Hi. I was so sadly disappointed on yesterday when I was told I was not a candidate for LASIK surgery. My corneas were 441 and 449. Am I destined just to wear glasses and contacts forever. Also, I was told because mine are more thin than the THINNEST of corneas, I am more at risk for glaucoma and keratoconus. WILL I BE GOING BLIND SOON???

If you have healthy eyes and corneas and do NOT get lasik, your corneas are more than enough not to get KC nor ectasia. If you can tolerate contacts fine, you dont need lasik to begin with. Whats your glasses pescription? If its low, you can go without glasses for alot of things

My prescription is -2.00 and -2.00. So it is not that bad. I just wanted the opportunity to not HAVE TO wear glasses. I wanted to be able to go out and drive without them or not have to pay an arm and leg for sunglasses because they have to be prescription. And putting my finger in my eye has gotten on my last! I asked the doctor about LASEK (which is suppose to be an alternative to LASIK if you have thin corneas). I have ordered the new glasses, sunglasses and contacts (after I cried all day yesterday from being told I was not a candidate for the surgery and that I may get glaucoma and KC), so I will just continue the life I have known for 20 odd years.

Only -2? wow you are lucky! My eyes are much worse than you at -4! Its like 4 times worse! How well do you see without glasses? 20/100? How well with glasses? I see 20/400(and its blurry!) without glasses and can see 20/30 and some of the 20/25 with glasses. Theres alot of things you can do without glasses. I take my glasses off to eat or read but wear them for almost everything else.
I wish I was a -2 then I would be wearing glasses much, much less often!

Sorry to hear your not a lasik candidate but with you being only a -2 its almost not worth the risks of lasik even if you were a candidate. Youd soon need reading glasses anyway but your -2 will keep you out of reading glasses

i had corneal thick ness 492...before zyoptix.................. am afraid now was i a good candidate for zyoptix ? is 492 a safe thick ness plz answer.. ........my power was -4 and -3.5

how thick was your flap? Lets say the flap was 160 microns. The lasik ablation would remove another 60 microns(4 times 15) your cornea is 490 microns minus 220 for 270 microns total. Thats above the absolute 250 minimum and below the recommended 300 minimum. You dont have enough for an enhancement if you ever regress. However my friends find they dont need glasses if they are a -1 or less except maybe for driving at night.

thx ace ............. i will ask my doctor about flap thickness in my next check up.... i can c 20/20 right now ...i pray god to retain the same thing for me....... i was afraid about ectasia so i asked that question ...... if possible can u tell the residial stomal thickness statisticks of people who r victims of ectacia......

TaShonda,

I know you're disappointed about not being a candidate for LASIK, but better to be told the truth and not get the procedure then get it and wish you didn't, which would be the case if your residual bed was too thin.

In your message, you cited the inability to wear sunglasses (because you're wearing glasses) as one reason you wanted to get LASIK. Have you considered contact lenses?

Paul
LASIK /1/5/06

I am a refractive surgeon who specializes in advanced surface ablations like LASEK. As I follow the discussion threads I'm surprised how infrequently LASEK is mentioned. With LASEK, I leave about 100 microns additional residual (untouched) corneal thickness compared to traditional LASIK. Many who are poor candidates with LASIK are excellent candidates for LASEK, with plenty of cornal tissue left over. Plus my patients don't get dry eye! True, the visual recovery is slower than LASIK, but a small price for the safety margin, and elimination of an entire category of complications (flap Complications) Check out: www.goflapless.com