Laser eye surgery

[Blown2CV]

g7jhp said:

Blown2CV said:

You've left it way too late, sorry. Your eyes will decline from now, and in a way which is not corrected by 'standard' short sight laser surgery. There are other options, but you are looking at £££££

That's a fairly general statement.

So therefore that implies it's not worth getting laser eye surgery past circa 40?

It depends entirely on your aim. I'd assume most people go into it thinking they would spend a number of thousand quid to be glasses/contact lens free. As soon as you hit mid forties (on average across the population) you will start to develop longsightedness. If you do have laser surgery for shortsightedness at that age, you may soon after need glasses for longsightedness. So if you did go in with that aim then you've just wasted all that money and the effort of the procedure and recovery etc. If you didn't go laser at that age, you end up with varifocals... probably not much worse an outcome, and to some degree free of charge. There are procedures which mimic the effect of having varifocals, except from within your eye, but they are a lot more complex and costly (and maybe risky) than the procedure for shortsightedness. I am not sure if it is even possible to have a longsightedness laser correction after having shortsightedness laser correction.

[g7jhp]

Well my aim is to cut having to use contact lenses and the payback with be circa 3 years, so I guess it's a low risk gamble.

[So]

g7jhp said:

So said:

When I wanted RLE surgery, I was told I should only consider Moorfields. I had already spoken to Optical Express, who'd been very detailed in the explanation of every last detail of what they proposed to do.

It was quite difficult getting through to anyone at Moorfields at all, but I eventually got hold of the secretary of one of the consultants - there was no possibility of speaking to a consultant. I said I thought I needed RLE surgery, and I could hear her slowly writing it down whilst mouthing the letters R-L-E. I then asked what sort of lenses the surgeon was using at that point and she replied, "what sort would you like?"

I didn't go to Moorfields.

I appreciate that they are a world-leading eye hospital, but it reinforced my belief that you'll only get to deal with the surgeon when he does the operation and then a brief follow-up. The rest of the time I feared I'd be dealing with people not quite up to par.

Personally, if I had a complex eye condition I'd go to Moorfields. For a simpler op I'd look elsewhere. But they're your eyes, try Moorfields for a consultation and see what you think.

Thanks So. Who did you go with?

Optical Express. Pre and post op care was faultless.

[g7jhp]

So although laser eye surgery would rule out the need for contact lenses in the short term looks like you end up having to get reading glasses as you age.

I can have Either type and have been advised to go LASIK.

Just weighing up whether it's worth it.

[So]

g7jhp said:

So although laser eye surgery would rule out the need for contact lenses in the short term looks like you end up having to get reading glasses as you age.

I can have Either type and have been advised to go LASIK.

Just weighing up whether it's worth it.

Take a look at lens exchange (RLE).

[bloomen]

At 25 I might have considered it, but only with 1000 years of case studies to draw on, at 45 I wouldn't regard it as a worthy spend. I'm of a similar vintage and my eyes are definitely starting to change now.

I don't see the point of something invasive that costs money that may only deliver the benefits for a handful of years.

And wearing glasses has unquestionably saved an eyeball on three occasions now. I took that as an omen.

[RobM77]

Blown2CV said:

g7jhp said:

Blown2CV said:

You've left it way too late, sorry. Your eyes will decline from now, and in a way which is not corrected by 'standard' short sight laser surgery. There are other options, but you are looking at £££££

That's a fairly general statement.

So therefore that implies it's not worth getting laser eye surgery past circa 40?

It depends entirely on your aim. I'd assume most people go into it thinking they would spend a number of thousand quid to be glasses/contact lens free. As soon as you hit mid forties (on average across the population) you will start to develop longsightedness. If you do have laser surgery for shortsightedness at that age, you may soon after need glasses for longsightedness. So if you did go in with that aim then you've just wasted all that money and the effort of the procedure and recovery etc. If you didn't go laser at that age, you end up with varifocals... probably not much worse an outcome, and to some degree free of charge. There are procedures which mimic the effect of having varifocals, except from within your eye, but they are a lot more complex and costly (and maybe risky) than the procedure for shortsightedness. I am not sure if it is even possible to have a longsightedness laser correction after having shortsightedness laser correction.

Surely it would depend what the patient's aims are? I had laser eye surgery mainly so that I could partake in sports and activities more easily. Running in glasses is horrid, cycling a bit dodgy as you can't see up (Dennis Taylor syndrome!), and rain is a real hazard. Sports like surfing and windsurfing are a major problem, if not impossible. Scuba Diving was also tricky because I needed my prescription mask on to see anything. The other issue is the day to day inconvenience or having a shower 'blind' unable to see where the shampoo is etc (not reading it necessarily, just identifying it, or finding the control to turn the shower up or down), or even just waking up to a blur, rather than clarity, which helps you wake up (plus seeing the time on your bedside clock). Then there's going to a gig and being up front without having your glasses knocked off. The list goes on! The notion of having to wear glasses for sitting in a chair quietly reading is entirely different, because they don't really get in the way and wouldn't really bother me that much. For an active 45 year old I would say it's absolutely worth it.

