Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Could LASIK Lead to 'Permanent Vision Problems'?
ABC News ^ | 9/22/10 | Kim Carollo

Posted on 09/22/2010 1:08:07 PM PDT by Nachum

A former Food and Drug Administration official who helped get the vision correction surgery LASIK approved back in the 1990s but later spoke out against the procedure is taking his concerns directly to current regulators at the FDA.

Morris Waxler, who is now an independent regulatory consultant, filed a citizens petition today urging the agency to take steps to stop what he calls "the epidemic of permanent vision problems" caused by LASIK.

Waxler's petition implores the FDA to take actions to crack down on the procedure, including issuing a public health advisory that warns the public about the dangers associated with LASIK and implementing stricter controls over LASIK device manufacturers and practitioners who perform the surgery.

(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: could; lasik; permanent; problems
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-87 next last
To: Freeport

RE: Me thinks your math needs some work...

NOPE, my typing needs some work :)


61 posted on 09/22/2010 2:06:58 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: DadOfFive

I had the mono-vision LASIK too in Oct 2008. Without question, it’s the best thing I’ve ever done for my vision. It’s a miracle to me to be able to see without contacts and glasses..something I had not experienced since I was 10 yrs old. I am 50+ and doc said I may need to get my close-up eye tweaked in about 5 years but as of now..no problems at all!


62 posted on 09/22/2010 2:15:37 PM PDT by CheathamCountyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: GraceG
I had LASIK in 2000, no issues, my vision has drifted back to 20/30 but I can at least find my glasses over the 20/800 it used to be.

My experience is similar but with a little more drift over time. LASIK in Toronto in '98/'99; prescription before LASIK was -8.5/-6.5. My goal was to be able to function in an emergency without glasses and I can still do that, but am up to almost a 2 diopter correction in one eye for distance now. But can still read a newspaper easily with no reading glasses. My only complaint about side effects from LASIK is that low-contrast/low light vision was impacted negatively (due, presumably, to additional glare occurring at the ablation surfaces within the eye). My feeling is my vision is overall quite good now compared to most other 55+ individuals.

63 posted on 09/22/2010 2:16:12 PM PDT by steve86 (Acerbic by nature, not nurture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: EyeGuy

I don’t know. I had a host of upper level eye disorders that neither glasses, nor contacts could fix.

LASIK changed my life.


64 posted on 09/22/2010 2:16:46 PM PDT by TheThirdRuffian (Nothing to see here. Move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne
I’m still thrilled to wake up in the dark, and be able to see the time without hunting up my glasses.

For years-as long as I could remember (I needed thick coke bottle glasses by 3rd grade)-I would wake up in the middle of the night, raise up, squint my eyes real hard so I could barely make out the time, and then roll over and try to go back to sleep. After the surgery, I would wake up, look at the clock, and-"Oh shit! I forgot to take out my contacts!!!! Oh my God!!! I forgot-oh, yeah. Lasik." Of course, I was by then wide awake with a pounding heart, because I never EVER slept in my contacts (my aunt went temporarily blind when she accidentally slept in her hard contacts once...That's the kind of story that sticks with you) > This happened to me MULTIPLE times in the first few weeks after LASIK!

Goodbye contact lenses, glasses, prescription sunglasses, reading glasses, solution, etc. etc.

I had a celebratory Flushing of the Contact Lenses. My glasses I gave away to that charity that repairs and de scratches old glasses and sends them to the third world. Some third worlder woman got a nice set of designer glasses with magnetized sunglasses!

65 posted on 09/22/2010 2:17:00 PM PDT by kaylar (It's MARTIAL law. Not marshal(l) or marital! This has been a spelling PSA. PS Secede not succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: TheThirdRuffian

“I had a host of upper level eye disorders that neither glasses, nor contacts could fix.”

#######

Are you talking about higher order abberrations such as coma, spherical abberration and trefoil?

Yours is a rare case indeed if such esoterica, uncorrected, rendered your vision unacceptable.

I’m happy you had a satisfactory surgical outcome.


66 posted on 09/22/2010 2:24:19 PM PDT by EyeGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: EyeGuy

I think Tiger Woods had Lasik done. It was fine in the beginning but maybe that’s why his golf is going down hill. For certain it ruined his vision for women.


67 posted on 09/22/2010 2:55:39 PM PDT by Reeses (First they came for the communists... but the Secret Service stopped them at the White House gate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Maybe I’m a snob, but $395/eye at the mall seems like a bad idea. $5,000 to the guy that did NFL Players, Jerry Seinfeld, etc, and my wife has had no problems in 8+years, 20/15 in each eye (20/100+ Coke bottles before). Custom Lasik, IIRC


68 posted on 09/22/2010 3:02:24 PM PDT by King Moonracer (Bad lighting and cheap fabric, that's how you sell clothing.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reeses

Woods was highly myopic, but really had a good result with his Lasik, and a follow-up enhancement.

He was a heavily featured spokesman for TLC, the national chain that performed his procedure, but they are disowning him in a big way; sending out special bulletins to our office telling us to remove any signage, and literature featuring him, etc.

It is really quite comical.

I’m not sure if his post-Lasik orbs spontaneously popped out of his head and rolled across the putting green, or they’re simply upset with his disgusting amorality.


69 posted on 09/22/2010 3:08:57 PM PDT by EyeGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

I had Lasik about 10 years ago for moderate nearsightedness, and will always regret it.

I suffer the stars and blurs at night, and everything is soft focus in any fairly dim room.

