot of friends and family members have also undergone the procedure, and none of them have had any problems, and all of them are extremely happy with the results.
edit: I had super dry eyes for the first 2-3 or so months (specially since I'm staring at the monitor all day), but that was expected and I was told about it by the doctor. Eye drops did the trick, and it went away completely after 6 months.
Exactly the same boat here. That site and reddit caused me to put off having good vision for years and years. My right eye couldn't see the E on the eye chart. If I hadn't been able to wear glasses I'd have qualified as legally blind.
Now I have perfect vision, and everyone I personal know that has had LASIK or PRK have the same story. Bad vision, to good vision, no complications. Everyone I know (including my optometrist) says they'd do it again in a heartbeat.
Don't ever do a touch up. Like if your vision slips and they offer to get you back to 20/20.
My lasik in 2008 went perfect. My 2014 touch up turned into a living hell 2014-2018 and I still have issues. But at least I can look at a backlit display again, go outside, use the oven, ........
It's fun to feel good about something turning out well. It's called luck. Don't take it to mean the internet is FUD.
Terrible things really do happen and after 7 surgeries and 4 corneal surgeon specialists across 3 states I am calling absolute bullshit on the suggestion that this is rare. They told me it's not rare. The rarity is it not being fixed after 7 surgeries.
Just to drive this home. They glued my flap down. It felt like a dagger was in my eye. I was screaming. They told me this was normal -- only after the surgery. AND IT FAILED. I had to do it again. And then they sutured it down instead.
I have pics from an iPhone where you can see the stitches popping out of my eyeball
...ugh. Anyway. I'm glad it went well for you. BUT YOU ARE LUCKY. No one should do this unless they understand the risks. I absolutely did not. They repeatedly told me they could fix it and failed.
(I don't mean to be argumentative. It's like a PTSD fueled public service announcement..)
Tangentially related: for those who are considering LASIK in order to save money on contacts: I created https://lenspricer.com/, which compares contact lens prices across almost all online stores.
Buying them online at the cheapest price can lower your cost significantly (like up to 80%+ - the price you pay at nation-wide stores is often very overpriced compared to online prices).
An article+calculator on how long it would take for you to break even from LASIK based on your selected contacts and rough LASIK price would be a great story for your site.
It would be simply stupid that we got so much worse at this technique in the past 10 years. You are welcome to post a link to your data source here, you already had two opportunities to do so.
Taran had very strong myopia, with his eyes at -10.00 and -8.50 before the operation. It's not surprising he's dealing with vision issues like starbursts now. The higher the degree of myopia, the more material in the eye they need to remove, which means a higher chance of side effects.
My friends I know who got LASIK had low/medium myopia and didn't end up with long-lasting side effects like Taran. And the starbursts are much smaller and less noticeable in size.
It can damage your eye If the surgeon takes out too much or too little tissue, and make vision worse (astigmatism.)
> LASIK has an excellent safety profile with a low complication rate. In fact, LASIK is one of the safest elective surgical procedures available today, with a complication rate estimated to be less than 1%.
Some people have long term negative effects from LASIK like extremely dry eyes, halos, loss of night vision, etc. These effects vary in severity. A very, very, very small percentage of people who got LASIK had such severe side effects that they committed suicide.
Also LASIK isn’t always going to correct vision to 20/20. Some people end up close.
I had it, or a newer version of it. I had pain before , which I considered to be a migraine, triggered by bad vision in one eye. But the vision was very close to perfect, one clinic refused to do it. After the procedure, and some amount of healing time the vision was perfect, but the pain came back and became stronger. So I suffered strong migraine like pain for years. Untill last month somebody here recommended NAC (N-acetyl-cysteine) supplement, I tried it and it worked within days. Turns out it was just dry eye. I did not make the connection, because eye drops did not help me, they seemed to make it worse. i was not missing in tears, but the eye lubricant which retains the tears on the surface, and multiple doctors missed it.
I never heard about the supplementation of N-acetyl-cysteine with regards to the treatment of dry eye disease (DED). Could you elaborate on your experiences with the supplementation of NAD? I am unable to find any real useful information in the web
There was screening. They said the cornea was a bit weak, but still fine… Last time I checked it wasn’t yet declared a genetic thing and there is no history of Keratoconus in my family.
