Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. thesmj's Avatar
    Posts
    135 Posts
    Global Posts
    152 Global Posts
       #1  
    I went into the eye surgen Thursday expecting to have LASIK done, and at the last minute was told that my corneas were to thin, about 15 nm thinner than they were at the beginning of the month. This ment they couldn't safely make a flap on my eyes, and instead had to "scratch away" the top-most layers of the eye and use use the laser from there.

    Unlike LASIK, PRK has a much longer healing time. Since the frontmost layers were outright removed rather than cut around/replaced, I now have terrible vision, and will for the next week. While both surgeries have the same outcome (20/20 vision or better most of the time) PRK can take months to get better, while LASIK takes a day.

    Has anyone else had PRK and lived to tell about it? Right now I have all the fonts turned up on my computer so I can read them, and I'm seeing double while my eyes feel a bit irritated. It's only been 2 days since my surgery though, and I hope to be able to drive to work by Monday.
  2. #2  
    yep about 15 years ago its awesome. im bumpin 40 now and will not hesitate if im able to do it again
  3. #3  
    Did keratorefractive surgery (also known as radial keratotomy) about 15 years ago. Never regretted it. I never felt comfortable with any of the laser-based surgeries.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  4. thesmj's Avatar
    Posts
    135 Posts
    Global Posts
    152 Global Posts
       #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Did keratorefractive surgery (also known as radial keratotomy) about 15 years ago. Never regretted it. I never felt comfortable with any of the laser-based surgeries.

    Thats the one where they cut your iris like spokes on a wheel, right?
  5. #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by TheSmJ View Post
    Thats the one where they cut your iris like spokes on a wheel, right?
    Cornea, but yes. The shape of the cornea determines how many (4 or 8 usually) and the length of the incisions. The advantage of it over laser-based surgeries is that if they over-correct too much, they can bring it back. Once they shave off layers of your cornea, less room for error.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  6. #6  
    The Cochrane Collaboration is the single best resource for evaluating efficacy of procedures and treatments. In a review of six clinical trials, there was essentially no difference in outcomes between Lasik and PRK (which does use lasers, BTW). There is a slightly higher risk of complications with PRK due to haziness but it's pretty rare. This is the reference:
    Photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) versus laser-assisted in-situ keratomileusis (LASIK) for myopia
  7. #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    The Cochrane Collaboration is the single best resource for evaluating efficacy of procedures and treatments. In a review of six clinical trials, there was essentially no difference in outcomes between Lasik and PRK (which does use lasers, BTW). There is a slightly higher risk of complications with PRK due to haziness but it's pretty rare. This is the reference:
    Photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) versus laser-assisted in-situ keratomileusis (LASIK) for myopia
    Cochrane is an excellent source, thanks posting such quality info.

    combined with the cochrane review this thread is very interesting to me, more from the view of a medical professional than anything, first hand accounts and meta-analysis, very nice.
    There are four lights.

Posting Permissions