LOL, well Chris I have a vision range of 10 cm, so I wouldn't have known till it was too late anyway :p

-8.75/-9.75 - so am I the worst? Do I get a prize?

Seriously thinking of LASIK, would get one eye done at a time though.

Good thread, will be referring back to this nearer the time.

Cheers
Tim

PS Even my contacts are like milk bottle bottoms!

[Edited by NBW - 03/01/2002 19:46:10]

Wow, someone who is more shortsighted than me :D Well done :D No prize though :p

Just saw this thread and have to inform you that although this laser treatment is a really good idea and sems to work on the vast majority of people, a friend of mine who is in the optical trade advised me AGAINST it, as in the USA there has not been a study for the LONG TERM effects. What happens after 10 or maybe 20 years, nobody knows, so I am steering clear until some more research comes through.

Hope this helps,

Joan.

Just found an old prescription..

R Sph +100
L Sph -075

What does that mean then? {Other than I need glasses :p} :confused:

I know that + means longsighted and - means short.......if that is the case then trust you to be different :rolleyes: ;) :p

I think it should be +1.00 and -0.75. That's about the same as my wife's prescription, and to me her lenses look like plain glass :D

You are out either way by 1 or 0.75 dioptres. - is myopic (shortsighted) + is hypermetropic (longsighted). Odd that you are relatively 1.75 dioptres between eyes perhaps - are you sure that they were not both negative?

1 dioptre is quite mild. If you correct to 6/6 vision, then you would probably be legal to drive without glasses, but it is based on chart lines not dioptres.

I struggle to see anything without my glasses or contact lenses :D

That prescription was back in 1997. Just found one from June this year and that's +1.00 R / -0.75 L.

I can make myself see double at will - shame I can't show anyone else :rolleyes:

Perhaps this explains why I had to put the lion in the cage?

Same here Chris, but still didn't do the lion thing ;)

How old are you Chris? ;) IIRC my kids had to do the 'lion in the cage' thing when they last went for an eye test. I had to content myself with a red line and a circle (does it go through the middle, the left or the right) -- I thought it was a test for astigmatism but perhaps not.

I've reached the ripe old age of 25. Used to go to the hospital to play with the lion weekly when I was a nipper (:p LMW)

So it has turned from putting the lion in the cage to playing with it.......riiiiiiight ;)

I used to see double as a kid due to a lazy muscle in my left eye, so they whipped my eye out and tightened up the muscle. Perfect vision now!

Just to throw in my feelings. My wife had Lasik done in Harley Street by Laser Vision. The surgeon there has done more than 7000 eyes - quite a lot, they report best results up to -8. The wife's was really successful, she's now better than 20/20, has no blurring / star bursts etc. It was very quick, we only needed an hour parking ticket! She did say that it was very traumatic though, something akin to dental surgery on your eye, remember they hold your eye open so you can't look away or ignore it... It seems that the equipment they use is all made by the same people - Lasik - so you are paying for the surgeons skills! Get one who has practised on someone elses eyes, after all you've only got one pair.:D

I spend about 100 times more on here having sheer fun than I do discussing medical matters :)

I have learned so much on here from other peoples' efforts I am not afraid of giving a little bit back. 18 months ago I would never have dreamed about taking my £20K new car apart in the driveway (neither could the neighbours) to fit nice ICE. 6 months ago I did not know what a restrictor orifice was or what on earth %CO meant. I still don't but at least it sounds like I do ;) All thanks to Scoobynet.

Does this treatment also work for us long sighted people?? ive only seen short sighted on this thread my eyes are +4.5 and +3.5 and appear to be deteriating as the years go by, optician says bi-focals may be required at an older age!! is the treatment more sucessful on short or is there no difference?? scepticle but interested!?!

I am a GP but have previously worked in Ophthalmology. I had a discussion with a few of the Ophthalmology Consultants I worked with and looked into this myself about a year ago. My conclusion was - there are a lot of commercial outfits out there of variable quality. Moorfields generally has a superb reputation, and probably higher prices.

Even so, although individuals can have superb results, I would not risk it unless I was more than 8 dioptres out, and even then it is not a precise art to get you to 0 dioptres - it CAN just mean that you can wear less bottle bottom glasses rather than none at all. If you can correct to a good level of vision and have less than 8 dioptres I personally would not recommend it, but you have to weigh your perceived benefit:risk ratio with any medical treatment.

