| 
Posted May 11, 2001 by Delkarnu of House Drakonis
http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A546284
This is my article explaining the PRK procedure and giving my personal experience with it. This is a life changing surgury, and I think a request should go out for reports of the other procedures, so our community can get the infrmation they need to make a decision.
|
 
|  | |
| |
Posted May 11, 2001 by shrinkwrapped
Hi.
While this entry started off a little confusingly, I'm pleased to say it became easier to read as it went on - you obviously know your topic well. However, please bear in mind that the rest of us are unlikely to!
Here's a few suggestions:
* As not all of us will be able to remember our Science classes, perhaps you could include a footnote explaining what the cornea is and why it needs to be a certain shape?
* I may be wrong (having a very poor memory), but I'm not sure I recall you actually explaing what LASIK actually is...
* You seem to jump into the subject very rapidly - what 'flap' is this that needs to be cut? Perhaps you could elaborate on the introduction a bit more...
Other than the introduction which may need to be tweaked a little, this is a well researched and interesting entry - it goes into a good level of depth, and even includes firsthand experience suitably. Well done!
|
| | |
| |
Posted May 11, 2001 by Potholer
In addition to the comments above, possibly it's worth adding (in the LASIK vs. PRK section) that after PRK, it can take several months for the cornea to adopt its final shape, and at least some surgeons overcorrect the shape, leaving shortsighted people temporarily a little longsighted immediately after surgery.
The surgical complications from LASIK are rare (~1%), but if things do go seriously wrong, there's not a lot that can be done short of a cornea transplant, whereas I think PRK is safer in that respect.
(Presumably risks will reduce over time, and vary considerably between practicioners)
What's your experience of night-vision? I understood that since only a small (~8mm) area of the cornea is corrected, once the pupil opens up fully in low-light situations, quality of vision can be impaired, sometimes to the point that people aren't legally fit to drive at night. (Might depend on maximum pupil size)
|
| | |
| |
Posted May 11, 2001 by Monsignore Pizzafunghi Bosselese
Very interesting!
you could link to 'contact lenses' at http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A523441, and also to allaboutvision and other web sites which are linked from there.
Normally, the PTB frown at 1st person writing, but in some cases (like this) it /is/ useful or just inevitable. However, your personal experience should be put into <blockquote> tags, and perhaps you change the header to 'A researcher's experience'.
|
| | |
| |
Posted May 11, 2001 by MaW
It is my hope one day to have this done, but at the moment I'm too young, and not at all certain if it will correct my fairly extreme shortsightedness and astigmatism. Thus I found this very interesting, but it could definitely do with a section explaining briefly about LASIK, or maybe you could write another Entry on it.
I was glad to read about the anti-anxiety pills though... how effective are they? I have great difficulty even with vaccinations, so having anything done under local anaesthetic, especially to my eyes, is something that makes me feel vaguely sick even thinking about it (or reading this Entry, incidentally). But since I want to get it done... I just hope it can be done, it doesn't have to be LASIK ('cos that's really disgusting!) and whatever police force I end up applying to accepts it (normally those who do won't accept you until three years after you've had it so there is time for any vision problems to make themselves known). This is the UK though, and I believe policy is considerably different in the USA at the very least.
|
| | |
| |
Posted May 11, 2001 by LUCIEN-Scouting the web for the out of the ordinary
I agree that a description of the procedures, ie prk and lasik, would be helpful to those who are not aware of the surgeries.
All in all though, I like the aritcle.
Would just like to know MORE!!!!
thnx
|
| | |
| |
Posted May 12, 2001 by C Hawke
YEs, some description of both procedures would be nice, a friend just has had one done and I am thinking of it.
Some ideas off all the risks and problems would be nice as well.
But a good entry
ChawkE
|
| | |
| |
Posted May 13, 2001 by Delkarnu of House Drakonis
I thought about writing about the LASIK procedure, but since the information is widely available, I felt it would be best to leave that page to a researcher who has had the procedure and can give a personal experience, since there were are some definite differences between the explanation and the experience, information that I do not have.
I will expand the introduction a bit, and add some footnote where terms need to be explained, just give me a day or two to get through finals. I'll try to put a listing up for LASIK, hopefully another researcher can give their experience. Thanks for the help.
|
| | |
| |
Posted May 13, 2001 by C Hawke
Cool, but in the short term if you can find a good web site about LASIK there is nothing stopping you linking to it, even out of h2g2.
ChawkE
|
| | |
| |
Posted May 17, 2001 by Delkarnu of House Drakonis
ok, I've added some information, about the cornea, the difference in the procedures more, and a list of common compliations.
|
| | |
| |
Posted May 18, 2001 by MaW
Looks good to me...
|
| | |
| |
Posted Jun 7, 2001 by Dr. Hell
Errm... That chapter about 20/20 and so is a little confusing to me.
The author writes: "20/20 vision is not perfect vision as many think. It is normal vision. What it means is that the level of detail and sharpness you see at 20 feet, is the same as what the average person sees at 20 feet." Does that mean that I can read from the book a person 20 feet far away from me is reading?
"20/40 is usually the legal driving minimum. What it means is that the level of detail and sharpness that you see at 20 feet, is what others can see at 40 feet." ?!?!?! Sorry didn't get it...
"Your eye sugeon will usually shoot for 20/20, though there are no guarantees. Many people end up with better than 20/20."
Does that mean they can read my newspaper from 60 feet?
