Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

The U.S. Navy's Doctrine of Laser Eye Surgery 547

The New York Times reports that laser eye surgery — now performed on nearly a third of every new class of midshipmen — is transforming Naval careers. Navy doctors are performing these operations with "assembly-line efficiency," allowing older pilots to continue flying, and those who might otherwise have been disqualified to pursue flight school. The number of procedures has reportedly climbed from 50 to 349 over the past five years. The Navy uses a different procedure than that used on civilians — grinding the cornea rather than cutting a flap — out of fears that the flap could come loose in supersonic combat.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The U.S. Navy's Doctrine of Laser Eye Surgery

Comments Filter:
  • by i_want_you_to_throw_ ( 559379 ) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @12:07PM (#15569907) Journal
    I have known people who were suicidal after having Lasik because they had it done at a "399.00 per eye" where the point is to get people in and out as fast as possible.

    The problem with Lasik is that the burn area is only so big and some people's pupils dilate past that point resulting in all kinds of weird effects on the vision. Grinding would seem to allow much more control over the treatment area.

    If you're going to get conventional Lasik here are some things to remember....
    1. It IS surgery contrary to how "routine" Lasik places try to pass it off
    2. Research your doctor doing the procedure
    3. If you're lucky your doc possesses a cornea fellowship from Emory University
  • by cavtroop ( 859432 ) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @12:12PM (#15569961)
    ...also.

    I got out quite a few years ago, before this was possible. My cousin however is still in, and he got the surgery done, for free. They offer it to everyone, and encourage you to do it. It makes all aspects of being a soldier - particularly an infantryman, much easier. Now you can wear off the shelf eye protection, no longer are gas masks a pain in the ass to put on, nightvision goggle, scopes, sights in a tank, are all easier to use.

    I think it's a great idea, myself.

  • Navy? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by pdr77 ( 748376 ) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @12:17PM (#15570007)
    I never understood, why is it that the US have such a concentration of pilots in the Navy rather than the air force?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @12:20PM (#15570036)
    Yes, I'm not military and I've had PRK. Actually had a choice between PRK and LASIK and went with PRK because I didn't want a flap on my eyeball and wanted to have the ability to have the surgery done again. It was quite painful at first and took three months to recover, but I do not for one minute regret the decision to do it. Went from 20/400 to 20/20 in both eyes, including correcting some fairly severe astigmatism in my left eye.
  • by faloi ( 738831 ) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @12:22PM (#15570067)
    When I was in, 10 years ago, the actual doctors (officers) were top-notch. A lot of them were reservists that had a private practice and were spending their two weeks helping out as a way to help cut the costs of college. Now...the enlisted people that you have to shuffle through to get to talk to a real doctor were another story. I had bronchitis in a bad way for three weeks before they decided the standard "cold pack" wasn't cutting it and maybe I should get to see a real physician.
  • Re:PRK Experience (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Icepick_ ( 25751 ) <icepick&netfamine,,com> on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @12:23PM (#15570078) Homepage
    Followup to my own post. Here's a copy of my journals regarding my PRK experience:

    Exam notes:

    It was intresting. I had filled out the eye history sheet before I went
    in. They gave me a quick eye exam, but it wasn't like a normal one.
    First up was the typical Big E projected on the wall (no glasses!)
    "Nope, can't see it."

    Next up they took two pictures of each eye. It was a weird device, it
    was cone shapped, and I was looking into the big end of it. The inside
    was black, with many concentric circles of purple light, with a lens at
    the center. It made a topographical map of my corneas.

    Next up was a device that measured my perscription. I had to stare at
    a little picture while it zoomed in and out of focus. Apparently this
    determines my exact perscription, none of that "Is this better, or that"
    lens swapping. I wonder why eye doctors don't use this all the time.

    Last of the inital measurements was another corenal mapper. Nothing to
    see, just a red light.

    Then I got a 10 minute vides summerizing LASIK. I knew all that stuff
    already from my research.

