Laser Eye Surgery - Pros/Cons for hunters

[JBen]

M, I know a number of people who have had it done (none hunt). Of them, I know one person that sort of regrets it.

I've considered having it done. My concern (right word?) is as follows.

It's been around without splitting hairs for 20-25years. When I think about demographics, I think of 3 age groups
20-30
30-45
45+

So over the past 20 years. While there is lots of empirical data behind it. How much data is there on people who have had it done and are now into their late 60s and 70s. We know what can happen to us and our eyes/eyesight as we age.

People in the first age group are today in their 40s and 50s at the most and aren't old enough yet for that data to be showing and accumulating.

People in the second age group are really just starting to hit their 60s ( 40 plus 20yrs) and the problems that occur as we age. Its my guess this is where the bulk of the existing data exist. (The largest percentiles that have had it done over the past 20yrs).

People in the third age group (likely the smallest percentiles of those who have had it done) are statistics (and it's the "data" I'd want to see) are not adding to the data.

If there's one thing I don't to take many chances on.

It's my eye's and sight.

[Oddmott]

That's kinda been my big hold up JBen... only have 2 eyes... no second chances with them really.

Most clinics and practitioners are pretty consistent with stating that lasik doesn't defeat aging. That eventually your sight system will age and deteriorate to the point that the lasik has no effect.
Hence, why everyone says to get it sooner, rather than later, so you can maximize its years of effectiveness.

But nobody has solid data as to whether or not lasik causes any issues 20, 30, 40 yrs down the road when patients are in their 60s-90s.

[JBen]

Exactly and its "that" demographic I'd like more existing data on.
But I'm thinking not many 50year old had it done 15-20 years ago and of those that did, how many are no longer with us. I have to suspect there are very few 70-80 year old people out there that had it done 10-15yrs ago.

[MarkB]

Those are good points guys. But the dilemma is you have to wait another 20 years for the average age group to hit 80 years old, and have good data on an average life cycle. I would be retired by then. The other thing is the people who did this 25 years ago, were subject to techniques that are not as refined as today. With the spawn of the digital age, the lasik technique is much, much better today (last 5 or so years), so really you need to wait 40 to 50 more years to find out what will happen with todays technology. And as things get better, you may want to wait longer.

Or you can dive into the theories, which suggest that normally people do not lose their distance vision as the get older, but rather their close range vision (need reading glasses). The other issue with getting old is eye diseases. Does lasik increase the risk of eye disease, don't know, but I don't understand why it would. Cataracts is the most common disease, I'm not sure how lasik would effect that. One thing I can tell you for sure, in order for me to keep up my life time guarantee on the PRK procedure done on my eyes, I have to get my eyes checked EVERY year. All is good, they just want you to keep a close eye on things. What I think that does is allows the eye doctor to discover early onset of diseases (which may be completely unrelated to the laser surgery), which if caught early, can be treated and controlled.

Anyhow, from my study of the risks, I determined it wouldn't cause any extra-ordinary risk to my eyes in the long term. So I went ahead and did it, and have been enjoying it for years. It's made a huge difference in my life, and so far it's paying off.

[werner.reiche]

That's kinda been my big hold up JBen... only have 2 eyes... no second chances with them really.

Most clinics and practitioners are pretty consistent with stating that lasik doesn't defeat aging. That eventually your sight system will age and deteriorate to the point that the lasik has no effect.
Hence, why everyone says to get it sooner, rather than later, so you can maximize its years of effectiveness.

But nobody has solid data as to whether or not lasik causes any issues 20, 30, 40 yrs down the road when patients are in their 60s-90s.

Not aware of this thought that it won't 'defeat aging"...as far as near or farsighted is concerned. With nearsightedness/farsightedness, your eyesight deteriorates and eventually stabilizes in your late 20's. From that point correction should be, for the most part, permanent for these and astigmatism. What lasik won't help with related to aging is the need for reading glasses... I had lasik done in my late '30's and am approaching mid '50's now and need reading glasses. JBen - I'm in the group 50+ now that had it done 15+ years ago and have several peers that have as well...and we are generally happy with it still. The 70-80 group...well those would be hard to find.

Re: vision damage - lasik is far, far safer than contact lenses.

One thing they might suggest (I think its been mostly abandoned now) is to undercorrect your non-dominant eye for reading and correct your dominant eye for long distance. That will cost you your depth perception, but you won't need reading glasses when you get old.

[Fishy Wishy]

MarkB,

Why did you opt for PRK over Lasik?

Remember fellas, today's technology on these is often referred to as "tissue saving" over the old techniques.

[JBen]

But that's just It Werner. Its the people who would be say 70-80 "today", that is lacking from the science. It's not so much the vision (Near or short sighted and corrections). What I'm wonder about, *is* the various deseases and problems and theres more than cataracts, astigmatism.

Wearing glasses for another 5-10 year maybe 15 wont cause me serious problems. I wonder if having laser surgery done "now"....and then developing one of those problems......

And just there isn't enough data out there yet (imo).

[skypilot]

I know of two people personally that had it done. One male one female. Both had it done about 5-7 years ago and the rate then was around 5 grand(not sure if per eye or total.) Male was close to 49-50 with thick coke bottle glasses, female 30ish and I never saw her with eye glasses.

The male had one eye at a time done weeks? apart and had good success with one eye and less so with the other eye sight wise. Seems he mentioned 20-15 and 20-40. anyway a really good eye/eyesight and a lesser sight in the other eye.

The female had good success with one eye and poor with the other eye. She mentioned that the problem eye was worse than before. Many trips back to Dr. with no success. She told me the Dr. said she had "let" or gotten a tear(drop) under the lense as it healed and that was causing the issue with that eye and he couldn't do anything about it.

I considered doing it and researched it quite a bit even checking with the US FAA and Transport Canada . The US FAA would not/does not license pilots to fly that have had it done. That may have change over the last 4 years but I doubt it.

Not sure about hunting affects however the FAA stated depth perception loss and halo as their biggest issues.

[JoePa]

Well - I'm going on 81 now - been wearing glasses since I was 35 - yes at times they can be a pain but then there were times when I would have gotten things in my eyes if I wasn't wearing them - they are a form of protection - there is always a risk when you have surgery done so I try to avoid it unless absolutely necessary - when I'm fishing I would normally be wearing sunglasses anyway so having glasses doesn't really add anything - when I hunt I have a scope on the rifle so don't really worry about iron sites - I mentioned this once before - a guy that I worked with has a son who is an eye doctor - from the accidents that the doctor has seen in his office he thinks that everyone should wear glasses to protect their eyes -

[Oddmott]

Had my consult with company #1 today. I was given 4 quotes with varying options... ranging from $2800 for both eyes to $4200 for both eyes.

Considering that i'm an ideal candidate - no astigmatisms, middling-poor prescription, perfect cornea thickness, slightly smaller than average pupils - I'm a little ticked by the prices.

This was with Lasik MD who promotes their "as low as $499 per eye!" rate. Apparently, to get anywhere close to that rate, you would actually have to have perfect vision and not even need glasses. Seriously. I laughed when the consultant told me that... then stared at her like she had 2 heads.

I'm still considering it, but on a purely cost based decision... it doesn't make sense. I get $500 (my plan & my wife's) per year to cover my optometrist appointments and new glasses. I'm only out of pocket $50 at most, every other year.

For those who've had it... did you go with lifetime enhancement plans, or just 5 or 10 yr plans?