As an eye researcher by profession, I am often asked my opinion of LASIK (Laser-Assisted Intrastromal Keratomileusis). This is a procedure in which visual acuity is improved by sculpting the shape of the cornea with the use of an excimer laser. It is true that the success rate for this procedure is very high (greater than 90%), with few complications. However, as a faculty member in an Ophthalmology department, I was offered this surgery at no charge and turned it down. Here are my reasons:
1. I don't like the idea of cutting into a healthy eye. It's one thing to need cataract surgery or vitrectomy to treat a serious eye condition. It's something else entirely if the purpose is simply to improve visual acuity in a way that can be satisfied with the use of contact lenses or glasses. Although the complication rate is low for LASIK surgery, if you are one of the unlucky few who suffers ill effects, the statistics won't be of any comfort.
2. The long-term consequences of this surgery are unknown. The eye changes with age. The lens becomes presbyopic, leading to the phenomenon of "not having arms long enough to read the newspaper". Does LASIK surgery need to be repeated after a certain number of years to account for the changes of an aging eye? No one really knows. Until more is known, I'll take the conservative route....
4 comments:
not_over_it said...
A dyslexic man walks into a bra...
...and decides he needs LASIK when he sees fuzzy ALKIS.
of both parents and the six children in my family, all wear specs but one. can you guess who?
:-)
KEvron
KEvronius, eagle eye!
Let me clarify that there are cases where LASIK may be justified, especially when satisfactory results are not possible with glasses or contacts. My rant is geared more to the "LASIK for the heck of it" idea.
Post a Comment