edspurrier
|
| posted on 11/12/11 at 01:10 PM |
|
|
I've been considering this for a while. I haven't yet met an ophthalmic surgeon who has had it done, and until I do I'm not going
to!
Complications seem to be unusual but potentially devastating, though most people seem to get a great result.
Also check with your clinic whether or not the operation is being done by a consultant surgeon who is on the specialist register.
|
|
|
|
|
digiman
|
| posted on 11/12/11 at 01:17 PM |
|
|
Lots of reviews here: Check out the Forum pages:
http://www.lasik-eyes.co.uk/
|
|
|
jossey
|
| posted on 11/12/11 at 01:40 PM |
|
|
dont watch final destination 5 then.
Thanks
David Johnson
Building my tiger avon slowly but surely.
|
|
|
bobinspain
|
| posted on 11/12/11 at 02:21 PM |
|
|
Just found this.
www.visionsurgeryrehab.org
Good luck whatever you decide.
|
|
|
RACER101
|
| posted on 11/12/11 at 03:29 PM |
|
|
hmm this seems odd, definately at odds with the dvla forms ive seen for patients, uncorrected eyesight has nothing to do with it. u can drive an f1
car with glasses.
anyone considering laser eye surgery, should do research into the 2 main procedures - lasik and lasek and ask which one your getting.
racer 101 perhaps your confusing yag laser treatment which is not a refractive procedure.
oh and don't think you've escaped glasses forever, at the age of 45-50 u'll need glasses to read 
[Edited on 11/12/11 by mrwibble]
[Edited on 11/12/11 by mrwibble]
Yup, I too thought it odd that uncorrected vision is an issue for the DVLA. For a car licence it doesn't matter but for a Lorry or Bus licence
you must meet minimum standards for corrected vision in both eyes and if these are achieved by lenses or specs, then uncorrected visual acuity in each
eye must be no less than 3/60.
I mistakenly assumed that uncorrected vision was irrelevant and then fell foul of the regulations when I had my 5 yearly HGV licence renewal medical
earlier this year. Short of persuading my doctor & optician to lie on my behalf it seems that laser treatment is the only legal way to get my
licence back.
Cheers,
John
[Edited on 11/12/11 by RACER101]
|
|
|
RK
|
| posted on 11/12/11 at 04:28 PM |
|
|
Get a second opinion whatever you decide to do.
|
|
|
bmseven
|
| posted on 11/12/11 at 11:15 PM |
|
|
Wife had hers done 18 years ago at Optimax
http://www.optimax.co.uk/
And she still has 20/20
BMW 7 Resource
Bures Pit anyone?
|
|
|
tomgregory2000
|
| posted on 12/12/11 at 07:44 AM |
|
|
ive decieded to go and have a chat with optimax as well to see what they can do for me
^^^ that sounds reassuring with regards to optimax
|
|
|
bmseven
|
| posted on 12/12/11 at 08:13 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by tomgregory2000
ive decieded to go and have a chat with optimax as well to see what they can do for me
^^^ that sounds reassuring with regards to optimax
Yeah she had it down in London when the kids were small as she couldnt see them at the pool without her glasses 
Cost a bit more then and technology has changed since but as said she has been back to the Ipswich Clinic for a full check over and still has regular
eye tests.
Think my daughter gets vouchers every now and again for referrals but have not seen one lately!
BMW 7 Resource
Bures Pit anyone?
|
|
|
wilkingj
|
| posted on 12/12/11 at 10:32 AM |
|
|
IMHO, I would not let anyone bugger about with my eyes unless it was absolutely necessary.
If its a case of wear glasses or have laser eye surgery I would wear glasses (I do wear glasses for reading).
If its a case of its eye surgery or nothing sort of option, then its hobsons choice.
I would never let anyone touch my eyes unless it was a last restort solution.
I dont trust these companies, offering the best thing since sliced bread. They are in it for the Money, and not much else.
