A key component of LASIK eye correction surgery has always been the laser involved in reshaping the cornea. As a result, advances in this area are often the most resistant to change (whether due to federal standards or patient fears). So, it will be interesting to see how prospective patients take to the recently approved Flying Spot laser (a.k.a. LADARVision technology).

A key improvement brought by LADARVision is its tracking system which actively tracks all eye movements - no matter how tiny - and realign the shaping laser back to the original targeted spots. This is a more advanced and active system compared to the previously profiled iris registration technology which only adjusts for the change in shape of your eye at the beginning of surgery.

For potential patients, all this means is that the final cornea shape should be smoother than with conventional LASIK surgery - leading possibly to greater visual correction and faster healing.

However, it is more expensive than conventional LASIK due to its relative “newness” and small number of surgeons offering it. So, consideration must be made whether it is necessary to spend more for technology than may not help (much). After all, current LASIK technology has proven itself with highly consistent results.

If I told you that the Irish army has a strict policy against recruiting those who have had LASIK eye correction surgery (or any of its alternatives), wouldn’t you think the same thing? Wouldn’t you echo my belief that the Irish army is hopelessly outdated on its LASIK policy?

Well, whether you or I believe it or not, Irish doctors and eye surgeons certainly do. And I wouldn’t blame them given that not only the United States navy, but also Ireland’s close “neighbour”, the United Kingdom recruits post-LASIK applicants. In fact, the US Naval Academy even sponsors laser eye surgery for its recruits.

Ireland’s defence forces point towards the potential side effects of LASIK surgery, including the various post-op complications that can (but are unlikely to) occur. But doctors point to long-term research that shows such complications are rare. They point also to modern LASIK alternatives or sub-types, such as LASEK, that reduce such complications.

With all that, it shouldn’t be a surprise that the Irish army seems to be reconsidering its stance - though it’s unlikely that their flawed and hugely outdated LASIK policy will be dismantled any time soon.

[News via Times Online]

A plaintiff suffering from post-LASIK ectasia recently received a US$3 million verdict after the court ruled that the eye surgeon who performed LASIK correction surgery on her did not provide “sufficient” information and opportunities for her to give “sufficient” informed consent.

Of course, like all normative concepts, “sufficiency” or “insufficiency” are both highly subjective. Despite 8-page long informed consent document, a video, a brochure and even a general discussion of the risks of LASIK surgery with her referring optometrist, it was deemed that her consent was “insufficiently” informed.

Admittedly, some prospective LASIK patients need more hand-holding than others, so the court definitely had strong grounds to award its verdict. However, there is little doubt that not everyone is convinced that this verdict was rightly charged, especially to an award-winning surgeon who has trained more eye surgeons to perform refractive surgery than any other surgeon in New York.

In any case, this malpractice verdict only goes to show that there are still a good number of potential post-LASIK complications that could occur. So, make sure you dig deep into all the available information on this operation, and get pre-LASIK examination from a reputable eye surgeon.

The general apporach against myopia has always been to focus on the eyes, whether by wearing conventional spectacles or contact lenses, or going for invasive surgery such as LASIK. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. After all, myopia is an eye problem.

However, the Singapore Eye Research Institute (SERI) is conducting small trials to correct myopia by targeting the brain rather than the eyes. This is done though a customised computer programme by NeuroVision, which trains the brain to intepret signals from the eyes better.

And the recepients of this LASIK alternative? Primary school children. Since children tend to “spoil” their vision faster than adults, such a programme would be an excellent means of stemming myopia right from the source.

However, targeting the brain is effective to only a moderate degree. You could probably dump your glasses with such a programme if you had a power of only 150 degrees. But anything more, and more conventional solutions are in order, whether LASIK, Implantable Collamer Lenses, or just plain glasses.

Nevertheless, a non-invasive and non-burdening means of attacking myopia is surely a Good Thing. More importantly, such a programme can instill awareness in eye problems, especially in children who have yet to wear glasses permanently. The earlier the better, right?

[News via TODAYonline]

A recent study reports that millions of Americans are not getting the financial help required to improve their eyesight, and this involves glasses, contacts and of course, LASIK surgery. And in millions, we’re talking about around 14 million Americans (about 1 in 15) that have impaired vision - 11 million of which could correct their vision through simple glasses and contacts.

