Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 10/9/2001 10:56:04 AM EDT
I'm getting tired of needing corrective lenses (glasses or contact lenses). I'm mildly myopic and can get by through most of my daily existence without lenses but when shooting long distances, it'd be nice to be able to see where I'm looking. Unfortunately, that means contacts or glasses -- not a big problem at a local range but not exactly convenient when I'm camping out in the desert. I was wondering if anyone out there had personal experiences with vision corrective surgery and how it worked out for you. Also, what sort of questions I might need to ask of a doctor and, for anybody in the SoCal area, any personal recommendations.
Link Posted: 10/9/2001 11:05:54 AM EDT
In one word "DON'T". Corrective vision surgery is full of complications which "they" won't tell you about; because they're making so very friggin much money off of it. First off it weakens the eyeball so that any sort of trauma to your head/eye might result in enucleation (ever break open an egg? -- that's right). Second you're vision won't be well corrected; after a year or two you could be 20/40 or worse; you'll have to keep going back again and again. Thirdly, when you pupil dilates at night, you'll have a real problem with halo's, streaks, and other visual problems; just the thing to "help" with night combat. Lastly they really don't have a clue as to what the long term effects of this procedure are on you eye; like what happens in 30 years when you may need cateract surgery? My humble advise is to not be involved in the next great Thalamide debacle. Glasses are great, easy to clean, protect your eye from exploding .416 Rigby's (personal experience), etc. Contacts are second best. It's just common sense, don't let people stick hot, sharp objects in your eyes and expect a good outcome.
Link Posted: 10/9/2001 11:13:29 AM EDT
Although I know of several dozen patients that have had excellent results from this, you should visit this website for a view of the other side of the coin...it ain't pretty. [b][url]http://www.surgicaleyes.com/[/url][/b]
Link Posted: 10/9/2001 11:18:27 AM EDT
btw, what Sitting Bull states is correct. Your vision will only be "good" for a temporary period of time. Eventually, it will revert back to poor(er) vision & the procedure will need to redone....not a pleasant prospect. I would strongly recommend contact lenses or eye glasses...they are an annoyance but much better than the results posted on the aforementioned website. Good luck & choose wisely.
Link Posted: 10/9/2001 11:21:39 AM EDT
My personal experiance. I was quite nearsighted, 3.5-4.5 diopters (the # on your scipt) for me it worked out well, I did not have LASIK, I had PRK, several reasons to many to discuss here. E-Mail me if you want the whole story. For the general crowd, I have some agreement with Sitting Bull, and will let you know if you are functional without glasses (I was not) then do not get surgery!! All that the doctors can promise you is that you will be 'functional without glasses' 20/40 or better, and that you will need reading glasses sooner. There are many risks and I would not recomment it if you are only mildly myopic. Here in the DC area there is a great doctor who's entire practice is correcting screwed up eyes. He has a booming practice. my experiance TRW
Link Posted: 10/9/2001 11:26:23 AM EDT
Sitting Bull; You are correctly describing problems involved with the older PRK and Laser PRK surgery (Radial Keratotomy sp?). The procedure in LASIK pokes no holes in the eye, and is more closely akin to cataract surgery, in that the lens of the eye is cut and lifted, and is then shaped to the corrective "perscription". There are of course dangers involved (as with any procedure), but are generally confined to possible wrinkling (due to rubbing one's eyes during the 1st 24 hrs while the tissue reattaches itself), and in a very few cases, a slight hazing (which is corrected 2 months down the road by going through the procedure again, and is caused by protiens). My source is my uncle, an Orthopedic Surgeon. I asked him to investigate this as he has no vested interest in opthomological propoganda. Knowing that my chosen line of work for the next 26 years is the Infantry, and the danger of breaking/losing glasses could cost the life of me or one of my men (as well as the VERY physical demands of the Airborne Infantry), has suggested that I have this procedure performed at the earliest opportunity. Don Out
Link Posted: 10/9/2001 11:33:01 AM EDT
My eyes have been corrected for ten years now. I had the old RK proceedure, and it was the best thing that has ever happened to me. I was turned down from several positions in LE until I had this proceedure. I was at 20/400 in both eyes uncorrected. Now I see better than 20/20. It worked for me!!!
Link Posted: 10/9/2001 11:58:54 AM EDT
There is a new procedure (non sugical) for people up to -4.5 diopter Myopia (nearsightness) and -1.5 diopter Astigmatism. It is called Orthokeratology (Ortho-K). It is a non-surgical process that flattens the cornea using contact lenses when you sleep. One cool feature is that it is reversible. If you don't like it, stop wearing the contacts. You can find more information on the net by searching for "Orthokeratology", "Ortho-K", "Corneal Molding" or "Computer Assisted Corneal Molding Therapy" I am currently using it to clean up some Lasik issues and it is helping (actually being used as a test subject, I had abnormal results with Lasik).
Link Posted: 10/9/2001 12:01:44 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/9/2001 12:04:29 PM EDT
It's just vanity surgery. You can still wear glasses and be an effective killer. Any rifle scope can correct your vision back to 20/20. Get a couple pairs of good, rugged combat eyeglasses, you'll be better off. I like the rubber ones with the strap that holds them on your head. Ugly, but effective. Hathcock's spotter wore glasses. He broke his glasses the day that Hathcock burned up in that Amtrack. He wasn't with Carlos because he had to go get new glasses.
Link Posted: 10/9/2001 12:08:56 PM EDT
Thanks for the input, both pro & con. And thanks for the resources to check for more info. I guess I'll be spending more time on the net than I had anticipated.
Originally Posted By trickshot: It's just vanity surgery. You can still wear glasses and be an effective killer. Any rifle scope can correct your vision back to 20/20. Get a couple pairs of good, rugged combat eyeglasses, you'll be better off. I like the rubber ones with the strap that holds them on your head. Ugly, but effective. Hathcock's spotter wore glasses. He broke his glasses the day that Hathcock burned up in that Amtrack. He wasn't with Carlos because he had to go get new glasses.
View Quote
Doesn't the last part suggest that it's [b]not[/b] "just vanity surgery"? If he didn't need to go for glasses, he would have been with GySgt Hathcock and been able to help, no?
Link Posted: 10/9/2001 12:20:55 PM EDT
Originally Posted By trickshot: It's just vanity surgery. You can still wear glasses and be an effective killer. Any rifle scope can correct your vision back to 20/20. Get a couple pairs of good, rugged combat eyeglasses, you'll be better off. I like the rubber ones with the strap that holds them on your head. Ugly, but effective. Hathcock's spotter wore glasses. He broke his glasses the day that Hathcock burned up in that Amtrack. He wasn't with Carlos because he had to go get new glasses.
View Quote
Last time I checked scopes are not general issue items. Losing/breaking glasses in the middle of a firefight or on a jump would make it more than just a vanity surgery. I have several pairs of amber sports goggles (prescription) that I carry, but digging through my pack for them takes time and involves un-needed movement. BTW, I had a static line wrap around my left upper arm, and the resultant unclean opening tore off my kevlar helmet AND my issue rubber glasses. Glasses also cost time getting into MOPP posture, as you must first remove the glasses, and hope that your insert in the mask doesn't come loose. There are pros and cons to everything, these are just MY reasons for opting for the surgery as soon as bills are caught up. Best wishes, Don
Link Posted: 10/9/2001 12:22:16 PM EDT
The reason I have not had any surgury is that it will only correct you to the same level as with galsses. If there is not much differance in the way you normally function w/o galsses compared to with galsses, don't bother. I'm nearsighted, but the possibility of the "halos" ect. was enough to convince me to wait until the process is perfected.
Link Posted: 10/9/2001 12:29:58 PM EDT
I had it two years ago last month. I went from 20/400 uncorrected to 20/10 in my right and 20/15 in my left. It's the greatest thing I could ever imagine, and I sure as hell wish I'd been able to see like this when I was an 11B. As for other advantages, that NBC gear donning is a big one..cuz WTF do you do with your glasses? I used to toss my helmet to the ground, toss glasses into it, then commence deployment of my M17A1...but I sure wish I could have skipped that entire step sometimes (secondary MOS 54B) Do it...but select a doctor carefully and follow his instructions to the LETTER. I didn't open my eyes except to add drops or to take a piss for the first 18 hours. Inconvenient, yes...but OTOH you can just sit and have the SO deliver you beers. QS
Top Top