    Then I got to speak with the doctor. She did a few more measurements,
    including measuring the thickness of my corenas. Then we got down to
    the nitty gritty.

    I am NOT a good canidate for LASIK. The corena mappings reveal that
    they're buldging on the lower sides, kinda pear shapped. LASIK can be
    done, but by pealing back the flap, my corenas loose some of their long
    term strength, and I risk having them thin so much I may need a corena
    transplant in the years to come.

    However....I am an exceptional canidate for PRK, which is basicly LASIK,
    but with no flap, they just burn off the extra portions of the cornea.
    The recovery time is a bit more involved, and would likely be unable to do
    much of anything for a couple of days. I'd have to wear contacts as
    bandages while the areas where tissue was removed healed.

    Lots of questions with the doctor, but generally very optimistic about
    my final result being 20/40 or better. Like 95%+

    Then I was off to the office manager for the bottom line. $3700, for
    both eyes, all the pre and post care (7 appointments!), and any
    additional corrections for life. This about what I expected. And
    that's with 15% off from my insurance. I asked, normally they'd give a
    cash discount, but I can't combine it with my insurance. Then she gave
    me several consent forms and whatnot to review.

    4 hours post op:

    Well, I did it, and I'm not blind.

    It went very smoothly. Arrived, filled out a couple (more) consent forms, one last cornea mapping, and had a last minute chat with the doc. Got a perscription for some vicoden, and got my final post-op instructions. Paid the nice lady, and she gave me some Advil and a valium. Back to the waiting room for 10 minutes.

    The proceedure itself I can't really describe, as most of the time I was staring at a bright light 6" from my face. But, they gave me a stylish hair net, and ploped me in a dentist like chair. Leaned me back, and it slid me under the light/laser/camera.

    They gave me a half dozen eye drops in each eye and let me sit for a few minutes. I know one of them was an anastetic, hence the wait. They put a plastic shield over my left eye, and taped it in place. Then they tapped my eyelashs/eyelids open on the right eye. They put in the thingy that holds my eye open, which wasn't as uncomfortable as I thought it would be. Few more drops, and then they (according to C) put a little white disk over my cornea. I couldn't see anything, but after they lifted it, I could see the q-tip removing the outer layer of my cornea. Then, he used what looked to be a ice scrapper, I swear. Couple more drops, and then "Don't move, stare at the light" Then they fired up the laser, it made a clicking noise for about 40 seconds. The light went from really blurry to mostly blury, and then they popped in a "bandage" contact, and removed the thingy and left ey
  • by Ignignot ( 782335 ) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @12:24PM (#15570097) Journal
    I've had it done myself after some extensive shopping around and research. If the doctor suggested there was a high (10%) possibility of halos or other effects, I did not do it. Finally I found one who was getting some new equipment in half a year which would increase the treatment area and he felt would produce good results. I have had no trouble with my eyesight since then and that was 4 years ago.

    But to respond to your worries, they do give you drugs to calm you down if you want them (I would recommend it) although they do not put you under you have to stare at a light while the laser goes to work on your eye. The actual worst part is when they cut the flap - they had to wait a few minutes while my eyes dialated, so for a little while had a flap cut in my eye and was just sitting in a chair in a dark room. But altogether it took only half an hour and it was time extremely well spent.
  • by swillden ( 191260 ) * <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @12:26PM (#15570110) Journal

    Sure, eye surgery can solve these problems and it's not very likely that the surgery will "backfire". But that just is not a risk I would like to take with my eyesight.

    Like lots of things, I think it's a risk/reward question. In my case, I wear glasses and will continue to wear glasses, but my vision isn't that bad so the reward I'd get from eye surgery isn't all that great. The glasses sharpen my vision and make it easier for me to read road signs, but I can actually get along just find without them.

