I am currently considering lasik and would like to know if it is worth the risk with my perscription? The reason I want the surgery is that I do not like wearing glasses any more. I know I have a much weaker perscription than most so I am wondering if I can expect to see a substantial improvement, and would custom wavefront lasik be a better option? My perscription is:

-.75 -1.75 087
-.75 -1.50 090

Can one of the doctors here please provide some feedback. Thank you.

The most refractive surgery can provide is the possibility of the convenience of a reduced need for corrective lenses. To achieve that convenience one must accept some level of risk. What is an acceptable level of risk is dependent upon the individual. Only you can decide if the potential benefit of refractive surgery is worth the potential risk.

You already recognize that this is a very small refractive error, and although this probably provides some ghosting or double images at night, should not require glasses for most bright daylight activities.

If you are nearing age 40, you may want to keep that mild myopia (nearsightedness) as it can help delay the need for reading glasses.

If you have any refractive surgery, I would suggest you consider a surface ablation technique like PRK or LASEK over LASIK. The vision recovery time is a bit longer with surface ablation, but there’s no LASIK flap and thereby reduces some element of risk.

Good luck, whatever you decide.

Glenn Hagele
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
http://www.USAeyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org

I am not a doctor.

Thank you for your response. Can one of the doctors here please help provide more insite on this issue? With my perscription can I hope for a big enough improvement in my vision to warrant lasik? Would custom lasik increase my chances of 20/20 or better vision? Thanks.

Glenn's right! Your scrip is probably too small to warrant RS, but I'm sure you'll find a doc who will zap you. There are tons of post-RS patients that wound up with scrips like you have now.

The problem is that there is a "slop factor" in RS. I'm sure there's a technical term for it, but the bottom line is that RS in general allows for a +/- 0.5D variation due to scads of variables, including, but not limited to: laser type, OR temp, OR humidity, doctor skill, program nomograms, laser condition and maintenance (homogeneity of beam), corneal quality including moisture and tissue density variations, and of course, the big unknown, your "healing response." There are many more factors but those are just a few.

So, you could wind up going from myopia with astig to hyperopia with astig, or have more induced astig, or have the orientation of the astig changed. Most docs will tell you you have a tricky correction anytime your astig is greater than your myopic or hyperopic correction. Astig correction in RS is ALWAYS the most difficult and fraught with complications.

The choice is yours. However, in your case you have little to gain.

For once I agree with Hagele. He sells refractive surgery for a living and chooses not to have it himself because he knows he will not be happy with the vision it offers. Follow his example.

I have a friend who is a finance/sales manager for a major auto group. While he sells certain brands all day long, he drives a different brand. He confides the brands he sells are not as reliable or as well made as the brand he owns. But yet his job is to sell cars that he himself would not own. That's how he makes his living. As does Mr. Hagele, who will not drive the brand he sells.

Of course, if you buy one of the brands my friend sells and you don't like it, you can always sell it to some other poor unsuspecting soul. It's too bad that if we get bad RS, we can't swap out our googlers, a la "Minority Report."

Frank,

I do not do refractive surgery. I have never told anyone privately or publicly that they should have refractive surgery. For over five years I have helped provide objective and factually substantiated information about refractive surgery issues to anyone who seeks such information. I have even attempted to assist patients, like you, who had poor outcomes. Dr. Trattler, who sponsors this bulletin board, actually sells refractive surgery, performs refractory surgery, and profits from refractive surgery, yet you attack me and never say a negative thing about him.

My circumstances are nothing like this patient and my decision to refrain from refractive surgery really has no bearing on his decision, other than the obvious that refractive surgery is not for everyone.

Additionally, you will see from my post that I clearly did not advise this individual to have surgery and provided many concerns that the candidate needed to address.

Glenn Hagele
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
http://www.USAeyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org

I am not a doctor.

Hagele’s post is nothing but spin and distortion.

A car salesman certainly sells cars even if he does not use the specific words: “I think you should buy this car.” He relies on spelling out the advantages of his particular product when compared to the competition. In a similar way Hagele presents information on refractive surgery in a way that suggests that purchasing it from a CRSQA doctor will guarantee a good outcome.

Hagele is also the author of articles written to help refractive surgeons market refractive surgery to prospective customers. In a recent article in Eyeworld article Hagele stated that “Certification [of doctors] is not CRSQA’s primary focus.” “Providing certification is a means to an end for CRSQA.” The article went on: “What’s in it for the surgeons besides a discount on advertising? Public credibility, according to Hagele, is an important asset, even for those whose names are well recognized within their field.”

Hagele is creating and selling brand name recognition.

Hagele’s attempt to present himself as a patient advocate is a farce. Dr. Trattler, who sponsors this bulletin board and sells refractive surgery for a living, is at least honest about what he does. People dislike Hagele because he is dishonest about what he does for a living. He is not a patient advocate. He is a refractive surgery salesman. He is smart because he knows his product well enough not to but it himself. I hope everyone – especially Brian - follows Hagele’s example and not have refractive surgery.

Terri, Terri, Terri. You can be so tedious at times.

Much of your recent post is opinion, and you most certainly are entitled to your opinion, but there are a few factual points that need to be corrected.

Absolutely no one has the ability to guarantee a good outcome. Nobody. Not me, not you, not the doctor performing the surgery. I have never stated or suggested anything of the like. On our website, before anyone can see a list of certified surgeons, we state:

“Past performance is NO GUARANTEE of future results. Even patients of CRSQA Certified Refractive Surgeons can have poor results.” (original emphasis)

What a potential patient CAN do is take steps that will raise the probability of a good outcome. Surgeon selection is one of those steps. With our 50 Tough Questions For Your Doctor or selecting a surgeon that has been independently evaluated, a patient is moving in the direction of a better outcome, but there is absolutely no guarantee and some individuals should not have refractive surgery at all.

You failed to include what is our organization’s primary focus: Patient Education. By providing objective and factually substantiated information – including the bad and the good - individuals considering refractive surgery are able to make an informed decision. For some, that decision is that the potential benefits are worth the potential risk. For others, they are not. If factual information suggests a good outcome for an individual patient’s circumstance, it is still factual information.

The honesty in what I do is evident in the accuracy of the information I provide. If you ever find an instance where I state something that is inaccurate, or where something on our websites is inaccurate, please let me know. I will quickly make the appropriate changes.

Glenn Hagele
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
http://www.USAeyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org

I am not a doctor.

Hagele, Hagele, Hagele. You can be so tedious at times. All of your post is opinion and you are most certainly entitled to yours, but there are so many mis-statements and half-truths in your posts that no one individual can correct them all.

CRSQA does not guarantee good outcomes. What you do is to indicate that your acceptance of money from doctors for your certification and marketing services produces better outcomes.

What a potential patient CAN do is to take steps to realize that CRSQA is a marketing and sales organization that, according to Eyeworld, gives doctors who purchase your services “public credibility” in addition to a “discount on advertising”.

You have failed to include the primary focus of your organization: Sales of Refractive Surgery. By providing biased information you attempt to build a brand name and to suggest that the doctors who meet your incredibly low standards are somehow better than doctors who do not buy your sales and marketing services.

Obviously, there is little need to attempt an intelligent response to such nonsense.

We got a little off the point. 'Tween the opinions you have seen here, it should be clear there is not much to gain and a lot to risk.

There are as many opinions as there are people iin this field; there is a great deal of polarization. as you can see.

If you want to look further into RS, get a few more opinions from top docs in your area, and continue to visit boards and informational sites such as this. Learn as much as you can before you decide.