Lots of valid discussion about risks. It is also worth considering the risks of whatever alternative correction is being used.
Nothing is as safe as a spectacles, which by their nature are likely somewhat protective.
The risks of long term contact lens wear and a laser vision correction procedure (PRK/LASIK/SMILE) are closer. Contact lenses have a non zero risk of serious complications including infection. The risk is much higher with extended wear contacts that are worn overnight. Daily disposables are the safest contact lens option.
The risk of serious complications with laser eye surgery are non zero but low if those who are unsuitable are excluded after examination and imaging.
Did anyone here do the eye surgery where they make a cut and slide in a permanent contact lens? My eyes are too bad for lasering, but this method would apparently still work. The doc tried to sell it to me as the better method irrespective of how bad your eyes are, since it is reversible (you can remove the lens).
Yes I did. The result is perfect as far as I can tell. Not everyone is eligible to that method: you need to have enough space in your eye so that it is doable. So checking for that is a first step to be sure it is doable. The only serious risk is an infection, so each eye was done in a different operation room. I was also told that the result is better than lasik, it is more costly though.
I had EVO ICL done ~10 months ago. My contact prescription was -7.25 left / -6.75 right with thin corneas so I wasn't a great candidate for LASIK. Weighed costs of ICL vs PRK and opted for the former (mostly recovery time concerns + as you mention ICL can be removed). Dollar cost was ~9.2k USD, so it was significantly higher than other options.
Recovery was very quick. I was 20/40 a few hours after surgery and 20/15 the following day (could have worked at computer, but took the day off). Pretty intense dry eyes initially, but eye drops helped and this improved over next couple months.
10 months later, vision is still great (though I expect my eyes to continue their normal progression). Halo-ing effects at night are stronger than I expected (believe they're related to pupil size + hole in center of lens), but I've mostly learned to ignore it (I also now prefer not to drive at night). Minor dry eyes but might try NAC supplement as suggested elsewhere in discussion.
I'd do it again in a heartbeat (hated dealing with contacts on camping trips) but wish I'd been more informed of halo-ing risks.
Both my wife and I did. She went first, and had bifocal lenses inserted. I waited a couple of years and got trifocals instead. I think I've had mine for five years or more by now; I don't remember.
My wife went from "can't read the big E on the eye chart" to only using readers for very tiny print. She had different prescriptions put in each eye, for different distances. It took her brain a little while to sort all that out, but she doesn't notice it anymore.
We both see concentric halos around light points (a side effect of the bifocal and trifocal lenses, I think), but eventually your brain edits those out and you don't notice them unless you try.
I'm in the U.S. and insurance did not cover them. I think we each paid around $7K.
All in all, they were a good buy and I would recommend the procedure. They may not be cost effective, but the quality of life change is amazing.
I think people have difficulty in comprehending the risks just from having been presented data and not seeing or talking to somebody having complications. For example I work in healthcare and have never seen an Opthalmology consultant to chose these procedures for themselves or their family.
My wife and I had lasik in 1998 or 1999. My vision before then was 20/200. I still have 20/20 in one eye and 20/40 in the other. The reason for the disparity was on purpose. It allowed me to be able to read without reading glasses until a few years ago when my close up vision got worse.
I've had no issues whatsoever in all these years except a slight increase in the halo effect at night just recently.
My doctor was one of the early researchers in lasik and still does the procedure today.
Not super scientific, but eating dried blueberries everyday, looking into red a red light lamp every third day, and doing long distance look training made my eyesight 20/20 again. I have a feeling the red light lamp is the biggest effect. At least according to research it should be. Try it. You only have minutes and a daily blueberry cost to loose.
Sorry. Not super scientific. My vision started to degrade after I had diagnosed retinal detachment. My vision didn't degrade yet when I was diagnosed. I was just told to go to the doctor if my symptoms of flashing lights returned. I just lazily noticed that I couldn't read labels far away. After changing my lifestyle I don't have any issues with my vision. Feels like when I was a kid.
Yeah bilberry extract has been studied in Asia since they had an increasingly myopic population.
Seems that it works in relaxing the ciliary muscle spasms caused by close up vision. (screen time).
I've also tried red light therapy for the eyes. It seems to work a little too but this is more subjective for me.
I think the best thing would be to live somewhere where its sunny all the time and be outside for the first rays of sunlight.