Having said that, I had a cattaract done earlier this year, and its made a fantastic difference. Glasses would not have fixed that.
Bottom Line is this:
You only get ONE PAIR OF EYES. Think long and hard about doing anything to them, that cant be fixed by external means, namely glasses or contact
lenses. If its for cosmetic reasons, ie you dont look COOL in glasses, then you are too vain!
Laser surgery is relatively new (lifespan wise) you dont know what effect it will have in 20 or 30 or 40 years time.
Sorry but its my 2d's worth.
No offence intended. Eyes are just TOO precious to mess around with.
1. The point of a journey is not to arrive.
2. Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway.
Best Regards
Geoff
http://www.v8viento.co.uk
|
|
|
The Shootist
|
 posted on 12/12/11 at 07:14 PM |
|
|
My wife had hers done...
The wife was in a car accident nearly 20 years ago. The crash didn't effect her eyes, but the settlement effected our pocket books. She used her
money to pay the portion our insurance wouldn't cover.
Now Deb had worn gasses since she was 4 years old, and when she had the old knife surgery her vision was -1300....legally blind and required a special
stamp on her drivers license.
She had the procedure done in 2 sessions, one for each eye, 2 weeks apart. That way she could take a 3 day weekend for each procedure and be able too
work, with 1 lens in her glasses for the period in between.
After the 1st sessions tension and apprehension the fact she could read street signs on the way home helped to make her more than willing to return
for the other eye.
Nearly 20 years later she only wears glasses when her eyes are tired, or to drive. The glasses have an anti-glare coating for night driving as the
procedure can give a slight halo effect around glare at night and the glasses eliminate that glare.
The original corrective eye procedures were developed in the USSR because the surgical correction saved a fortune for the health ministry by cutting
the expense of glasses. The original process was carried out on a 12 bed rotating table where each step was carried out at a different station on an
assembly line.
If the surgery isn't as close as they feel it should be, room is usually give to do a second corrective procedure to fine tune your vision.
If i needed the procedure to see, I would not hesitate to have it done.
|
|
|
mrwibble
|
| posted on 12/12/11 at 08:14 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by RACER101
hmm this seems odd, definately at odds with the dvla forms ive seen for patients, uncorrected eyesight has nothing to do with it. u can drive an f1
car with glasses.
anyone considering laser eye surgery, should do research into the 2 main procedures - lasik and lasek and ask which one your getting.
racer 101 perhaps your confusing yag laser treatment which is not a refractive procedure.
oh and don't think you've escaped glasses forever, at the age of 45-50 u'll need glasses to read
[Edited on 11/12/11 by mrwibble]
[Edited on 11/12/11 by mrwibble]
Yup, I too thought it odd that uncorrected vision is an issue for the DVLA. For a car licence it doesn't matter but for a Lorry or Bus licence
you must meet minimum standards for corrected vision in both eyes and if these are achieved by lenses or specs, then uncorrected visual acuity in each
eye must be no less than 3/60.
I mistakenly assumed that uncorrected vision was irrelevant and then fell foul of the regulations when I had my 5 yearly HGV licence renewal medical
earlier this year. Short of persuading my doctor & optician to lie on my behalf it seems that laser treatment is the only legal way to get my
licence back.
Cheers,
John
[Edited on 11/12/11 by RACER101]
to be fair you must have a very strong prescription to be worse than 3/60? does seem very unfair, i wonder what the prescription limits are for
refractive surgery.
just for your information, a new technique developed from cataract surgery is available these days which might be worth considering, I know this does
cover very high Rxs, a chap who was over -10.00 DS (highest 2% of possible prescriptions) in our practice now only wears glasses for reading now.
