But don't forget that most people that have cataract surgery in one eye end up having it done for the other eye (many of them within a week), so that drops the fraction of the population that has the surgery considerably.

I've heard that from a number of people now who had that surgery. They all figured they would just get 'the bad eye' fixed and they would be back to having two good eyes again. Nope! getting 'the bad one' done just revealed how bad the supposed good eye was, rather like cleaning the worst half of a near totally dirty window and thinking the less dirty half was not too bad in comparison to an actual clean window!

 

I've heard that from a number of people now who had that surgery. They all figured they would just get 'the bad eye' fixed and they would be back to having two good eyes again. Nope! getting 'the bad one' done just revealed how bad the supposed good eye was, rather like cleaning the worst half of a near totally dirty window and thinking the less dirty half was not too bad in comparison to an actual clean window!

That's part of it, but even if someone only has a cataract in one eye and they get that removed, the fact that they HAD a cataract is a strong indicator that they will likely develop one in the other eye and probably in the near future. Many, many others, like me and several of the folks that have posted here and every single person I happen to know personally, they developed cataracts in both eyes at the same time and knew going in that they needed the surgery in both eyes. It is simply standard practice to NOT do both eyes at the same time but, instead, to do them several days or a couple weeks apart. On the surface, this makes some sense but then surgeries like Lasik, which are routinely done on both eyes together, should be done separately -- it would be interesting to know what the history is of those two different practices and whether there really is a medical reason for the difference, whether it is economic (Lasik systems were extremely expensive and so they were very aggressively scheduled when they first came out), or whether it is just a case of six-to-one and half-a-dozen to the other and that's just the route each took.

 

That's part of it, but even if someone only has a cataract in one eye and they get that removed, the fact that they HAD a cataract is a strong indicator that they will likely develop one in the other eye and probably in the near future. Many, many others, like me and several of the folks that have posted here and every single person I happen to know personally, they developed cataracts in both eyes at the same time and knew going in that they needed the surgery in both eyes. It is simply standard practice to NOT do both eyes at the same time but, instead, to do them several days or a couple weeks apart. On the surface, this makes some sense but then surgeries like Lasik, which are routinely done on both eyes together, should be done separately -- it would be interesting to know what the history is of those two different practices and whether there really is a medical reason for the difference, whether it is economic (Lasik systems were extremely expensive and so they were very aggressively scheduled when they first came out), or whether it is just a case of six-to-one and half-a-dozen to the other and that's just the route each took.

Up until this last year or two I never paid much attention to eye care of any form but since I am in my mid 40's now and experiencing the standard family shift from great to marginal eyesight I am looking at my options more seriously. Astigmatism and cumulative lens injury damage are my primary issues.

I don't know what is best for me yet but I do know I don't want glasses simply for the inconvenience and overall level of abuse I tend to put on them. As is I a good pair of scratch resistant safety sunglasses glasses makes it at best 3 - 4 months before being wrecked so I really don't want be spending a few hundred dollars every 2 - 3 months on replacement glasses I may need to wear most of the time.

 

I wonder if they are an option for people that have had Lasik. When I got me cataracts done (2012 or 2013 time frame) they had a lens that was supposed to be adjustable by the eye muscles (I don't recall the name), but I wasn't a candidate for it because I had had Lasik previously

There's not an issue with previous Lasik proceedures - I had Lasik done years before my cat surgery. You must have had other issues with your eyes.

My vision bad. I wonder how this lens would work out for me??

I also have floaters pretty bad (a side effect of being so near sighted, I understand). The stars from the surgery combined with the floaters might be a bit much.

I haven't heard of any issues with "bad vision". The lenses are selected to compensate for your vision (my eyes prior to Lasik was close to 20/200). I have floaters too. I have had them most of my life.

You will have to consult your eye surgeon to see if the lenses will work for you.

 

My vision before Lasik was 20/800 in the right and 20/2000 in the left with mild astigmatism, but I was correctable to 20/15 in both eyes. Since I had worn glasses since third grade, that didn't bother me and there's an advantage to always having glasses on to protect your eyes. But I was doing a lot of flying a the time and I knew that if I crashed in the mountains and survived the crash but lost/broke my glasses, that my vision would have been a serious survival risk. So I went ahead and got it. On balance, if I had it to do over, I think I would have opted not to. After it I was 20/20 in one eye and 20/30 in the other. Close enough that I was able to get a Class II Aeromedical certificate without correction. The problem I had was that one eye was near sighted and the other far sighted, so they didn't play well together. I also had a serious problem with dry eyes that resulted in a neverending string of infections in my eyes (mostly the left). That finally seemed to resolve itself about ten years ago.

What the surgeon (and the information brochures from the implant manufacturers) said was that because Lasik changed the outer shape of the lens, that the adjustable implants couldn't be matched to it nearly as well as the fixed-distance implants could. Beyond that I don't know the details. It's quite possible that I wasn't a candidate because of the rather extreme level of correction made (it was right on the edge of what they could do at the time and they were never able to do the free touch-up afterward because there just wasn't enough cornea left). Perhaps it was still an option for people with more reasonable Lasik procedures.

There are times when I wish I had opted for far vision, but I think I made the right choice. Most of the time when I would want far vision I would be outside and much of that time I would then need sunglasses. So since I would be wearing glasses anyway, it really doesn't matter. So I just get photosensitive progressives and live with it. I wish I could find a way to make them less expensive (about $400/pair), but since my vision is now pretty stable they last me several years, so I'm not in a position to really complain.

 

My vision before Lasik was 20/800 in the right and 20/2000 in the left...

Isn't that legally blind?

 

Isn't that legally blind?

Only if it's not correctable to some minimum level. I think it's 20/200 or something like that, if I recall. Of course, the 20/x system isn't used much for technical purposes. Instead they use actual measurement stuff like diopters and meridians. But I think legal blindness uses the 20/x system but qualifies it by saying something like it being central acuity.

 

Coincidentally just got this email advert for Lasik surgery a bit ago.

https://www.trylvi2.com/?venid=BDB21&subid=2&DID=0ARSW2

Hmm. Actually tempted to give the free eval a shot and see how blind I actually am since my commercial licence medical renew is due this year and my eye exam barely passed last time two years ago.