51–60 of 65 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it's actually only about 1% that do: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4302464/
I'm not denying that that's what the webpage says but the page says also it's from 2015 so almost a decade old. We have more data now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
This one was probably best https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8234027/ Also read the wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_eye_syndrome
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no way to prove it, but I am pretty sure I developed Keratoconus due to Lasik.
Because most likely that was only the trigger Keratoconus has a strong genetic component. And should have been screened (using the corneal scan) prior to surgery But of course a surface that is frail is going to become more frail after surgery
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no way to prove it, but I am pretty sure I developed Keratoconus due to Lasik.
Are you attempting to fix it? I am tempted to get a contact lense inserted into one eye to correct it. I think I developed it as due to Lasik, but it only occurred in my left eye. My right eye is still good.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 le…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. Says it right there?
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.
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).
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.
Came across some people that reversed serious myopia (upto 6 diopter) well into adulthood. They have interviews on their youtube channel. https://endmyopia.org/
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.
Once the docs I know start doing it for themselves or their family, then I’ll consider it.