[Blown2CV]

RobM77 said:

Blown2CV said:

g7jhp said:

Blown2CV said:

You've left it way too late, sorry. Your eyes will decline from now, and in a way which is not corrected by 'standard' short sight laser surgery. There are other options, but you are looking at £££££

That's a fairly general statement.

So therefore that implies it's not worth getting laser eye surgery past circa 40?

It depends entirely on your aim. I'd assume most people go into it thinking they would spend a number of thousand quid to be glasses/contact lens free. As soon as you hit mid forties (on average across the population) you will start to develop longsightedness. If you do have laser surgery for shortsightedness at that age, you may soon after need glasses for longsightedness. So if you did go in with that aim then you've just wasted all that money and the effort of the procedure and recovery etc. If you didn't go laser at that age, you end up with varifocals... probably not much worse an outcome, and to some degree free of charge. There are procedures which mimic the effect of having varifocals, except from within your eye, but they are a lot more complex and costly (and maybe risky) than the procedure for shortsightedness. I am not sure if it is even possible to have a longsightedness laser correction after having shortsightedness laser correction.

Surely it would depend what the patient's aims are? I had laser eye surgery mainly so that I could partake in sports and activities more easily. Running in glasses is horrid, cycling a bit dodgy as you can't see up (Dennis Taylor syndrome!), and rain is a real hazard. Sports like surfing and windsurfing are a major problem, if not impossible. Scuba Diving was also tricky because I needed my prescription mask on to see anything. The other issue is the day to day inconvenience or having a shower 'blind' unable to see where the shampoo is etc (not reading it necessarily, just identifying it, or finding the control to turn the shower up or down), or even just waking up to a blur, rather than clarity, which helps you wake up (plus seeing the time on your bedside clock). Then there's going to a gig and being up front without having your glasses knocked off. The list goes on! The notion of having to wear glasses for sitting in a chair quietly reading is entirely different, because they don't really get in the way and wouldn't really bother me that much. For an active 45 year old I would say it's absolutely worth it.

...........yes it would, hence my very first sentence

[RobM77]

Blown2CV said:

RobM77 said:

Blown2CV said:

g7jhp said:

Blown2CV said:

You've left it way too late, sorry. Your eyes will decline from now, and in a way which is not corrected by 'standard' short sight laser surgery. There are other options, but you are looking at £££££

That's a fairly general statement.

So therefore that implies it's not worth getting laser eye surgery past circa 40?

It depends entirely on your aim. I'd assume most people go into it thinking they would spend a number of thousand quid to be glasses/contact lens free. As soon as you hit mid forties (on average across the population) you will start to develop longsightedness. If you do have laser surgery for shortsightedness at that age, you may soon after need glasses for longsightedness. So if you did go in with that aim then you've just wasted all that money and the effort of the procedure and recovery etc. If you didn't go laser at that age, you end up with varifocals... probably not much worse an outcome, and to some degree free of charge. There are procedures which mimic the effect of having varifocals, except from within your eye, but they are a lot more complex and costly (and maybe risky) than the procedure for shortsightedness. I am not sure if it is even possible to have a longsightedness laser correction after having shortsightedness laser correction.

Surely it would depend what the patient's aims are? I had laser eye surgery mainly so that I could partake in sports and activities more easily. Running in glasses is horrid, cycling a bit dodgy as you can't see up (Dennis Taylor syndrome!), and rain is a real hazard. Sports like surfing and windsurfing are a major problem, if not impossible. Scuba Diving was also tricky because I needed my prescription mask on to see anything. The other issue is the day to day inconvenience or having a shower 'blind' unable to see where the shampoo is etc (not reading it necessarily, just identifying it, or finding the control to turn the shower up or down), or even just waking up to a blur, rather than clarity, which helps you wake up (plus seeing the time on your bedside clock). Then there's going to a gig and being up front without having your glasses knocked off. The list goes on! The notion of having to wear glasses for sitting in a chair quietly reading is entirely different, because they don't really get in the way and wouldn't really bother me that much. For an active 45 year old I would say it's absolutely worth it.

...........yes it would, hence my very first sentence

You're saying that he's left it too late and I'm not? Sorry, I'm confused.

[TTmonkey]

I had mine done at 30. I'm now 50. I dont need reading glasses to read yet, but to do intricate work with very small things, very small screws or similar. So I rarely ever use them.

It was the best money I ever spent. ever. Ever.

