LASEK Laser Eye Surgery

[tom_hargreaves]

Hi, been a while since i've posted!

Anyway, I went to Ultralase (Ultralase.com) on Friday in Manchester for a consultation.

I'm booked in on Saturday for LASEK Ultra Surgery (Non-Wavefront) as I wasn't suitable for LASIK treatment.

Now i'm not sure whether i'm regretting not going for the wavefront treatment. The standard cost is £995 per eye but this jumps up to £1,695 per eye with Wavefront added in.

Can anybody give their experiences on Non Wavefront eye surgery? And whether they felt they should have spent the extra dosh?

Can anybody also give a small insight (<---Pun huuur) into how their surgery has been for them in the long run with regard to after effects and results?

I'd be really grateful for any feedback

Thanks, Tom.

[Biscuits]

Hi ya Tom,

I had LASIK with Wavefront in Feb 2008 at Optical Express and it worked out very well indeed. A few friends have asked "should I have it done" and I've said to them "entirely up to you, it's your eyes". It did feel a bit like a hot lap at the 'Ring... getting back to the car park in one piece and feeling lucky! Optical Express do a referal scheme where both of you get £50-100, but I'm not interested in this... the procedure worked well for me, I'd hate to recommend it to someone and it not work out for some reason. I do think the procedure is very reliable now.

At the time Wavefront was quite new and added a fair amount to the cost, but when it comes to your eyes, the cost IS NOT a discussion point... the best option for your eyes is. Depends on Corneal thickness as to whether LASEK or LASIK is used, I think but not 100% sure, that Wavefront is only available with LASIK. It's supposed to reduce the HALO or CANDLELIGHT effect... all I can say is, feck me! God knows what it's like WITHOUT Wavefront because for the first few months it's terrible driving at night or watching the end credits of a film at the cinema... this slowly got better, but it took probably 18 months till it was gone, not the 6 months they said it would. A friend has had non-wavefront LASEK and said the HALO effect was quite bad for the first 12 months, but fine now.

The procedure isn't something you'd jump up and want to do a second time, but it's not painful at all, just uncomfortable... and you really can see properly as soon as you get up off the chair!!! First few hours are painless, then the anaesthetics wear off and you can do nothing but close your eyes and sleep for a few hours. After which it's really okay and normal pain-relief is all that's required. You have a couple of weeks where you need eye drops and wear goggles at night (as the front flap that was created heals back in place)... I needed to use eye drops for probably 2-3 months, dry eyes and sensitivity to bright light are two things that take a while to sort... I just bought a pair of light tint sunglasses and wore them a lot to help... nice thing is sunglasses are now quite cheap as there's no need for prescription lenses! :D

My eyesight is very good now, both eyes are better than 20:20 and better than when I wore glasses or lenses... but my left eye is super sharp!

If you'd like a chat to discuss it, I'm more than happy to... I had a consultation with Ultralase St Albans first, but didn't like the practice so went elsewhere.

Edited November 29, 2010 by Biscuits
Forgot the Halo effect stuff... doh!

[tom_hargreaves]

Thanks Paul for your feedback. That's incredibly helpful. Quite surprised to hear that of Ultralase. The practice in Manchester is absolutely fantastic, the place itself was incredibly clean and modern. And the staff that assisted me were very helpful and friendly. I was very impressed.

I do understand the cost really shouldn't be a factor, I have no problem forking out the extra but it's whether it's actually a cost i'm going to see the benefits of, or whether it's just a sales ploy to get more money out of me. I'm just trying to establish whether the Non-Wavefront treatment is itself more than enough for the job without having wavefront. Or again, whether Wavefront really is that much better and I should have it done. I don't mind forking out the cash, i'll just be fuming if I do and feel like i've been fleeced.

The results is more what i'm interested in. Which again you've answered brilliantly. I've only been prescribed with needing glasses a month ago, I tried on my sisters' glasses and was shocked at how much better I could see. Cue a trip to the opticians and a prescription which is identical to my Dad's. He's had LASIK Ultra Elite at Ultralase, although I can't really rely on his experience as it was over 4k for the job.

