By now, anybody with the intent to undergo LASIK eye correction surgery should know that the LASIK@Home DIY kit is a hoax. So, the DIY LASIK kit itself isn’t particularly interesting anymore. What’s really interesting about this issue at the moment is how just one small website caused enough problems to necessitate a press release on PR Newswire.

After all, the hoax itself wouldn’t have caused any injuries, given that any attempt to buy the LASIK@Home kit itself would result in a server error. But admittedly, it is public perception at stake here. If everybody were to think that LASIK can be done so easily, and result in such magnificent results, well…

And the site itself? I’m sure it has been getting a heck lot of inbound links, traffic, and ad clicks. By featuring the site with blog posts and press releases, we are actually playing into the hands of its creator. But I guess such “creativity” has to be rewarded - someway or another.

Remember a few days back when I highlighted the do-it-yourself LASIK@HOME kit - a sub-$100 tool kit that would allow you to perform LASIK surgery on yourself, right in the comfort of your home?

Then, I asserted that the DIY kit could only be either a hoax or a joke, but it seems other sites (like EndScore) have done more research - only to find that none of the “facts” provided can actually be found in real life.

So, it’s now pretty clear that LASIK@HOME is nothing but a fake piece of crap, and a dangerous one to boot. But possibly the most interesting thing I’ve heard regarding this hoax so far is a comment by the EndScore editor:

The “Four Easy Steps” illustration provided on LASIK@Home’s website speaks volumes. Apparently drawn by someone with an aptitude for art equivalent to a pig’s ability to fly, it certainly does elicit a chuckle as well as a sad shake of the head for the ignorant individuals who will be duped into purchasing the product (assuming it really exists).

[News via EndScore]

These days, Visian Implantable Collamer Lenses (ICL) are getting a lot of attention. We already have two articles on ICL - one an introduction, and the other a clarification on its costs. Today, CBS 11 chimes in with their own feature of Visian ICL.

Possibly the greatest takeaway from this article is its explanation of the difference between Visian Implantable Collamer Lenses, and lenses like Restor and Crystalens. Unlike Restor and Crystalens which effectively replace the natural lenses in your eyes, Visian ICL is implanted right in front of your natural lenses.

But other than that, CBS 11 brings in nothing new. If you want more detail, I suggest you read our introductory post on Visian ICL.

[News via cbs11tv.com]

The once-sighted blind - i.e. those who were born with sight, but have lost it – may soon be granted partial reprieve from their blindness, and the miracle technology that will do that is a small camera connected to electrodes that are implanted in the brain. In fact, there are already 16 people worldwide with such a camera “installed”, but at the moment, the “electronic eye” only allows its wearers to see “flashes of light”.

Moreover, the entire kit is actually pretty heavy, and wearers can only turn on the camera for an hour a day, to prevent strain on the optic nerves.

Nevertheless, scientists believe that this is an excellent opportunity to develop a permanent solution to blindness; something akin to the eye-visor Lt. Geordi La Forge (from Star Trek) wears.

P.S. Yes, I know this doesn’t have anything to do with LASIK eye correction surgery, but I felt that it was interesting enough to merit a short post.

[News via News 14 Carolina]

It can sometimes be very difficult to differentiate between a joke and a hoax. At least, that’s what I felt when I was checking out LASIK@Home. But before you click over to the LASIK@Home website to check out which it is, please read the whole entry. In fact, I’m going to force you to do that by placing the link to the LASIK@Home website at the very end of this post.

Now, what is LASIK@Home, and why am I calling it either a joke or a hoax? Well, LASIK@Home is supposed to be an “Affordable In-Home LASIK Surgery” which “You Can Do Yourself!™”. At this point, most of you would probably be labeling it a hoax (or joke) already. But for the sake of completeness and fairness, let’s examine the product in more detail.

For one, the site has Google Adsense adverts on its pages. If it is really supposed to be the official website of an actual product, then only a fool would place ads for competitive products. Secondly, the product costs less than US$100. Only the most desperate of people would believe that a femtosecond and an excimer laser is equipped into a tiny product that barely costs 100 quid. Thirdly, the full kit comes with all sorts of quirky extras, e.g. No-Blink™ brand Eye Drops. And of course, last but not least, the instructions. I’m sure these statements are self-explanatory:

Don’t blink!

*This statement has not been evaluated by the FDA.

So, now that you’ve got some background on the rather amusing product, check LASIK@Home out for a few laughs.

P.S. If anybody has evidence that this is an actual, working product, I’d be glad to edit this post.

Remember when I featured the LASIK surgery alternative, Implantable Collamer Lenses (ICLs), a month back? I stated that, “…Visian ICL isn’t exactly cheap - though I do not have actual figures to quote at the moment.”

