What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Ready. Set. Shop view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com Black Friday Sale starting 11/25 3PM PST. No Lines, No Crowds, Click and Save.
35 Comments
- smashingmonkey, on 11/02/2009, -0/+39I got custom wavefront LASIK a couple of months ago. 24 years with glasses (moderate astigmatism) and I couldn't be more pleased to see perfectly without them. It should be noted that custom wavefront LASIK is a bit more aggressive... they burn more of your cornea, so it's only an option for those with plenty of cornea to burn. The smell of your eyes burning in the operation is interesting!
The only negative side effect is that my eyes are kind of dry during the healing process. Oh, and now I see dead people. - Grumpymonk, on 11/02/2009, -0/+17I have better than 20/20 vision...you know that waiting time when you are in the room waiting for that doctor to hurry the f**k up? Take that time to memorize the last line on the eye chart and impress a man with a PHD.
- MMusick, on 11/02/2009, -0/+16Wow. I used to have better than 20/20 but I don't think it's what it used to be. Night vision? Damn.
- joshuawest, on 11/02/2009, -0/+14When I was young, I figured we'd have ways to correct bad eyes, but this totally rocks beyond belief!
- Peach3s, on 11/02/2009, -0/+8I want the Hubble telescope, IN MY EYE.
- colto, on 11/03/2009, -0/+8"P. Q. X. C. H. W. M. A. D. E. I. N. U. S. A. - Oh hey, made in USA, would ya look at that?"
*doctor's mouth drops* - blazingflash317, on 11/02/2009, -0/+5Woo, X-Ray vision here I come!
- Scaryclouds, on 11/03/2009, -0/+5One can have better than 20/20 vision if their cornea is in alignment and they have an above average receptor count. However you are right there is nothing doctors can do to guarantee better than 20/20 vision.
- homercles337, on 11/02/2009, -0/+520/20 is fundamentally limited by receptoral sampling. 60 cycles / degree, 120 receptors / degree. Sounds like marketing to me.
- FrankFutter, on 11/03/2009, -0/+5That's 20/10. The physiological limit. I'm an Optometry student doing an externship at an wavefront lasik practice. It's pretty impressive how many come out with 20/15 vision. Not to mention the stability of hte corneal interface due to the even thinner flaps from the femtosecond laser. The classic side effects are decreasing, but we seeing some interesting new ones that make very little sense from our limited understanding of the system
- wgdz, on 11/02/2009, -0/+4"Approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2001", wavefront technology is the newest LASIK innovation that ophthalmologists are using not only to correct eyesight, but also to peer into the physical structure of patients' eyes and locate the exact sources of their vision problems.
So does this article meant to say we have the technology since 8 (or almost 9) yrs ago? Or this is bringing into light new technology? - h3110, on 11/02/2009, -0/+4I heard LASIK is old technology. Some people still go for them because they haven't done their research or they're too cheap to go with better technology. But this is what confuses me... my friend got classic LASIK done for $5500 both eyes at a reputable place. I see another place that does Intralase (laser cut) LASIK for $3000 both eyes.
But then I read that the best laser eye surgery is no-touch PRK which doesn't create a flap. Better technology for $2500 both eyes. Longer healing times but less side effects and, because no flap is created, there's no worrying about your flap coming off if you rub your eyes or get punched in the eye.
So why do people go for more expensive and older technology LASIK and not no-touch PRK? - JHW539, on 11/03/2009, -0/+3PRK is actually older and can be profoundly painful during healing. My wife had it and didn't get really moving around for 3 days after, hit narcotic painkillers for the first time in her life, had a great deal of trouble reading her computer for a month and her eyes didn't stabilize for 3 months. PRK is NOT no touch - they dissolve and then scrub off the front of your eyeball. Read that again; recovery is right in line with how bad that sounds. With LASIK there are stories of being good to go to a club the next day.
PRK and LASIK can offer equivalent outcomes. PRK does result in 'good as new' eyeball structural integrity, but that's because you have to regrow the front part of it. My wife got PRK due to a cornea that didn't have the thickness to do LASIK. I am eligible for LASIK and am planning to do it next year. If I could only do PRK (same price at this place), I might be wearing my glasses to the grave since I'm a weenie who can't take the thought of a hard recovery weekend, even with drugs, and a month of needing 40 point font on the computer. - Qumahlin, on 11/02/2009, -0/+3This is nothing new, they also don't address that there have already been advancements in wavefront technology that they have now combined it into a true "intralase" procedure in which the laser is doing 100% of the work whereas in traditional lasik it is not all done by the laser.
Intralase is the method that is approved for astronauts requiring vision correction as it allows results that can be highly tailored to the patient and typically results in vision better than can be achieved with glasses or contacts.
For more information just read Kremer Eye Centers site. They are basically the creators of most LASIK procedures and responsible for many of the advancements done to it such as Intralase. - SpamHat, on 11/03/2009, -0/+2This has been out for 8 years? I want case studies and figures of how good the night vision is.
- grungegbunny, on 11/02/2009, -0/+2Good news for me. I guess I would be put under the "irregular astigmatism" category. I have yet to find a pair of glasses or contacts that help me completely yet.
- razrielle, on 11/02/2009, -0/+2Maybe its more likely then you think?
- StyngerSmash, on 11/02/2009, -0/+2Pretty soon you'll have a Trekkie taking his liking of Geordie La Forge too far.
- anagoge, on 11/03/2009, -0/+2That's what she said?
- cfuse, on 11/03/2009, -0/+2Being an early adopter with beta eyes isn't something I'd be willing to risk my vision on. If they ***** it up you are screwed - suddenly the 'old' operation isn't looking so bad, is it?
- jaybol, on 11/03/2009, -0/+2Peach3s you deserve more than your current 5 diggs for that comment
- SavageIndustrie, on 11/03/2009, -0/+2Really? You call it the Hubble telescope? My girlfriend calls it, "sauce".
- Tuta, on 11/03/2009, -0/+1If this can grant me sight beyond sight without my sword, I am all for it!
- brundlefly76, on 11/03/2009, -0/+1I had my Lasik done in Montreal in 2001 because they already had wavefront.
This article makes it sound like magic, but its been around for about a decade.
It has the same risks as regular Lasik, and I needed to have mine done twice in each eye (first time didnt correct enough) and had a minor crease in the flap of my cornea after the second surgery which could have caused some permanent vision problems but luckily did not.
7 years after I had it done I got a minor prescription for eyeglasses to correct some returning nearsightedness.
Its also important to remember that the x/x scale is not the last word in the quality of your vision, especially when it comes to post-Lasik vision. When I discovered I needed corrective lenses I still read the chart at 20/20, although it was blurry.
I am glad I had Lasik done though, I was very nearsighted and could not read the alarm clock in the morning. I also don't *need* to wear my glasses. - reefsurfer226, on 11/03/2009, -0/+1and my optician says im not a good lasik candidate because my eyes are not bad enough?
- takeo1775, on 11/03/2009, -0/+1Our eyes are way inferior to the technology we use, look at the stars, imagine if we could see the sky like cameras do on a long exposure. If I lost my sight I wouldnt mind a 30mm f1.4 lens mounted directly onto my head. Just need to wait for Mechanical>Bio sensor links to be researched...
- smashingmonkey, on 11/18/2009, -0/+1Hey, I'm just going on what my doctor - a pioneer in the field of LASIK - told me.
- homercles337, on 11/03/2009, -0/+1Actually, i thought 20/20 was the average. Something about distance and deviation from average. 20/10 means that you can see at 20 feet what the average person sees at 10, no? There is variability in biology--120 receptors / degree is the average, and that is what limits the 20/20 claim, right? I dont give a rats ass about adaptive optics if you have 120 receptors / degree you are not going to see higher frequencies than 60 cpd.
- OrangeRevel, on 11/03/2009, -0/+1Yeah, PHDs in making sandwiches!
- tacojohn48, on 11/03/2009, -0/+1I accidentally memorized a line during an eye exam once. It throws the whole thing off when you can read the line no matter what prescription they put in.
- themastersb, on 11/03/2009, -0/+1I think that would hurt.
- LASIKSECRETS, on 11/18/2009, -0/+0Why is some people confused with wavefront technology?
Certainly wavefront is related with LASIK surgery but not in a manner that many people think, the wavefront technology start from the topographer, mean the machine that make the map of the cornea is a high resolution wave capture, in other words give better guide to the Excimer laser to treat the cornea, because is more information details of the cornea.
Now the Excimer laser has a software that interpret or understand what the topographer show.
But wavefront, doesn't mean that the excimer laser will burn more or less corneal tissue, or that is more aggressive... - anagoge, on 11/03/2009, -1/+1DO A BARREL ROLL!
- Grumpymonk, on 11/03/2009, -2/+0i should take this time to note that women can have PHDs too and can be easily as fooled.
- bgeci, on 11/03/2009, -3/+0All I want to know.... Will Obamacare cover this? yummy, free Lasik?? Obama rocks... w0rd!
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is