[Edited on 12/12/11 by mrwibble]
[Edited on 12/12/11 by mrwibble]
|
|
|
HowardB
|
| posted on 12/12/11 at 08:34 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by mrwibble
quote:
Originally posted by RACER101
hmm this seems odd, definately at odds with the dvla forms ive seen for patients, uncorrected eyesight has nothing to do with it. u can drive an f1
car with glasses.
anyone considering laser eye surgery, should do research into the 2 main procedures - lasik and lasek and ask which one your getting.
racer 101 perhaps your confusing yag laser treatment which is not a refractive procedure.
oh and don't think you've escaped glasses forever, at the age of 45-50 u'll need glasses to read
[Edited on 11/12/11 by mrwibble]
[Edited on 11/12/11 by mrwibble]
Yup, I too thought it odd that uncorrected vision is an issue for the DVLA. For a car licence it doesn't matter but for a Lorry or Bus licence
you must meet minimum standards for corrected vision in both eyes and if these are achieved by lenses or specs, then uncorrected visual acuity in each
eye must be no less than 3/60.
I mistakenly assumed that uncorrected vision was irrelevant and then fell foul of the regulations when I had my 5 yearly HGV licence renewal medical
earlier this year. Short of persuading my doctor & optician to lie on my behalf it seems that laser treatment is the only legal way to get my
licence back.
Cheers,
John
[Edited on 11/12/11 by RACER101]
to be fair you must have a very strong prescription to be worse than 3/60? does seem very unfair, i wonder what the prescription limits are for
refractive surgery.
just for your information, a new technique developed from cataract surgery is available these days which might be worth considering, I know this does
cover very high Rxs, a chap who was over -10.00 DS (highest 2% of possible prescriptions) in our practice now only wears glasses for reading now.
[Edited on 12/12/11 by mrwibble]
[Edited on 12/12/11 by mrwibble]
What's the procedure called, I ask as my sight is -6.75, not great, and without glasses tantamount to useless,..!
Howard
Fisher Fury was 2000 Zetec - now a 1600 (it Lives again and goes zoom)
|
|
|
RACER101
|
| posted on 12/12/11 at 08:47 PM |
|
|
to be fair you must have a very strong prescription to be worse than 3/60? does seem very unfair, i wonder what the prescription limits are for
refractive surgery.
just for your information, a new technique developed from cataract surgery is available these days which might be worth considering, I know this does
cover very high Rxs, a chap who was over -10.00 DS (highest 2% of possible prescriptions) in our practice now only wears glasses for reading now.
[Edited on 12/12/11 by mrwibble]
[Edited on 12/12/11 by mrwibble]
Absolutely! Worse than 3/60 makes me horribly short sighted without specs or lenses.
I haven't consulted a laser surgery company in person yet so I might indeed be outside their surgery limits although, having entered all my
prescription details into one of the well known providers web sites, it says that I should be ok.
Thanks for the info about the new procedure too.
Cheers,
John
|
|
|
Jasper
|
| posted on 13/12/11 at 11:27 AM |
|
|
I was about -4.00 in both eyes, and 3 years ago had surgery with Optimax in Brighton. I can't fault any of it, great consulation, gave me all
the options, advised me against the most expensive system as it was not necessary, I went with Lasik and it cost about £900 an eye.
The procedure was very weird but not painful, and I could see straight away afterwards, by the next morning my sight was perfect. It took about 6
months for night vision to be perfect, up till then there was a bit of ghosting, but nothing serious. I do struggle a bit in low light condition, dusk
and dawn, but again not very noticeable.
Optimax after care was excellent, and they've never hassled me to get them more customers.
I can't recommend it enough, wish I'd done it years before, always hated wearing glasses.
If you're not living life on the edge you're taking up too much room.
|
|
|
rodgling
|
| posted on 13/12/11 at 11:52 AM |
|
|
This is surprisingly mature technology - corrective eye surgery started in the 60s (not with lasers back then mind). It's worth bearing in mind
that it's largely computer-controlled so it's very repeatable and reliable. 90%+ of results are exactly as predicted, and of the rest,
90%+ are merely "not quite as good as hoped for" not "worse than before".
|
|
|