[LaurasOtherHalf]

TTmonkey said:

It was the best money I ever spent. ever. Ever.

Same here.

[RobM77]

LaurasOtherHalf said:

TTmonkey said:

It was the best money I ever spent. ever. Ever.

Same here.

And here too. Mine was done at 30 and I'm now 41.

[So]

bloomen said:

At 25 I might have considered it, but only with 1000 years of case studies to draw on, at 45 I wouldn't regard it as a worthy spend. I'm of a similar vintage and my eyes are definitely starting to change now.

I don't see the point of something invasive that costs money that may only deliver the benefits for a handful of years.

And wearing glasses has unquestionably saved an eyeball on three occasions now. I took that as an omen.

At 45 you might be pointed towards other options. None of which will act as safety goggles, sadly.

[V10Mike]

I'm 61, -10 in both eyes and have worn gas permeable lenses since I was 16. I now really struggle with dry eyes, plus I have practically zero accommodation so need reading glasses.

Frankly I'm now fed up with all the faff, particularly the dry eyes, dust, wind etc.

My prescription is too extreme for laser, but my optician has recommended refractive lens exchange. Has anyone experience of this? How accurate was the correction? Any downsides?

[RobM77]

So said:

bloomen said:

At 25 I might have considered it, but only with 1000 years of case studies to draw on, at 45 I wouldn't regard it as a worthy spend. I'm of a similar vintage and my eyes are definitely starting to change now.

I don't see the point of something invasive that costs money that may only deliver the benefits for a handful of years.

And wearing glasses has unquestionably saved an eyeball on three occasions now. I took that as an omen.

At 45 you might be pointed towards other options. None of which will act as safety goggles, sadly.

I find that safety goggles act quite well as safety goggles, although you do have to remember to wear them once your eyes are lasered. I used to wear glasses and was unaware of the innocuous DIY tasks that can throw swarf up towards your eyes. I always wore goggles over my glasses when using a mill or lathe (to get side protection), but never when filing or drilling metal or sanding wood, which I now realise can launch stuff into your eyes. Celotex as well - flakes from squeezing that into spaces can get into your eyes and it hurts like crazy - instant red eye.

[Blown2CV]

V10Mike said:

I'm 61, -10 in both eyes and have worn gas permeable lenses since I was 16. I now really struggle with dry eyes, plus I have practically zero accommodation so need reading glasses.

Frankly I'm now fed up with all the faff, particularly the dry eyes, dust, wind etc.

My prescription is too extreme for laser, but my optician has recommended refractive lens exchange. Has anyone experience of this? How accurate was the correction? Any downsides?

i think that's the one where they basically put a bifocal lens in your eyeball.

[lost in espace]

V10Mike said:

I'm 61, -10 in both eyes and have worn gas permeable lenses since I was 16. I now really struggle with dry eyes, plus I have practically zero accommodation so need reading glasses.

Frankly I'm now fed up with all the faff, particularly the dry eyes, dust, wind etc.

My prescription is too extreme for laser, but my optician has recommended refractive lens exchange. Has anyone experience of this? How accurate was the correction? Any downsides?

Thanks Mike, I don't feel quite as bad as I did reading that, I am -8. I made a comment a few pages ago in 2015 which the reply might be of use to you. Good luck.

[Armitage.Shanks]

Isn't there a process called 'blended vision' where they laser one eye for shortsight and the other for longsight? The brain then compensates so with both eyes open you can see up close and far perfectly.

I'm in my 50s and have never worn glasses but have been on the cusp for shortsightedness and now fighting off the use of mild reading glasses - I'm OK to read in good light.

I don't like glasses so idally need something that will fix both.

[Speed 3]

Armitage.Shanks said:

Isn't there a process called 'blended vision' where they laser one eye for shortsight and the other for longsight? The brain then compensates so with both eyes open you can see up close and far perfectly.

I'm in my 50s and have never worn glasses but have been on the cusp for shortsightedness and now fighting off the use of mild reading glasses - I'm OK to read in good light.

I don't like glasses so idally need something that will fix both.

Yup, I had that, about a dioptre of difference between the two. It takes about 12-14 weeks for the brain to get used to the transition processing (a computer screen is just about on the boundary) so its a bit disconcerting at first but once the brain has learnt its stuff, its magical. Vision is 90% brain and 10% optics.

Edited by Speed 3 on Sunday 1st April 09:03

[968]

Armitage.Shanks said:

Isn't there a process called 'blended vision' where they laser one eye for shortsight and the other for longsight? The brain then compensates so with both eyes open you can see up close and far perfectly.

I'm in my 50s and have never worn glasses but have been on the cusp for shortsightedness and now fighting off the use of mild reading glasses - I'm OK to read in good light.

I don't like glasses so idally need something that will fix both.

If you’re in your 50s, I wouldn’t bother.