    My wife, on the other hand, was blind as a bat without her glasses, to the point that she had to carefully place her glasses in the same place next to the bed each evening, because she had to find them by touch in the morning. She could not see them. She got Lasik about three years ago, and it has significantly improved her life. Before the surgery, for example, she didn't dare participate in any sort of water sports because losing her contacts or glasses would leave her completely blind. Now she SCUBA dives and I expect to get her up on water skis this summer. Even more important is the sense of freedom she has, being able to see without assistance. After the surgery, her sight was 20/20, but has gradually declined to where she is contemplating getting glasses again to sharpen her vision a bit. She could have the surgery re-done (for free, even, since a followup was included in the original price) instead of getting glasses, but it's no longer worth the pain or the risk.

    I know others with similar stories, and I can definitely see how someone who'd like to fly military jets would perceive the risk/reward tradeoff as a good deal. Heck, I'd get the surgery if it meant someone would let me fly an F-14.

  • by xutopia ( 469129 ) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @12:29PM (#15570149) Homepage
    There are less side effects and the results are almost always better with PRK. It also is easier to do touch ups as needed. The reason why it isn't as popular in the states is that it requires people to take a few days off so their eyes recover. I could afford a week off in countries where you can get more than 2 weeks of vacation. ;-P Brought to you by the Vacation for everyone lobby.
  • Re:Navy? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by moracity ( 925736 ) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @12:32PM (#15570174)
    Because the Navy has its own mobile air fleet? One major reason is that flying/landing on an aircraft carrier is completely different from flying/landing on a normal runway.

    The Army has planes, too. The Air Force doesn't have exclusive rights to flight. The branches all serve different purposes, but do have some overlapping capabilities.

    My sister is part of an AWACS crew with the Air Force. My understanding is that both the Air Force and Navy have their own AWACS.
  • by Don853 ( 978535 ) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @12:33PM (#15570179)
    My parents are both MDs, so I always go to them with medical questions before paying anyone for advice.
    Last time I asked (I'm around -4.5 in both eyes), they were worried about the long terms of removing part of the lens in either eye. Apparently, part of the lens is also removed as a treatment for cataracts, and they had some worry that
    a) Laser eye surgery could remove enough of the lens to make cataract treatment later in life difficult or impossible, and, also
    b) There weren't any large scale long term (20+ yrs) studies on the rusults of the surgery.

    As I said, this is secondhand... perhaps if there's a MD or a Optometrist on these boards they could comfirm/deny/just explain better?
  • by dalewj ( 187278 ) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @12:37PM (#15570202) Homepage
    I started wearing glasses when i was 2 years old, at the age of 35 I decided that the coke bottles that had burned a bump in my nose had to go. $5000, 3 surgeries (one had to be done twice) later i can see 21/23 (Was about 39/46). It was the best money spent, 7 years later my eyes are just starting to get weaker again. I hope that in 5 or so more years i still wont need glasses, which will mean a good 12 years seeing my alarm clock in the morning.

    One note, on second surgery of first eye (They werent close enough the first time) they had to draw a line on my eye where the old cut had been made so they could cut in the same place again. I hope nobody ever has to have some draw on there eye, it was not at all pleasant and truely blew out my blood pressure for the day.
  • by swillden ( 191260 ) * <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @12:46PM (#15570265) Journal

    The commonly held belief back then was these docs (and dentists... don't get me going on this one...) were only in the military because they couldn't hack private practice.

    More like because they couldn't afford medical school another way.

    My experience with military docs is that they're reasonably good physicians, but that the health care system in the military lacks continuity, and that causes problems. Also, because most of the doctors leave the military after they complete their obligation, the active duty doctors all tend to be young and somewhat inexperienced. The best thing to do, if you can, is to get one of the doctors who is a reservist.

    My anecdote: The Army doctors at Fort Hood nearly killed my younger sister because she had condition (pyloric stenosis [wikipedia.org]) that is rare in girls, so each doctor wanted to exhaust all other possibilities first, and didn't really trust that the other doctors had done their job. In desperation because my baby sister was dying of dehydration and malnutrition, my parents eventually took her to a nearby civilian hospital, where they operated and corrected the problem within a few hours. To the Army's credit, they admitted their error and the correctness of my parents' actions, and covered the civilian medical bills.