I'd really like to understand that. And what is actually being shot at? Do you see anything while doing this procedure? Does it hurt?
The "My Experience" part should go under quotes I think...
Cheers,
HELL
|
| | |
| |
Posted Jun 7, 2001 by MaW
Anaesthetic eyedrops + antianxiety medication => no pain (I hope)
I doubt you see much either.
And I also seriously doubt anyone gets to 60/20 vision... probably not possible due to resolution limits of the retina etc. etc. What don't you get about the scale? Sure it seems a little clumsy, but it's an easy way to get some idea of what your vision is (mine's 6/120, on a scale where 6/6 is like 20/20).
|
| | |
| |
Posted Jun 7, 2001 by Dr. Hell
Didn't get it...
If I am standing here and look at the newspaper, and I can see that the full stop of the sentence I am reading looks like an asterisk. Would a person with 20/20 vision (Panavision de Luxe(R) see that from 20 feet too? And a person with 5/20 vision, can he decypher that from 80 feet? Or would he have to have 80/20 vision. Why is the minimum for a driver's licence then 40/20, one must be a lot better than normal ?!?!?!
What IS 20/20? I did NOT understand it... Please explain this to me as if you were talking to the biggest imbecile you ever saw on this planet... And speak slowly...
Thanks,
HELL
|
| | |
| |
Posted Jun 10, 2001 by Potholer
The size of letters that an "average or normal" person could just read reliably from 20 feet has been determined. The actual size of those letters would depend on the typeface and contrast, but for the sake of argument, let's pretend that it's one inch high.
Sitting 20 feet from an optical chart, if you could just read those 1 inch high letters you'd have 20/20 vision.
If you could just read 2 inch high letters, you'd have 20/40 vision (an average person could read the letters from 40 feet away)
If you could just read 1/2 inch high letters, you'd have 20/10 vision (you could read at 20 feet what a normal person would have to be 10 feet away to read.
You keep the first digit as 20, and the second digit is how far away a average/normal person would have to be before they could just see something the same size you can at 20 feet. So, 20/40 = bad, 20/10 = good
I presume the reason for testing people at a fixed 20 feet/6 meter distance is to allow for standardisation of eye charts, and also for people like me who are short-sighted, 20 feet will be well beyond our far point of focus. (If someone produced a 1/10 scale eye chart, from 2 feet away, I'd probably be able to read letters 1/10 as large as a normal person could read at 20 feet, so a short-range test wouldn't be any use for picking up my myopia.)
However, that makes me wonder how long-sightedness is picked up. Someone might be able to read a distant chart quite well, but still need correction for near vision. Presumably some of the optics you look through during an eye test must do the equivalent of moving the eye chart very close up?
|
| | |
| |
Posted Jun 11, 2001 by Dr. Hell
*relief* Ahhh, OK I got it.
Thanks a lot Mr. Potholer...
Now I've 20/20 vision on that too.
HELL
|
| | |
| |
Posted Jun 11, 2001 by MaW
Well the 6/6 or 20/20 scale (Snellen's test) is not the only way to determine eyesight standards, and certainly nothing near good enough for working out prescriptions etc. However, as a general measurement of the quality of your vision it's pretty good, which is why people like the police use it to say "you must have no worse than 6/24 vision in one eye, 6/18 in the other uncorrected, with 6/6 binocularly with approved vision aids" - because it's one measurement that (somehow) covers everything.
I doubt actually calculating it is as simple as comparing distances anymore...
|
| | |
| |
Posted Jul 10, 2001 by Zak T Duck
Great news. Your entry has been recommended for the Edited Guide. Congratulations. This thread will shortly move out of the Peer Review, and start on the next step towards the front page. You'll be contacted by email once it finally makes it there, but please be patient as there is a bit of a queue.
Congratulations again 
|
| | |
| |
Posted Jul 11, 2001 by Just zis Guy, you know? † Cyclist [A690572] :: At the 51st centile of ursine intelligence
Oooh! Help! Before you move it out, I've only just found this and I have an important suggestion to make. The article is good, but very pro laser treatment. There are a couple of points which really are not sufficiently emphasised: after treatment your visual acuity may well be worse than when properly corrected with spectacles. You also run the risk (albeit small) of losing the sight of one or both eyes. This is not a procedure which should be lightly undertaken for reasons of vanity alone.
In cases of extreme short sight it's a great boon, but wild horses wouldn't drag me into having surgery to correct my myopia and astigmatism given the risk that I might end up completely blind just because I find glasses inconvenient sometimes.
I think it behoves us to be very cautious in promoting surgical procedures on H2G2. The risks are mentioned, and the article is well-written and informative, but please boost the health warning aspects somewhat.
Thanks
|
| | |
| |
Posted Jul 12, 2001 by BBC auto-messages
Editorial Note: This conversation has been moved from 'Peer Review' to 'PRK and LASIK Laser eye surgury'.
This thread has been moved out of the Peer Review forum because this entry has now been recommended for the Edited Guide.
If they haven't been along already, the Scout who recommended your entry will post here soon, to let you know what happens next. Meanwhile you can find out what will happen to your entry here: http://www.h2g2.com/SubEditors-Process
Congratulations!
|
| | |
| |
| |
Key |  |  |
A: An older reply to the parent Posting
B: The parent Posting, to which this is a reply
C: A newer reply to the parent posting
D: The first reply to this Posting
| | |
Click on this icon to make a complaint about a specific Posting | |
|
Home
Reply