I told the doc that I was very picky about my vision, and he made plenty of promises.

The first shot was the wrong correction in one eye. The second led to some growth under the flap, and required a third.

For crappy results.

Some are delighted to go from a Yugo to a Camry. I want from a Bugatti (with correction) to a Camry.

The key problem is that I have larger pupils (at night) than the area they correct, so some of the light is uncorrected, causing the blur. The asshole doctor could have easily tested for this and advised, but didn’t.

These days they have better systems (”Waveform”?) So don’t hestitate to pay whatever it takes to get the best.

Because I lost some critical vision in one eye for presusambly unrelated reasons, I am not a good candidate to have the remaining eye upgraded.

When in doubt, don’t do it.


70 posted on 09/22/2010 3:14:02 PM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Congressmen should serve two terms: One in Congress and one in prison.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EyeGuy

“coma, spherical abberration and trefoil”

Yes, those, together with some very odd astigmatisms.

My left was was 20/20. Go figure.

Cut my football career short, as I really couldn’t see well on my right side. Peripheral vision was crap.


71 posted on 09/22/2010 3:14:56 PM PDT by TheThirdRuffian (Nothing to see here. Move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

I had Lasik about 10 years ago for moderate nearsightedness, and will always regret it.

I suffer the stars and blurs at night, and everything is soft focus in any fairly dim room.

I told the doc that I was very picky about my vision, and he made plenty of promises.

The first shot was the wrong correction in one eye. The second led to some growth under the flap, and required a third.

For crappy results.

Some are delighted to go from a Yugo to a Camry. I want from a Bugatti (with correction) to a Camry.

The key problem is that I have larger pupils (at night) than the area they correct, so some of the light is uncorrected, causing the blur. The a$$hole doctor could have easily tested for this and advised, but didn’t.

These days they have better systems (”Waveform”?) So don’t hestitate to pay whatever it takes to get the best.

Because I lost some critical vision in one eye for presusambly unrelated reasons, I am not a good candidate to have the remaining eye upgraded.

When in doubt, don’t do it.


72 posted on 09/22/2010 3:36:04 PM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Congressmen should serve two terms: One in Congress and one in prison.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba

I should add to my woes that I still require glasses at all times.

The wise post above that those who are the worst will like it the best is the best summation.


73 posted on 09/22/2010 3:45:15 PM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Congressmen should serve two terms: One in Congress and one in prison.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: EyeGuy

I had Lasik in 1997. I don’t know if they still do this today, but at the time they undercorrected, then went back and revised to give a good result. I was 20/15 afterwards. Worth every penny. Even though it was 2000 bucks per eye then. Over the years, my vision has worsened to where I need glasses to drive, or go to the movies, but the lenses are paper thin. I’ll take that over my coke bottles any day.


74 posted on 09/22/2010 3:49:30 PM PDT by boop ("Let's just say they'll be satisfied with LESS"... Ming the Merciless)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: EyeGuy

>>One of the best kept secrets in eye care, is that regular overnight wear of modern soft contact lenses is, with the proper lenses and regular quality professional care, a very safe alternative.<<

Wearing a good pair of contact lenses (provided you’re not unusually sensitive to them) is pretty much like having perfect vision - close enough that if there’s even a 1% chance of problems with LASIK, I’m sticking with my contacts.


75 posted on 09/22/2010 3:53:00 PM PDT by FelixFelicis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

I`ll wait until they invent 3-D LASIK.


76 posted on 09/22/2010 4:27:24 PM PDT by Para-Ord.45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

BookMarked


77 posted on 09/22/2010 6:17:28 PM PDT by Kid Shelleen (Keep your socialized health care off my body !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kaylar; Nachum
But I had it done in 09/2003, no problems to date, and my vision went from 20/900-950* to 20/15-better than "perfect" 20/20 vision.

I had PRK in 2007. The difference is instead of slicing a "flap" on the eye, they scrape and laser the surface. My doctor used "bandage contacts" to protect the eye during healing.

My vision improved from 20/800 to 20/15. I've heard one person complain that their vision deteriorated back to pre-op condition.

I've got no problems with haloing. The only problem I've experienced is my preexisting light sensitivity is aggravated.

78 posted on 09/22/2010 6:40:18 PM PDT by Grizzled Bear (Does not play well with others)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: savedbygrace; CodeToad
Though I'm not sure what a mesquito is, since you used the singular, rather than the plural, you must be talking about one of those mesquitos masturbating.

That mequito is gonna go blind...

79 posted on 09/22/2010 6:41:21 PM PDT by Grizzled Bear (Does not play well with others)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
Supposedly my maximum pupil size was comfortably under the limit yet I still get poor low light vision. I know part of this is due to internal glare when there is a point source of light somewhere, yet when the light is uniformly dim and vision is poor, it must be the uncorrected light around the periphery causing problems as you say. It makes me think they were too liberal on pupil size allowance, presumably because this would have cut into sales too much.

At least for me, glasses with a one or two diopter correction let me see at night pretty much like other people (other than some glare). Without the glasses it is a joke, and I had better than average night light sensitivity before the procedures. I am a sometimes-amateur astronomer, and while vision through the eyepiece is fine, trying to locate stars without the glasses is, as I say, a joke. Fortunately, daytime vision is quite good still.

I've yet to see hard data comparing the efficacy of the wavefront LASIK to a standard procedure. I suspect some of the talk is just sales hype.

80 posted on 09/22/2010 6:56:49 PM PDT by steve86 (Acerbic by nature, not nurture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-87 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson