Getting LASIK never made sense to me given the risks.
Essentially, take a very very low risk of permanent eye problems to not have to wear contact lenses.
I'd rather pay for contact lenses forever, put them in, and take them out every day than risk anything to my vision.
Obviously contacts have risks as well but infinitesimal if used correctly.
vikingerik 17 minutes ago [-]
Exactly the opposite for me. I would never tolerate contacts and hated wearing glasses too. I had Lasik, 18 years ago now, and absolutely glad I did.
For me the only significant downside is dry eyes (it damages the nerves that sense dryness so you don't produce as many tears), but that's manageable with eyedrops. I do notice my night vision getting slightly worse now in my late forties, but hard to tell if that actually had anything to do with Lasik or if it's just normal aging. No problems with driving at night yet, and eye exams tell me everything is normal.
hyperbovine 36 minutes ago [-]
> I'd rather pay for contact lenses forever, put them in, and take them out every day than risk anything to my vision
Same same same. Soft contacts are pretty freaking great in the grand scheme of things -- go read contemporary accounts of what it was like to suffer from severe myopia even just 50 years ago. The hype surrounding LASIK when there is a cheaper, non-invasive, lower risk, minimally inconvenient and widely available alternative never made an ounce of sense to me.
Kranar 36 minutes ago [-]
Risks for both contact lenses and LASIK are incredibly low, but with that said strictly from a quantitative perspective, contact lenses carry a higher risk of permanent vision loss than LASIK. The issue is that the risk of LASIK is almost entirely front-loaded whereas the risk from contact lenses causing an infection that results in significant to total loss of vision accumulates little by little.
someuser2345 53 minutes ago [-]
Yeah, not to mention that LASIK will degrade over time.
odie5533 2 hours ago [-]
I'm a candidate for LASIK. The upside would be I don't have to wear glasses. But that's just not that big of an upside given the risks.
moduspol 5 hours ago [-]
That'd be nice. I had LASIK a few years ago and the number of Windows Vista generic error sounds (BONG BONG) I heard during the procedure was a little unsettling. Ended up working out just fine though, so far at least.
EDIT: Given some of the comments below, for reference: mine was done almost six years ago.
clickety_clack 1 hours ago [-]
I had it done around 5 years ago. My eyesight was just bad enough that I had to wear glasses/contacts to play sports, recognize people across the street, or read a whiteboard. I hated contacts because my eyes were already on the dry side to start with so they would drive me crazy.
Maybe it’s because my eyesight wasn’t terrible to start with, but I didn’t notice any issues with night vision. I don’t know if I had issues with dry eyes, because like I said they were dry beforehand anyway.
There’s a ton of minor inconveniences that come with glasses that just disappeared, like wearing over ear headphones, putting your head on a cushion when lying down to watch tv, being in a humid/rainy place. I wish I had done it years before.
Cloudef 2 hours ago [-]
I took mine at age of 19, been 13 years now and so far fine. I feel like eyesight during dark is worse than it was during younger age, but during day sight's still good as ever. Operation itself was pretty scary.
Before LASIK i was wearing some pretty heavy glasses, so i think the sight had already hit the worst part.
fnands 5 hours ago [-]
Anything to look out for for someone considering going for LASIK in the next few months?
moduspol 5 hours ago [-]
Unless things have changed, be sure you keep the little note they give you at the end that tells you your measurements. Supposedly if you end up needing another round later in life, it may be necessary to have those measurements. They apparently need to know exactly how much corneal tissue was there originally to know how much more they can remove.
And be sure you do your annual check-ups. The place where I had mine done guaranteed any follow-up procedures would be free for life, but only if I could show I'd been doing the annual check-ups.
That's about all I can remember. After the procedure, you go home and take a nap. For me, I woke up the next morning and could see clearly.
phyzome 4 hours ago [-]
It has some underappreciated side effects, such as reduced night vision.
Even if everything else went perfectly, I don't think that's an acceptable side effect for me.
jonplackett 4 hours ago [-]
How exactly does it affect night vision?
I already have mild cataracts which make night vision annoying. Definitely don’t need it getting any worse!
typewithrhythm 3 hours ago [-]
Starburst and halo artifacts are the keywords to get an idea.
The specifics are hard to estimate, since severity is fairly subjective, but it's pretty common for things like traffic lights at night to show them.
cmrdporcupine 4 hours ago [-]
So as a getting-older-over-halfway-done guy, my night vision is already pretty crap. Are you saying it will get even worse?
thfuran 2 hours ago [-]
They reshape an area smaller than a fully dilated pupil, so night vision is affected because you're seeing light that passed through the corrected area and light that passed through the uncorrected area (and the boundary itself might mess things up in a more complicated way). Whether that sort of distortion is "worse" than entirely uncorrected vision is kind of subjective. Also, I think that effect diminishes with age because the pupil stops dilating as fully.
aardvarkr 3 hours ago [-]
I had it done in late 2022. The doctor does close to zero work and it’s all in the laser. I called almost every lasik specialist in the city to figure out what laser they use and what their price is and then narrowed that list further with in person consultations. Don’t go for the absolute cheapest but there’s zero reason to pay quadruple.
At the time it was about $1k per eye and of course vision insurance sucks and won’t make a difference for lasik. My company even had a lasik benefit ($1k/eye) but the offices that worked through insurance cost $2.5k/eye.
If I recall correctly there’s three major laser brands and they’re on the fifth generation lasers. The buzzword at that time was waveform technology.
Overall it has been AMAZING and everyone should do it. Literally can’t express how wonderful it is to no longer need contracts or glasses. It’s probably paid for itself already as well but the quality of life improvements are worth it even if there was no break even point.
trallnag 1 hours ago [-]
Everyone should do it? Without any research or consulting a doctor? This is really bad advice.
mickeyr 4 hours ago [-]
Severe side effects may not be common, but they can be very very severe. I had it 20 years ago and had no issues myself.
It's surprisingly automated. The best thing you can do for yourself is call every provider and ask exactly what model machine they will use. As long as the doctor isn't grossly negligent, the one using the most recent and advanced machine will be your best option.
whartung 4 hours ago [-]
Just be prepared for the waiver you have to sign.
After all of the advertising about how amazing and safe and wonderful it is, the rubber meets the road with the release you sign.
Essentially “we’re about to shoot LASERS into your eye and if we manage to not BLIND you, that’s a good outcome.”
All routine, of course, but it’s still a scary form to sign.
moduspol 4 hours ago [-]
Indeed. They also don't seem to let you schedule each eye separately. Maybe they will if you complain enough, or are willing to pay more.
SwamyM 2 hours ago [-]
This is something I am considering as well, so I am definitely interested in hearing feedback from other users that have gotten LASIK or have looked into it.
If it matters, I have slight astigmatism in both my eyes.
konfusinomicon 3 hours ago [-]
best 3 grand i ever spent. my vision was so bad prior I couldn't see the largest letter in the test and afterwards i felt like i could have gone a few levels past the smallest on the test with no issue. after 7 years and my last exam showed I still had 20/20 vision. I can relate with the night driving halos but I had trouble driving at night prior to it too so ymmv. waking up the night of the procedure and walking the dog it was like a whole new world of clarity with the amount of detail I could see of the leaves on the trees backlit by streetlights. the first month is a pain because you can't touch your eyes and you gotta wear goggles to sleep. and being able to see in the shower is pretty cool too.
samch 5 hours ago [-]
My wife had PRK done on both eyes over a decade ago, and it was great. At the time, she had the choice between LASIK and PRK (I’m not sure that everybody has both options given their particular conditions). After reviewing the long-term prognosis and possible side effects of both, she went with PRK. It’s been a fantastic decision for her, but that just one person’s experience.
snvzz 4 hours ago [-]
Many acquaintances dating decades back to high school days have gone through LASIK.
They were lucky enough to be happy at first (not everybody is). Long term, they all regretted it.
The statistics agree. I would personally not consider LASIK.
ajford 45 minutes ago [-]
LASIK is well known to only be a short to mid-term solution. The eyes age like the rest of you, and any correction will eventually be outpaced by the natural weakening of your ocular muscles to the point where you can no longer pull focus and require glasses. Further correction is possible, but from what I remember being told by my doctor and my own reading, the bounce-back from the surgery is rougher as you age.
I know a few folks from college who got it done and a bit over decade later they're going strong. My own surgery is just about hitting a decade (couple of months shy). That said, I have a family friend who had bladed LASIK done in their 50s (late 2000s) and their outcome was bad with total loss of sight in the affected eye. The result on their other eye was barely an improvement but plenty of scarring lead to halos and starbursts.
bri3d 2 hours ago [-]
> The statistics agree
Citation? It’s hard to find independent studies on LASIK since it’s big business, which is indeed a good cause for suspicion, but every follow-up survey I can find indicates net satisfaction in the 80-90+% range after 20 years, and the technology has massively improved so I’d expect the rate to go up even more over time.
If we’re doing anecdotes, my father got very early LASIK and is extremely happy he did, over 20 years later his vision is just starting to degrade again and he had only extremely minor halo issues (which are also less prevalent today due to the use of lasers instead of a knife to cut the eye open, leading to less scarring).
I’ve been considering laser eye surgery soon and it seems that all available technologies are decent. Based on my survey, SMILE>PRK>LASIK in terms of outcomes and risk, but SMILE works on a much more limited range of eye issues and PRK requires a somewhat lengthy and uncomfortable recovery period requiring time off work and caretaker support, so LASIK is still a good fallback option.
SoftTalker 3 hours ago [-]
I know only two people who've had LASIK and they both had not-so-great results.
One had severe "dry eye" feeling (described as "sand in my eyes") for a long time and needed to use drops.
The other had distorted vision and needed multiple follow-up "corrections."
I'm staying with contacts and glasses, personally.
jonplackett 4 hours ago [-]
What went wrong and in what timeframe?
zdragnar 4 hours ago [-]
I'm not who you asked, but my family and one of my friends were all the same.
My mom sees halos around lights at night, so much so that she can't drive after sunset. Her eyes are so dry that she gets plugs inserted into her tear ducts to help retain moisture.
My friend who had it done also has severe dry eyes, to the point that he constantly uses eye drops.
In all four cases I know of, the good vision only lasted a few years. Eventually, glasses will be needed again to keep 20/20 vision.
rtkwe 4 hours ago [-]
It's pretty common for your vision to revert somewhat back to needing glasses over the span of a couple years. Usually it's still better than it was but often natural aging and a bit of regression combined means you still wind up needing glasses. Took my friend about 5 years until he started needing some corrective lenses again.
JumpCrisscross 5 hours ago [-]
Do your pros and cons versus ICL. It's pricier. But it comes with fewer side effects, is fully reversible and allows for refinement down the road.
cmrdporcupine 4 hours ago [-]
Looks like ICL isn't generally available after the age of 45.
JumpCrisscross 4 hours ago [-]
> ICL isn't generally available after the age of 45
It’s essentially cataract surgery, so not for safety reasons.
FDA doesn’t recommend it past 45, I believe, because if you have age-related eye degeneration ICL won’t help where LASIK might and because it’s most studied in the 21 to 45 age group. Would be surprised if a surgeon said no due to age alone.
Yes, for any considering eye surgery at least research SMILE, and other alternative surgeries and upcoming surgical techniques.
7e 3 hours ago [-]
Don’t get LASIK. Get Wavelight Plus ray-tracing guided LASIK. The outcomes are incredibly improved.
BobbyTables2 5 hours ago [-]
At least it wasn’t win95!
moduspol 4 hours ago [-]
Yes! It could have been worse.
citizenpaul 1 hours ago [-]
> potential to replace laser surgeries in ophthalmologists’ offices in the future, for a fraction of the cost.
The cynic in me says we won't be seeing adoption of this technology....
Aurornis 1 hours ago [-]
The cynic in you has a zero-sum mental model of the world with a fixed number of eye surgery doctors.
If a cheaper, faster, safer (therefore lower insurance cost) procedure becomes available, more clinics will open using it. Competition drives prices down fast in the domain of elective medical procedures.
bluGill 3 hours ago [-]
I started buying safety glasses with side shields. Now I have less worry about something getting into my eye because "it was just one quick cut" accidents. Since my glasses never leave my face I get added protection for free. (it isn't perfect. I know someone who was wearing a face shield over safety glasses and still got something in his eyes - but the chances are greatly reduced)
Once I realized the above was an option I lost all interest in eye correction.
Now it's nearly 20 years later, and I just turned 48.
My vision has deteriorated from "old age" enough now that I might have considered getting the procedure done again. Touch-ups are/were free at the Stanford clinic.
My vision has not deteriorated in the past 5 years or so, I am farsighted enough now that it is more comfortable to hold fine print things at arms length to read. And things far away are a bit blurry again.
But, I now think that getting eye surgery now to fix your vision is a bad move if glasses can correct it.
It's really just a strategy decision in the 'game of life'.
"Pretty soon", we are going to have wearable AR goggles that actually work.
When that threshold is crossed, "everyone" is going to have AR glasses, just like "everyone" has a smart phone right now.
Since you're going to be wearing glasses in a few years anyway, why risk the surgery?
8organicbits 3 hours ago [-]
What would be the reason to wear AR googles all day? I dont think we have a killer app yet.
Workaccount2 3 hours ago [-]
So you can reach the end-game of screen addiction.
traverseda 3 hours ago [-]
Advertising beamed directly into your face. Eye tracking to build a better psychological profile to better manipulate you.
The better question is do the major tech companies have enough power to force you to use smart glasses, like you can be forced to have a google or apple account to interact with certain banks? What can they break and make it so you need to use smart glasses to continue to use them?
With the matter protocol and smart IoT, maybe you'll need glasses to turn on lights, or some much clunkier interface with a phone. Maybe something more facebook like where you'll need them to communicate with your friends, leverage some network effects. I'm sure someone is figuring that out as we speak.
---
There's a lot of legitimate use for a HUD too, but I doubt that is what will drive investment.
euroderf 4 hours ago [-]
I'm wondering: if you get LASIK to fix myopia, then does this mean you'll need reading glasses to read fine print ?
stronglikedan 4 hours ago [-]
I got lasik at 40, and started needing reading glasses at 45. From 40 to 45, the lasik reverted in my right eye. I needed to either wear glasses full time for that, or deal with monovision. I just said fuck it and went back to regular glasses (progressives) all day long. My eyes are too valuable to keep fucking around with, so another round of lasik wasn't an option for me.
aardvarkr 3 hours ago [-]
That’s amazing. I love hearing about basic research like this. Keep the innovations coming!
tiahura 4 hours ago [-]
Glasses are annoying, and I’m not particularly risk averse, but unless I was completely blind or in excruciating pain, I can’t imagine any scenario in which I would elect to have someone cut, lase, or reshape my eyeball.
ajford 56 minutes ago [-]
I elected for LASIK as my near-sighted prescription was severe enough that I could only see about 6-8 inches in front of my eyes without my glasses.
Also, I could only get my prescription filled in high-index lenses as the normal lenses would be too thick for nearly any glasses shop to order and grind. And had been that way for at least a decade by the time I opted for LASIK.
Poor control of my eye reflexes meant that even after over a year of trying I still couldn't reliably wear contacts, and was a highly stressful part of my day when I managed to get them on.
I had a family friend that went for LASIK very early on (late 2000s iirc) and had a horrible outcome losing sight in one eye, and a couple of friends in college that had amazing outcomes, so I had seen both sides. Ultimately, the LASIK operation was a very quick and pleasant operation for me, and the results were beyond my expectations. Nearly a decade later, my eyesight is still fine though I think I'm starting to see some blurring at middle distances that wasn't there a couple years ago. Did get some strong starbursts at night for a couple of years but I've either gotten used to them or they've faded.
After wearing glasses for around 20 years of my life, I love the freedom of no longer wearing them.
stronglikedan 4 hours ago [-]
For the vast majority of candidates, it's a life changing experience for the better, and well worth the minimal risk. Mine reverted in one eye, but I'm glad I did it regardless and have zero regrets. Just luck of the draw, really.
odie5533 2 hours ago [-]
Who wants to play sand-in-my-eyeballs roulette? If you win you don't have to wear glasses anymore, and if you lose it will always feel like there's sand in your eyeballs.
superkuh 4 hours ago [-]
Lasers are not fun. Especially when they're not aiming at the cornea/etc flap and instead are intentionally burning your torn retina flap to "photocoagulate"/glue it back on to the back of they eyeball with the rest of the retina. It hurts quite a bit (like getting punched in the eyeball 300 times) and you have to remain perfectly still with your eye always looking at the the same exact spot for 20 minutes minutes while the doctor flashes the green laser at random unpredictable intervals. There are no resting intervals. It's very intense and difficult to hold so still while getting hurt. And sometimes the laser will literally hit a nerve and suddenly you'll feel like puking. I had this done to both eyes in the last month and both times I left absolutely soaked in sweat and pale like a ghost.
I still can't look at flashing green LEDs the same way. Too many bad memories.
That said, this electroforming process sounds even worse than photocuagulation! I can't imagine it being a procedure they could do to a conscious person.
curtisszmania 41 minutes ago [-]
[dead]
Rendered at 18:00:05 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
Essentially, take a very very low risk of permanent eye problems to not have to wear contact lenses.
I'd rather pay for contact lenses forever, put them in, and take them out every day than risk anything to my vision.
Obviously contacts have risks as well but infinitesimal if used correctly.
For me the only significant downside is dry eyes (it damages the nerves that sense dryness so you don't produce as many tears), but that's manageable with eyedrops. I do notice my night vision getting slightly worse now in my late forties, but hard to tell if that actually had anything to do with Lasik or if it's just normal aging. No problems with driving at night yet, and eye exams tell me everything is normal.
Same same same. Soft contacts are pretty freaking great in the grand scheme of things -- go read contemporary accounts of what it was like to suffer from severe myopia even just 50 years ago. The hype surrounding LASIK when there is a cheaper, non-invasive, lower risk, minimally inconvenient and widely available alternative never made an ounce of sense to me.
EDIT: Given some of the comments below, for reference: mine was done almost six years ago.
Maybe it’s because my eyesight wasn’t terrible to start with, but I didn’t notice any issues with night vision. I don’t know if I had issues with dry eyes, because like I said they were dry beforehand anyway.
There’s a ton of minor inconveniences that come with glasses that just disappeared, like wearing over ear headphones, putting your head on a cushion when lying down to watch tv, being in a humid/rainy place. I wish I had done it years before.
Before LASIK i was wearing some pretty heavy glasses, so i think the sight had already hit the worst part.
And be sure you do your annual check-ups. The place where I had mine done guaranteed any follow-up procedures would be free for life, but only if I could show I'd been doing the annual check-ups.
That's about all I can remember. After the procedure, you go home and take a nap. For me, I woke up the next morning and could see clearly.
Even if everything else went perfectly, I don't think that's an acceptable side effect for me.
I already have mild cataracts which make night vision annoying. Definitely don’t need it getting any worse!
The specifics are hard to estimate, since severity is fairly subjective, but it's pretty common for things like traffic lights at night to show them.
At the time it was about $1k per eye and of course vision insurance sucks and won’t make a difference for lasik. My company even had a lasik benefit ($1k/eye) but the offices that worked through insurance cost $2.5k/eye.
If I recall correctly there’s three major laser brands and they’re on the fifth generation lasers. The buzzword at that time was waveform technology.
Overall it has been AMAZING and everyone should do it. Literally can’t express how wonderful it is to no longer need contracts or glasses. It’s probably paid for itself already as well but the quality of life improvements are worth it even if there was no break even point.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7431709/
It's surprisingly automated. The best thing you can do for yourself is call every provider and ask exactly what model machine they will use. As long as the doctor isn't grossly negligent, the one using the most recent and advanced machine will be your best option.
After all of the advertising about how amazing and safe and wonderful it is, the rubber meets the road with the release you sign.
Essentially “we’re about to shoot LASERS into your eye and if we manage to not BLIND you, that’s a good outcome.”
All routine, of course, but it’s still a scary form to sign.
If it matters, I have slight astigmatism in both my eyes.
They were lucky enough to be happy at first (not everybody is). Long term, they all regretted it.
The statistics agree. I would personally not consider LASIK.
I know a few folks from college who got it done and a bit over decade later they're going strong. My own surgery is just about hitting a decade (couple of months shy). That said, I have a family friend who had bladed LASIK done in their 50s (late 2000s) and their outcome was bad with total loss of sight in the affected eye. The result on their other eye was barely an improvement but plenty of scarring lead to halos and starbursts.
Citation? It’s hard to find independent studies on LASIK since it’s big business, which is indeed a good cause for suspicion, but every follow-up survey I can find indicates net satisfaction in the 80-90+% range after 20 years, and the technology has massively improved so I’d expect the rate to go up even more over time.
If we’re doing anecdotes, my father got very early LASIK and is extremely happy he did, over 20 years later his vision is just starting to degrade again and he had only extremely minor halo issues (which are also less prevalent today due to the use of lasers instead of a knife to cut the eye open, leading to less scarring).
I’ve been considering laser eye surgery soon and it seems that all available technologies are decent. Based on my survey, SMILE>PRK>LASIK in terms of outcomes and risk, but SMILE works on a much more limited range of eye issues and PRK requires a somewhat lengthy and uncomfortable recovery period requiring time off work and caretaker support, so LASIK is still a good fallback option.
One had severe "dry eye" feeling (described as "sand in my eyes") for a long time and needed to use drops.
The other had distorted vision and needed multiple follow-up "corrections."
I'm staying with contacts and glasses, personally.
My mom sees halos around lights at night, so much so that she can't drive after sunset. Her eyes are so dry that she gets plugs inserted into her tear ducts to help retain moisture.
My friend who had it done also has severe dry eyes, to the point that he constantly uses eye drops.
In all four cases I know of, the good vision only lasted a few years. Eventually, glasses will be needed again to keep 20/20 vision.
It’s essentially cataract surgery, so not for safety reasons.
FDA doesn’t recommend it past 45, I believe, because if you have age-related eye degeneration ICL won’t help where LASIK might and because it’s most studied in the 21 to 45 age group. Would be surprised if a surgeon said no due to age alone.
The cynic in me says we won't be seeing adoption of this technology....
If a cheaper, faster, safer (therefore lower insurance cost) procedure becomes available, more clinics will open using it. Competition drives prices down fast in the domain of elective medical procedures.
Once I realized the above was an option I lost all interest in eye correction.
Now it's nearly 20 years later, and I just turned 48.
My vision has deteriorated from "old age" enough now that I might have considered getting the procedure done again. Touch-ups are/were free at the Stanford clinic.
My vision has not deteriorated in the past 5 years or so, I am farsighted enough now that it is more comfortable to hold fine print things at arms length to read. And things far away are a bit blurry again.
But, I now think that getting eye surgery now to fix your vision is a bad move if glasses can correct it.
It's really just a strategy decision in the 'game of life'.
"Pretty soon", we are going to have wearable AR goggles that actually work.
When that threshold is crossed, "everyone" is going to have AR glasses, just like "everyone" has a smart phone right now.
Since you're going to be wearing glasses in a few years anyway, why risk the surgery?
The better question is do the major tech companies have enough power to force you to use smart glasses, like you can be forced to have a google or apple account to interact with certain banks? What can they break and make it so you need to use smart glasses to continue to use them?
With the matter protocol and smart IoT, maybe you'll need glasses to turn on lights, or some much clunkier interface with a phone. Maybe something more facebook like where you'll need them to communicate with your friends, leverage some network effects. I'm sure someone is figuring that out as we speak.
---
There's a lot of legitimate use for a HUD too, but I doubt that is what will drive investment.
Also, I could only get my prescription filled in high-index lenses as the normal lenses would be too thick for nearly any glasses shop to order and grind. And had been that way for at least a decade by the time I opted for LASIK.
Poor control of my eye reflexes meant that even after over a year of trying I still couldn't reliably wear contacts, and was a highly stressful part of my day when I managed to get them on.
I had a family friend that went for LASIK very early on (late 2000s iirc) and had a horrible outcome losing sight in one eye, and a couple of friends in college that had amazing outcomes, so I had seen both sides. Ultimately, the LASIK operation was a very quick and pleasant operation for me, and the results were beyond my expectations. Nearly a decade later, my eyesight is still fine though I think I'm starting to see some blurring at middle distances that wasn't there a couple years ago. Did get some strong starbursts at night for a couple of years but I've either gotten used to them or they've faded.
After wearing glasses for around 20 years of my life, I love the freedom of no longer wearing them.
I still can't look at flashing green LEDs the same way. Too many bad memories.
That said, this electroforming process sounds even worse than photocuagulation! I can't imagine it being a procedure they could do to a conscious person.