Of course, we’ve discussed before about how this lack of govermental financial support (or rather, insurance coverage) for LASIK has helped push the cost of LASIK eye correction surgery downwards, but at the same time, I’ve talked about how it was about time the Government started providing some sort of aid for those with serious vision impairment, especially since the cost of LASIK surgery and comparable treatments have plumeted since their introduction years ago.

So, what’s your take on this? Do you think public health programs should start addressing vision problems, especially serious ones that would require LASIK surgery?

I wouldn’t be surprised if only a few of you have heard of the term LASEK because it just isn’t used very often. LASEK is actually a form of bladeless flap-free LASIK eye correction surgery, which involves the use of a relatively complex chemical process to temporarily remove a patient’s epithelium - the protective barrier around the eye.

Instead of cutting a flap using a blade (i.e. microkeratome) or femtosecond laser, several chemicals are used to loosen the epitelium, allowing it to be “unrolled” and thus providing flap-free access to the patient’s corneal tissue.

On the upside, we’re talking about a means to tackle patients with very thin corneas, or satisfy patients that just can’t handle the idea of a blade going near their eyes. But on the downside, LASEK results in longer recovery. LASEK patients need 3 to 7 days to heal, unlike LASIK patients who require less than a day to recover.

So, is this form of bladeless flap-free LASIK worth it? Well, not to me, but then, I have thick enough corneas to handle a microkeratome.

[News via 14 WFIE]

Well, well. It seems that the first ever International Ophthalmic Conference will be held on board a luxury cruise ship, the Super Star Libra, coasting across the Arabian Sea. While snorkeling and coral watching will definitely be part of the conference schedule, the 380 surgeons aboard the ship will also be deliberating the current practices and future trends regarding eye surgery.

And what does this mean for us laymen? For one, the gathering of experts will be discussing pathbreaking technological advances like artificial eyes. Although there has been some encouraging progress in this field recently, there’s still much to be learnt. After all, patients given such robotic eyes can only see grayscale dots at the moment.

Besides these pathbreaking and generally more “fantastic” technologies, there will also be discussion about the more mundane surgical procedures, such as wavefront-based epi-lasik and multifocal lens implants. We’ve talked about both procedures before, so I’ll skip the details.

So, that’s about it for now. Hopefully, we’ll see substantial progress emerging from this conference. You never know, one genius half drunk could very well discover the secret to artificial eyes while snorkeling.

[News via Daily News and Analysis]

The results of a recent Mayo Clinic study have revealed that LASIK eye correction surgery using conventional microkeratomes and the more advanced femtosecond lasers are equal in effectiveness. According to the study, six months post-surgery, the visual acuity, contrast sensitivity and perception of stray light (or glare) of eyes treated with both types of LASIK surgery were similiar.

So, with a short term comparison compiled, which would you choose? Well, for me, I’d go with the microkeratome. After all, the time taken for a surgeon to create a flap using a microkeratome is much shorter compared to that taken by a surgeon using a femtosecond laser. This implies a shorter period of discomfort during surgery.

But as with all surgical methods, what’s important is the long term impact, and the Mayo Clinic researchers responsible for this study have acknowleged that and have made this the ultimate goal of their research. As such, the results recently presented are merely the first six months of their findings.

[News via Medical News Today]

Researchers recently concluded that both LASIK and PRK work equally well at correcting eyesight. However, LASIK eye correction surgery was found to have one key advantage: Shorter recovery time. This advantage, of course, is concomitant with less post-surgery pain, and more discomfort during the actual surgery.

But while LASIK and PRK are equally effective at improving vision, each have different prerequisites. As a result, there are cases where it would be more suitable for a patient to undergo PRK than LASIK (and vice versa), depending on the severity of the eye problem and the thickness of eye tissue.

[News via World Peace Herald]

Recently, online health sites all over the net featured articles stating that dry eyes were linked with menopause. Of course, the articles involved didn’t say it was a new discovery, but instead, they were talking about how few women actually know that menopause can cause dry eyes.

But that really isn’t the focus of today’s post. What is though is how LASIK eye correction surgery can, like menopause, result in dry eyes. Like long-term contact lens wear, LASIK tends to decrease corneal sensation, and thus, can result in dry eyes. Ironically, those same dry eyes prevent you from having LASIK in the first place. So, no second time for you if you happen to get chronic dry eyes as a result of your first.

And how do we treat these dry eyes? First and foremost, getting to an eye doctor for inspection should be a priority. But if you really want to avoid doctors, you could go straight for eye drops. In the long term, some doctors suggest increasing intake of omega-3 fatty acids.

[News via Foodconsumer.org]