1159
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 37 points 1 month ago

Pay once or pay multiple times a year? LASIK pays for itself, you’ll always be buying glasses and contacts.

[-] Maalus@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago

LASIK isn't some great cure. It has potential side effects and you can end up seeing worse than you did before.

[-] PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works 28 points 1 month ago

I know I’m just one person, but it was one of the best decisions I ever made. I was almost legally blind without glasses/contacts, and just the stress of making sure my glasses prescription was up to date once I switched to contacts, making sure I packed glasses, contacts, extra contacts, solution, etc, for a trip, and losing 1 contact while at the store or something was instantly erased.

I could read the street signs on the highway on the way home from the surgery. I hadn’t been able to do that unaided since I was probably 10.

Do I need readers now that I’m older? Yep, just like they told me I would because everyone does because it’s a different issue that comes with aging. I wish they had a similar treatment for Presbyopia!!!

Sure, everyone’s experience is different, but it almost was akin to a miracle for me. Life changing for sure.

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 month ago

And on the other side of the spectrum my friend was at -10, got it done and has been complaining for the past 15 years or more. He can barely drive at night now and it hasn't fixed all his issues so he still needs glasses and has needed them since the operation (just not as much for his myopia) so he's not saving any money

[-] PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works 18 points 1 month ago

I’m not doubting at all that there are cases like this and I’m terribly sorry for your friend. I only wanted to present a different perspective for those considering having the procedure. It’s definitely not a decision that should be made lightly.

[-] aniki@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 month ago

mate at -10 he wasn't doing great before he had lasik either.

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago

Was 100% functional with glasses now not functional at night with or without glasses, dry eyes, still needs glasses

[-] aniki@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

No one is saying that it's a flawless procedure but at -10 homie is a few stops away from legally blind. He gambled and lost. Life's a beach.

[-] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Every procedure has that risk, even a routine vaccination or stitches, strange reason to pay for glasses and contacts forever.

There are people who legitimately can’t get the surgery, but that’s obviously not who’s being discussed here.

What’s the ratio on people being worse of for vision after? Cant make a claim like that and not provide some data.

Glasses and contacts also don’t fix the issue and can lead to worse vision too, so arguably that’s non-factor in a discussion like this anyways.

LASIK is the only chance to have a permanent fix. It’s a very important factor to consider, above and beyond the complications, that are also applicable to the glasses and contacts. I’ve not heard of many people’s vision getting better by their continual use.

[-] Maalus@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

No, what you are comparing to is a one in a million. Lasik has a rather large complication rate with doctors lying about it and using "satisfaction rate" instead of actually counting complications. Basically people think "it's worth it to have these problems". But issues like dry eye, halos, glare, shitty night vision are extremely common. They'll tell you shit like "serious complications are at 1%" when what they mean is 1% go basically blind - or unable to do daily activities like driving at night.

https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/lasik/lasik-quality-life-collaboration-project

46% of participants who didn't have visual problems before lasik, said they have at least one 3 months after the surgery. 30% had dry eye issues. Those aren't vaccine numbers.

[-] spittingimage@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

with doctors lying about it

The last person I spoke with who used those words was trying to convince me she could cure cancer with electricity.

[-] CCMan1701A@startrek.website 5 points 1 month ago

You do need electricity to run the machines.

[-] spittingimage@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

But that's not special anti-cancer electricity.

[-] Kalysta@lemm.ee 2 points 1 month ago

To be fair, using enough electricity will cure everything. Technically.

[-] spittingimage@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Hadn't thought about that. Perhaps I didn't give her enough credit.

[-] Trail@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Three months after surgery is too early for such a conclusion. It is expected that you still have dry eyes and stuff like that for a larger period of time, around 6 months or so with daily eye drops. Your vision post surgery is also not 100% improved, and gets better for up to a year after, while your eyes and brain adjust.

Source: my wife had it. Certainly worth it. Your link is not very relevant.

[-] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

In October 2009, the FDA, the National Eye Institute (NEI), and the Department of Defense (DoD) launched the LASIK Quality of Life Collaboration Project (LQOLCP) to better understand the potential risk of severe problems that can result from LASIK. The project's goal was to develop a tool for determining the percent of patients who develop difficulties performing usual activities following LASIK, and to identify predictors for those patients.

The technology is leaps and bounds better than it was 15 years ago, got anything modern?

And the risk of your eyes getting worse with glasses and contacts is worse than that, your eyes can’t get better without mechanical intervention, and glasses WILL deteriorate your vision further. It’s 100% with glasses and contacts.

[-] sudneo@lemm.ee 3 points 1 month ago

glasses WILL deteriorate your vision further. It’s 100% with glasses and contacts.

Do you have anything to share on this? I am asking because I remember I specifically asked my eye doctor this question, and he said no. (I asked something like if there is any downside in wearing glasses always vs only when needed e.g., reading, watching TV etc.).

I am also wearing the same glasses for almost 13 years now.

[-] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Glasses are a tool to help you see, your vision can’t get better on its own, there’s no downside to wearing them all the time, but your doctor clearly didn’t understand the question or you didn’t word it correctly. Your vision will deteriorate more, that’s a fact of life.

[-] sudneo@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

I understand that vision will deteriorate. My question was if using glasses can contribute to the deterioration. If glasses are neutral and don't harm, then I don't understand the parent comment.

The way I asked the question was that if using glasses all the time I could - for example - reduce even more certain movements etc. and ultimately cause harm to my vision.

[-] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Ill fitted or cheap glasses will exacerbate the issue, of course no doctor will say they are part of this group, but perfectly fit glasses have a small chance of not adding to the natural issue, but with how varied everything is. To get perfect glasses and to not lose/damage them to not need replacement is a very small minority.

[-] BassTurd@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

Really it's the upfront cost. Over the last 20 years I can say confidently that I have not spent more on corrective lenses than I would have on LASIK, but I'm getting close. I had it priced out last year and it's about $4500 for the procedure. I'm at a point in my life where I would feel comfortable taking on those payments now. I know growing up there was zero chance my parents could have made it happen for me, it we would have all been starving.

[-] Bob_Robertson_IX@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

I kept putting it off... I wanted it when I was 20 but couldn't afford it. I still wanted it at 30, but didn't want to spend the money. At 40 I finally had more than enough in my HSA to cover my annual deductable, so I scheduled it. And I've LOVED it! However, around 45 I noticed that my near sight isn't as good as it has been. Now at 48 I'm realizing that I'll soon need reading glasses.

I still think it was worth it... but I REALLY wish I had done it in my 20s so I could have enjoyed going glasses free for all those years.

[-] BassTurd@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

It's on my shortlist of things to do and has always been a goal since my teenage years. I'm tired of dealing with lenses.

[-] proudblond@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

I mean, that’s a pretty good run. I’ve never had to wear glasses but now at 41 I need readers when my eyes are tired, and when they’re not they’re working harder for clarity than they ever had to before. I said something to my dad about it a couple years ago as I was first noticing the change and he said, “How old are you? Ah yeah, that’s about the age.” (Yes my dad had to check how old I was. 🙄)

[-] Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 month ago

My prescription changes all the time. There's NO WAY I want to get lasik and end up wearing glasses in a year.

Fuck that.

[-] ohwhatfollyisman@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

LASIK procedures are "permanent", at best, till the patient's mid-40s. one source.

Pay once or pay multiple times a year?

no glasses wearers pay "multiple times a year" for new spectacles and lenses. the frequency does go up to once in two years or once a year after the mid-40s because of presbyopia, but that expense would be incurred anyway whether one gets a LASIK procedure done or not.

[-] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Lasik generally comes with a 20 year warranty. Glasses and contacts come with none. Do you work for a pharmaceutical company? You certainly seem to be shilling temporary treatments rather than even semi permanent cures.

I'm also in my 40s and would rather pay for a solution that will last till my 60s rather than get glasses every year for 20 years. Lasik is just cheaper in the long run, and the fact that you call it elective would be hilarious, if you weren't being so conservative.

Embrace modern medicine.

[-] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

The 20 year warranty on Lasik doesn’t guarantee a lifetime of normal vision. The surgery can neither correct nor prevent presbyopia, the most common form of age-related far-sightedness. This reduction in vision is caused by a hardening and loss of flexibility in the lens as well as a weakening of the muscles used for focusing.

[-] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The link buddy shared above that started this entire discussion says lasik is a solution to presbyopia….

If you are an older adult considering LASIK, you might choose to have monovision to maintain your ability to see objects close up. With monovision, one eye is corrected for distant vision, and the other eye is corrected for near vision. Not everyone is able to adjust to or tolerate monovision. It's best to do a trial with contact lenses before having a permanent surgical procedure.

Why are you saying the exact opposite of what was linked? Got a source to back this claim up?

[-] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

From your own link?

LASIK eye surgery may mean no more corrective lenses. But it's not right for everybody. Learn whether you're a good candidate and what to consider as you weigh your decision.

And maybe read the information on the over 40, it says laser is a solution to that, it says nothing about it still happening with laser, I think you are conflating issues.

[-] ohwhatfollyisman@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

do take the time to read the full article. particularly the section titled "LASIK vs. Reading Glasses".

separately, my cohorts and I are in the mid-40s and have undergone LASIK evaluation. the unanimous consensus given each of us is that we will have to undergo the procedure again and again as our eyes age. that we will have to fall back on glasses.

i speak from personal experience on this topic.

[-] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

Yes there is people for who it can’t permanently fix their vision, that doesn’t mean it’s not possible for others dude.

[-] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Presbyopia is the age-related hardening of the lens and weakening of the muscles used for focusing. The process is progressive and irreversible. Lasik is not a good option for people with presbyopia and any surgeon recommending it is not acting in your best interest as a patient. You should probably seek a second opinion!

[-] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The link literally states you can get it later in life

If you are an older adult considering LASIK, you might choose to have monovision to maintain your ability to see objects close up. With monovision, one eye is corrected for distant vision, and the other eye is corrected for near vision. Not everyone is able to adjust to or tolerate monovision. It's best to do a trial with contact lenses before having a permanent surgical procedure.

So the link buddy provided quite literally says your statement is factually incorrect. This is under the section for over 40 and that decease, maybe read the link like buddy said I should lmfao.

[-] vala@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

You can get glasses for like $20 online. The ones at the optometrist are expensive because of insurance.

this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2024
1159 points (97.9% liked)

People Twitter

5234 readers
542 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a tweet or similar
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS