Thankfully others have already pointed out this article's lack of journalistic merit or rigor. As a follow-up, I'd like to state:
I don't wear glasses or contacts anymore thanks to LASIK. After 30 years of squinting, jamming fingers in eyes, staring through fogging/scratched/dirty/broken lenses... I have better than perfect vision each morning when I wake, "naturally", thanks to a quick and near painless surgery. Forget flying cars, THAT is the future, now. It is absolutely life altering. Amazingly good.
Certainly, there is risk. Certainly, not everyone is a good candidate. Selecting a surgeon who is credible and who will say "no" to you is critical. You need to do your homework! How many surgeries have they performed, what is their reputation, are there complaints(how many?), how long have they been established. Price, that is the last, dead last factor. Why save a buck for something you'll do only once and whose outcome is permanent?
I'm not a LASIK shill. I wasn't paid to type this out. I am just really, really happy to be able to see. I can't imagine not getting this procedure done. Having some asshat tell you lies to rile you up or confuse you about the risks or outcomes is a disservice. Both myself and my partner went to the same surgeon, and had both eyes corrected. Both of us have perfect vision and no complications. I'd absolutely do it again.
This is a bit disturbing of a headline to see, literally a couple hours before I'm scheduled for a Lasik procedure.
But after reading the article, I don't know how much weight there is to this. Seems to be a small sample and that report is heavily highlighting a couple negative items out of a largely happy pool of patients.
Was there any connection to the doctor or clinic? Did some clinics or equipment have a higher rate of complications? I'm getting mine performed at a well reviewed practice in San Jose.
This article isn't enough for me to cancel the procedure, but it was enough of a scare to put me on the edge for a second. Sensationalism? Maybe not quite, but it'd be great if these reports would work to remove their bias.
For anyone who hasn't read the article, the parent is very misleading. The article presents at least half a dozen studies, interviews at least 20 people, and their list of credentials is exceptional.[0]
In this case at least, it's not the Times' research that is 'low quality'.
[0] I copied and pasted the credentialed people quoted in the article below; I only made it 80% of the way through and then realized it had become absurd:
Diana Zuckerman, president of the nonprofit National Center for Health Research in Washington
Dr. Eric Donnenfeld, who was Mr. Puglisi’s surgeon and a past president of the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery
global medical director for a large laser eye-surgery provider
Researchers at Ohio State University
one surgeon’s 2017 analysis of more recent data
Morris Waxler, a retired senior F.D.A. official ... [and] former chief of the diagnostic and surgical devices branch in the F.D.A.’s division of ophthalmic devices
Dr. Cynthia MacKay [ophthalmologist]
Dr. John Vukich, chair of the American Society for Cataract and Refractive Surgery’s refractive clinical surgery committee
Dr. Malvina Eydelman, director of the division of ophthalmic and ear, nose and throat devices at the F.D.A.’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health
Dr. Anat Galor, an associate professor of clinical ophthalmology at the Bascom Palmer Eye Institute at the University of Miami.
Dr. Pedram Hamrah, director of research at the New England Eye Center at Tufts Medical Center
They also mentioned they ignored potential red flags and didn't follow correct post-op care, so blaming the technique seems like barking up the wrong tree
People seem to google "lasik best prices" then wonder why their experience sucks?
Don't go for the first google links when researching something, avoid sensationalistic BS
> Definitely don't do LASIK. Look into the rates of complications and side effects. There's a good argument that it's really not a procedure that should have ever been approved.
Can you provide more details on this? A cursory search doesn't turn up anything especially alarming. The only source I could find that was alarming is this[0], which I don't really trust because it reads a bit like anti-vax literature ("see what they're hiding", etc.) and is very old (all sources they cite are from 2009 or earlier). My understanding has been that the procedure has improved dramatically in that time in both cost and safety.
So, this poorly written article at least sparkled a good discussion here on HN.
I have an "Ask HN" for you here: it's the year 2018, I am 41, live in Bay Area, have myopia (~2 sx and ~3 dx), and have pondered doing surgery.
What's the absolute best option I have? Is it LASIK? Are there different types of LASIK? I spoke with two eye doctors in the past 5 years, and none of them managed to either convince me, or to clarify the various pros and cons of different approaches. (p.s. I really hate the US healthcare system).
You may have seen my other post, but what you may NOT have seen is that I pre-empted my previous comment with:
>> This came up earlier this week, but wanted to repost it here since so many of you reached out about wanting to know more....<<
I literally had 30+ people asking me for more information, so it was clearly useful.. and no I wasn't shilling for anyone, though I am happy to introduce folks to my friend if they want my specific doctor.. I am interested in helping more people get LASEK however, as it is genuinely a major upgrade for your life.
There is no preview with any surgery, all you can really do is look at the probabilities of tens of thousands of procedures and speak with a surgeon.
And sure, you can have any subjective definition of success you want -- for example, if the surgery didn't allow you see through walls with x-ray vision, you could call it a failure.
I understand what you are saying though, your fear is that you'd get LASK, and then you'd still need to wear glasses or contacts.
You are talking about risks and things being much* higher -- I'd appreciate if you cite some sort of research or other statistics on LASEK.
All of that said, my quality of life is easily 10x what it was before, so for me, it was a risk well worth taking. If I would have been worse off after my surgery, I wouldn't have had to pay -- so aside from the small risk of having a small routine medical procedure (which also could be safely redone to try again if needed) there was no financial risk and minimal time..
Yeah, the headline scared the heck out of me, since I had lasik done about 10 years ago, but (at least in the article) there's no way to tell if the people who are having problems wouldn't have had problems if they hadn't gotten lasik in the first place.
> None of the surgeons he consulted ever warned him he could sustain permanent damage following Lasik, he added.
I had LASIK ~18 years ago, and was warned many times by everyone I discussed the procedure with that there were possible side effects, including the ones in the article. I also signed a bunch of stuff saying the same.
About 12 years ago I had a ‘touch up’ and same deal - warnings everywhere from everyone...
I've seen you make the same exact post in the last vision related thread.
Please stop shilling for whomever it is.
The main risk associated with these surgeries is that there's no "preview" to check if your vision will be better or worse than your current contact-corrected vision.
If it's worse - then by my definition, the procedure is a failure and that's the only thing I care about. The risk that it's worse isn't the same as the risk that is commonly defined in the success of the procedure - it's much higher.
> For lasik, has anyone known someone who was misfortunate enough for the flap to dislodge and what were the consequences?
No but a relative of a friend went blind in one eye. There used to be a big Facebook group where people shared their negative stories like this, I'm sure you can find similar subreddits/FB groups/whatever. Not everyone goes blind obviously, but some side effects are really, really bad and you can't fix them by simply wearing something like glasses so they're going to stay around forever if you get them. After all, the eyes are probably the most delicate part of the human body.
I'd say it's too risky, possible side effects are much worse than having to wear glasses when you're reading etc. Glasses are just fine.
> That said, I've been wearing glasses since I was 9. By now they're a part of my face and I literally look weird without them.
I know the feeling. I got my first glasses with 5, then had a pause between 6 and 8 and have worn them since then all the time. If my eyesight would have been in your range ("can exist without glasses") I'm not sure if I would have done the surgery, but being blind without glasses convinced me that looking weird is a far lesser evil.
> What was the surgery like? The idea of something going in my eyes always terrified me.
I had the same thoughts, but the surgery was completely harmless. The "real" surgery took something like 20 seconds. The doctor said "now we insert the lens", then it got a bit bright, then dark and then he said "finished" and did the same thing with the other eye. The preparations were far longer. I had to take eye drops for a few days, then on the day of the surgery they have to lay an IV (for safety purposes - the surgery was done in local anesthesia, but there was the option of falling back to general anesthesia if they had to), then they have to attach all the monitoring equipment and so on .. so, the whole surgery was maybe an hour, but the part you would call surgery was very short.
Probably interesting: I didn't do LASIK, but this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implantable_collamer_lens - you cannot get LASIK if you are above -8 diopter on one eye (or at least my doctors said they wouldn't do it, too risky)
>I’m on my annual win-a-trip journey, in which I take a university student with me on a trip to the developing world to cover underreported issues.
Firstly, I don't think this is 'under reported', I've seen at least two full length documentaries about this procedure in Nepal, the project has its own Facebook page [0] and a Google search for 'Nepal cataract' turns up lots of trad media results.
Secondly, if the author has taken a student to cover things, why aren't e reading the student's piece ?
Lastly, the author - like most people who haven't undergone this type of surgery - falls into the trap of breathlessly hailing this as a miraculous cure for blindness. It's not. While the restored sight is absolutely better than having cataracts and will indeed cheer you up in the immediate term, the vision provided by the replacement lenses is a far cry from a person's natural vision, for one thing these lenses have a fixed focus. Another issue is the limited life span - eventually they fur up, but don't go hard like UV induced cataracts - which necessitates replacement or laser surgery.
Humans - particularly the kind that live up mountains in Nepal - are adaptable and can cope, but as someone who has had this surgery (and the follow up laser surgery) it annoys me that reportage routinely fails to mention these kinds of things.
In this particular case, it is also quite peculiar that the author fails to point out that handing out a $5 pair of sunglasses would prevent the cataracts in the first place (these are pretty much all UV induced). Education and prevention in this respect are very much under reported.
> Perhaps I'm not as well-informed on this subject as I thought, because I had done some research months/years ago but I'm not really finding solid information reporting on the dangers as was the case with you.
Would you mind going back and adding that in your original post, as you've got pretty big unsubstantiated claims about LASIK.
I have no evidence to back this up, but I'm guessing many of the these complications come from the discount LASIK centers that offer very cheap surgery prices.
I can't understand why anyone would have eye surgery at some place that advertises $600/eye on the radio.
I paid $4200 for my LASIK surgery after researching it thoroughly, verifying that it was appropriate for my vision problems and deciding to go with a research hospital that had the latest technology at the time. After my eyes healed in the first few days, I've had zero side-effects and it's been almost 10 years now.
I highly recommend the surgery, but I always tell people not to go for the cheapest option.
> Articles such as the one here tend to gloss over patient adherence to post-surgery self-care, which is one thing I believe makes or breaks successful LASIK (in my personal experience and from what I have read). This means eye drops on schedule round the clock, antibiotic eye drops on schedule round the clock, eye protection at night for the first week, avoiding dusty conditions for however long the doctor prescribes, avoiding getting water in the eye for however long the doctor prescribes, etc etc.
I had LASIK from a well-regarded doctor in 2015 and I wasn't told to do any of these things, except avoiding opening my eyes under water.
2. I still haven't changed my general opinion about LASIK: it seems too much like a "convenience surgery" to me, i.e., most people who get it have correctable vision with eyeglasses/contacts. It's also not hard to find stories from the minority of people who had complications and regret it.
3. My original comment came with this disclaimer: "Remember to listen to your doctor over random people on the Internet, including me."
My dad is professor of ophthalmology and a practicing MD. I got LASIK done (by one of his partners) several years ago and it was the best health-related decision I've ever made.
I was on contacts before. The thing most people don't understand about contacts is that they also carry some risk and constant contact use can lead to major complications even if you follow all best practices regarding hygiene. That, to me, is much more scary than seeing halos around lights or slightly decreased night vision quality.
I don't wear glasses or contacts anymore thanks to LASIK. After 30 years of squinting, jamming fingers in eyes, staring through fogging/scratched/dirty/broken lenses... I have better than perfect vision each morning when I wake, "naturally", thanks to a quick and near painless surgery. Forget flying cars, THAT is the future, now. It is absolutely life altering. Amazingly good.
Certainly, there is risk. Certainly, not everyone is a good candidate. Selecting a surgeon who is credible and who will say "no" to you is critical. You need to do your homework! How many surgeries have they performed, what is their reputation, are there complaints(how many?), how long have they been established. Price, that is the last, dead last factor. Why save a buck for something you'll do only once and whose outcome is permanent?
I'm not a LASIK shill. I wasn't paid to type this out. I am just really, really happy to be able to see. I can't imagine not getting this procedure done. Having some asshat tell you lies to rile you up or confuse you about the risks or outcomes is a disservice. Both myself and my partner went to the same surgeon, and had both eyes corrected. Both of us have perfect vision and no complications. I'd absolutely do it again.
reply