A bit like an ECU remap (!) I would be more worried about the operator than the actual laser used to be honest. BTW I am only 1.25 and 1.5 dioptres myopic (short sighted).

[Edited by john banks - 1/2/2002 4:01:38 PM]

So in terms of vision my prescription is -7 for contact lenses and -8 for glasses (myopic also), would you therefore not recommend that I had it done?

I have difficulty with contact lenses, my eyes are too sensitive to wear as a long term solution to not wearing glasses and my glasses are so damn expensive to get thin lenses :(

I would really love to have the laser surgery......

[Edited by Little Miss WRX - 1/2/2002 4:04:53 PM]

To be fair, opticians are hardly likely to reccomend it, given that it may lose them a lot of business. I was a 1.5 prescription, and being able to chuck away my glasses and contact lenses has been fantastic. They do do both eyes at once BTW.



[Edited by richc - 1/2/2002 5:16:40 PM]

Have a look at this site if you really are interested.
Something about 20/10 vision.

[http://www.customlasikinfo.com]

Hope this helps

Stevep

[Edited by Stevep - 1/2/2002 5:17:55 PM]

This is something that does not affect me personnally, my eyesight is perfect (or as near as one can get I suppose). My wife however wears lenses and her prescription is about -5 and -5.5. She has been contemplating this for a while, not from a vanity point of view but ridding herself of the nuisance of lens / spectacle wearing. Her optician, who talked openly and frank about the procedure, in an unbiased fashion (In Her Humble Opinion), did so wearing Specs. Go Figure !!!!

Edited to say - John Banks is a Quack !! Electronically Speaking :D but seems to know what he's on about here :D :D :D



[Edited by John Stevenson - 1/3/2002 3:22:24 AM]

I would love to be able to wake up and be able to see the time, find my glasses, wonder if it was my wife and not the dog next to me, and get to the bathroom without walking into anything. I would love to be able to see through a camera properly, wear a crash helmet, and go swimming/jet skiing.

I would love to feel young again. Bottle-bottom-specs have definitely progressed my involuntery advance into middle-age and I don't like it.

John Banks makes some very valid and objective points about no four-eyed colleagues not going for this op. I wonder how many of them are wearing -7 specs?

Has anyone with serious myopia regretted having this surgery done?

Richard.

[Edited by Hoppy - 1/5/2002 10:33:44 PM]

Richard, I think one was around 7 dioptres, rest more mild.

The crucial things when considering complications of a surgical procedure is to know how serious the complication is and with what frequency it occurs, and also if there are any operator/equipment variables that affect these.

If a complication occurs rarely and is not serious or operator/equipment dependent and is for an urgent life saving procedure it is of less importance than a common, serious, preventable complication when treating something non-urgent.

Because of different populations and different ways of measuring complications and outcomes it is easy to ask the above questions but difficult to get coherent answers, hence the huge problem with league tables. There are too many variables to control and not enough agreement on what to measure. The data can also be difficult to interpret or over-simplistic to those who need to do so - ie the consumer/patient. Tricky one. Some will look at it and be comfortable and others won't. It is something unfortunately where there is no right answer. Some will tolerate different perceived benefit:risk ratios to others. Lifestyle factors and disability all come into the equation.

[Edited by john banks - 1/5/2002 11:15:30 PM]

John, seriously appreciate your input. Much appreciated :) I never fail to amazed by the power of ScoobyNet, the extent of its combined knowledge and the passion/compassion of its membership.

I'll sit on the bench for a while on laser eye treatment, but 'Er Indoors is on about a holiday where she get's to swin with dolphins while I shag a jet-ski/wet-bike to death. Sounds excellent :D But can't do that with these bottle-bottoms, and contacts give me headaches.

As an aside, I think it's a serious mistake that you let it be known on here that you are a DOCTOR. "I've got a problem with my man-servant etc" for Black Adder fans. In the same vein, it seems like I might be using THREE very different versions of Optimax quite soon ;) . Here's hoping only you will understand that :D ! And that Optimax comes to Scotland soon :)

Good night, mate,

Richard.

[Edited by Hoppy - 1/6/2002 12:19:45 AM]