I tried on some glasses which were prescribed for -2.0. I've been prescribed with -1.50 and -1.75 and the difference in visual quality was phenomenal. All I want to know is that do the results of the Laser Treatment come close to the effect of what I will have experienced with the glasses (Which aren't even for my eyes!). If they can come close, it'll be money well spent, but i'm just wondering if Wavefront really is needed? Or whether the Non-Wavefront treatment will be more than enough. Just hoping somebody on here has had it (Non wavefront that is)!

[DaveP]

Is your prescription changing then? If you have only just got glasses then that would imply that your eyes have changed recently?

I would want it done and then your eyes changes 6 months later!!!

[tom_hargreaves]

No my eyes have been pretty bad for a while. I think it's been the slow and gradual degradation of my sight that's made me not notice it. I'm also over 21 years of age where they told me eye development generally stops. If i'd gone when I was 17 they would have turned me away.

[Scotty]

I'm 41 and everytime I go to the opticions (every two years) my eyes have got a bit better. If they stabilise then I may have them zapped but since they're changing I won't.

Knowing me, they'll probably stabilise when I'm about 55 and then start getting worse again!

[Paul]

Having seen the procedure covered on a "how do they do it" style documentary on sky I'm not sure I would have the balls to do it.

Eyes don't grow back if something goes wrong. No insurance could prepare or compensate for loss of sight.

Do the NHS offer it (ie take the risk) or is it purely third party?

[Biscuits]

Having seen the procedure covered on a "how do they do it" style documentary on sky

Oh... Just one bit of advice, do NOT search for laser eye surgery on YouTube!!!

[NewNiceMrMe]

Having seen the procedure covered on a "how do they do it" style documentary on sky I'm not sure I would have the balls to do it.

Eyes don't grow back if something goes wrong. No insurance could prepare or compensate for loss of sight.

+1

I've worn lenses since I was 19 and my eyes fluctuate in prescription but have gradually self corrected to -2.50 and -2.75.

However, I've thought about these types of treatment and just can't get beyond the programmes I've seen on TV (probably the same as Paul by the sound of it). The fact is that things can and do go wrong - and these are my eyes and I'd be pretty stuffed without them. I don't think I'd like to take the risk unless I was told I had to stop wearing lenses.

[eldavo69]

A friend of mine had it done, researched it all and went to all the high-street names for a chat, etc. She ended up going direct with Sunderland Eye Hospital. It cost about double elsewhere, £3k IIRC, but every appointment before and after was with the same consultant who did the procedure.

She is extremely happy with the outcome and had a far better experience than others she knows who have gone high street. With something like your eyes you wouldn't want to take any chances, might be worth seeing where your local specialist eye hospital is?

And if you do go through with it, it's not painful per se but prepare yourself for the smell.

[Tipex]

Oh... Just one bit of advice, do NOT search for laser eye surgery on YouTube!!!

That was a mistake I made, and hence I'll never be brave enough to have it done!

Eyes freak me out, even watching people put contacts in makes me all squeamish.

How long have these procedures been around now? what are the long term affects?

What would worry me is if say (for example) the procedure had been used for the last 10 years, then in another 10 years, everyone who's had it goes blind, do they know the long term effects well enough to know this won't happen?

As mentioned above, I think I could cope with the loss of almost anything else, but not my eyes.

[tom_hargreaves]

It's been around since the late 80's. My Dad was in the same boat as you Tipex, wanting to "See someone who's had it done 10 years ago". Turns out a very good friend of his had it done longer than 10 years ago, when the technology was far less advanced than it is now, and he can't recommend it highly enough.

And Ultralase were more than happy to give him references for people who'd had it in the long term.

It's a similar situation with Ultralase also regarding surgeons, consultants and cost. You have the same surgeon and two consultants who do everything. The cost is also increased depending on the level of surgery you have done can cost £2,400 per eye.