Well, now I do. A recent NBC5.com article states that the recently approved ICL procedure costs up to US$5,000 per eye. That makes it a whopping US$10,000 for both eyes! With LASIK eye correction surgery costing less than a fifth of that amount, I think the only reason you would want to get Implantable Collamer Lenses is if you don’t qualify for LASIK, e.g. too nearsighted.
NBC5.com’s HealthWatch also provides us some new facts about the procedure. For one, complications can occur in up to 3 percent of patients. But most complications, unlike LASIK, can be solved by removing the implanted lens. The money you spent on the procedure though, is probably gone forever.

So, ICL or LASIK? Well, as I said earlier, it depends on your condition. If you have dry eyes or are too nearsighted, LASIK can’t help you, and therefore, ICL becomes an attractive solution. If however, you fit the bill of a perfect LASIK patient, I suggest you stick with the tried, tested, and affordable LASIK.

[News via NBC5.com]

We’ve already discussed quite a few solutions for the ubiquituous age-associated eye problem known as presbyopia. We talked about orthokeratology, and even Lens Replacement Surgery (LRS). Most recently, we featured multifocal LASIK surgery, which unlike conventional LASIK, can actually handle presbyopia.

But what if I were to tell you that scientists are coming up with an upgrade for your glasses. Yes, the conventional spectacles that most of us wear everyday. These upgraded glasses would contain liquid crystals sandwiched between two flat glass plates, and can be electronically activated and deactivated. When activated, the lenses mimic the close-range focusing power of human lenses, and thus, act as a solution for presbyopia. When deactivated, the lenses become no more than plain glass - just right for long-range sight.

These glasses should be available commercially in less than five years, which in my opinion, diminishes its value significantly. Unless it is released in about two years or less, surgical solutions such as multifocal LASIK will not only become cheap enough for mass consumption, but also effective and safe enough for even the risk-averse elderly to accept.

[News via LiveScience.com]

At AllAboutVision.com, a new feature on the blade vs. bladeless LASIK debate has been published, with two respectable LASIK surgeons coming in with their own viewpoints. While we’ve talked about this before (here, and here) at Lasik World, this feature brings with it some new information direct from the specialists.

For one, they highlight a phenomenon known as edema (swelling), which only occurs with IntraLase laser use. This phenomenon results from the additional laser energy from the IntraLase laser, and can delay healing by up to a week. Moreover, they also clarify that while the flaps created by either method, i.e. microkeratome or IntraLase, are technically different, their effects are similar (at least until more research is done).

More importantly, the cost factor is explained. IntraLase flaps cost around US$300 more per eye compared to flaps created with a microkeratome. So, if cost is a real factor for you, you might want to ask your eye doctor to go with the blade.

There are many other differences explained, such as the optimal choice of method when a patient has glaucoma, or has had prior flap complications. But I believe it would be better if you read it for yourself.

With all the recent debate on gene-doped athletes, LASIK was catapulted into the spotlight as genetic modification (GM) advocates argued that gene-doping was not that different from providing LASIK eye correction surgery to athletes. Here at Lasik World, we won’t bother arguing whether that is a tenable assertion or a groundless marketing statement, but we will address the provision of LASIK surgery for athletes.

Recently, it was announced that two Singapore national sailors would be provided LASIK eye correction surgery from the Singapore National Eye Centre in hope of improving their vision for better sporting results. In fact, it was suggested that this programme be provided to all Singaporean sportsmen (and women) in a bid to give them an edge in today’s highly competitive international sporting arena.

So, is this wrong? Well, no. Anybody out there, whether sportsman or not, can opt to undergo LASIK. So, why should sportspeople receiving free LASIK be a problem? Many people are born to this world with almost perfect, if not perfect, vision. All LASIK does is to undo the ravages of nature and culture (i.e. reading, computers, etc.). This I believe is the key difference between gene-doping and LASIK eye correction surgery, but as I said earlier, I’m not going to be touching the debate at all.

Thus, let’s end here for today.

Conventional LASIK eye correction surgery, or its updated variants - e.g. Wavefront LASIK, Epi-K - can’t handle presbyopia - the unavoidable degradation of your eye’s ability to change the shape of its lens. As a result, we suggested a couple of LASIK alternatives to meet the needs of the older generation - people who just want to read without having to put on reading glasses!

The first LASIK alternative we talked about was Lens Replacement Surgery (LRS). Later, we touched on the PresView Sceral Spacing procedure. Both involved implanting something in your eyes. So, for people (like me) that just dislike having artificial stuff stuck inside their bodies, especially their eyes, multifocal LASIK surgery might be a better solution.

Multifocal LASIK eye correction surgery involves making multiple curvatures on your corneas to provide multiple focal points for incoming light. This is deemed to be able to remove the need for bifocals, and is said to be safer than Lens Replacement Surgery. Why? Well, as LRS involves tampering with parts within the eye, i.e. the lens, greater risk is involved.

So, which should we go for? LRS, Scleral Spacing or multifocal LASIK? Truthfully, any one of them would probably do. After all, all three procedures are invasive surgical procedures, and their costs are about the same.

[News via eReleases]