    In contrast, my parents now get all of their medical care through the nearby Air Force base hospital, which is generally staffed by a rotating group of reserve physicians who seem to be uniformly excellent doctors. The docs recognize the need for continuity of care and make heavy use of referral to local civilian docs for any condition that requires the sort of continuity they can't provide. They also try to arrange so that each patient sees the same doctor for routine physicals, etc.

  • Re:Navy? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DaSenator ( 915940 ) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @12:46PM (#15570267)
    I realize this is going to be off topic, but this information needed to be stated.

    A CVBG (carrier battle group) is mobile. The fact that the carrier itself carries multiple platforms which each excell at different types of missions helps.

    Also, in a CVBG you also have (usually) two guided missile cruisers, two to three guided missile destroyers, a frigate or two, two attack submarines, and a supply ship (refueling/resupply of ammo). With this combined platform, you have the following:

    -Air superiority, covered by the carrier.

    -Long range missile strike capability, from the guided missile cruisers.

    -Multi mission surface combat, mostly the destroyers

    -ASW (Anti Submarine Warfare) provided by the Destroyers, multiple platforms from the carrier, the frigate, and the attack submarine

    -AAW (Anti-Air Warfare) provided by the carrier and the destroyers.

    The reason the US Navy places emphasis on the role of the carrier is due to its versatility. One carrier alone (though this would never happen) has the capability to take care of AAW, ASW, and Surface Warfare, along with the ability to strike inland targets.

    The reason for the emphasis on the training of Navy pilots is the fact that landing a plane is much (on the range of ten times harder) than landing on an airstrip.

    If you were wondering about the source of my knowledge, it comes from my NROTC experience and my family. (Navy family, though my uncle's a Marine...close enough...)
  • by COMON$ ( 806135 ) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @12:56PM (#15570346) Journal
    I had PRK done earlier this year. I had been wearing glasses since I was very young, like 5-6 years old. I was an athlete and contacts just didnt cut it in contact sports, and glasses were a nuisance but I lived with it all through my college sport years. Now I am without either and as much as RK surgery sucked (the bandages dried to my eyes 2 days after the surgery). I would not go back. I may have to wear glasses again when I am 45 but to have 20 years or so being able to see my wife in the morning, not having to worry about cuts in my contacts, or having my glasses break at inopportune times, is all very much worth the 3K to do it.
  • Into Thin Air (Score:2, Interesting)

    by GogglesPisano ( 199483 ) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @01:05PM (#15570421)
    After reading about the experience of Beck Weathers on Mount Everest (he had radial keratotomy surgery, and during the climb experienced blindness that cost him both hands and part of his face to frostbite), I've decided that maybe glasses aren't so bad after all.
  • Supersonic Flapping (Score:2, Interesting)

    by lys1123 ( 461567 ) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @01:10PM (#15570446) Homepage
    The Navy uses a different procedure than that used on civilians -- grinding the cornea rather than cutting a flap -- out of fears that the flap could come loose in supersonic combat.

    I wonder if this means that people who have had eye surgery in the civilian sector are also ineligible for flight school, or if the military has even considered asking people if they have had the procedure before admitting them.
  • by ajs ( 35943 ) <{ajs} {at} {ajs.com}> on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @01:11PM (#15570452) Homepage Journal
    Sure, eye surgery can solve these problems and it's not very likely that the surgery will "backfire". But that just is not a risk I would like to take with my eyesight.
    I have to wonder how the chances compare... is it more likely that in 30 years of wearing glasses, something will go wrong that hurts you (you poke yourself in the eye with them or some other problem) or that you'll suffer a problem during surgery? It's probably worth researching.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @01:12PM (#15570458)
    Remember, there's no free lunch! Somebody paid for that surgery. Wouldn't it be nice if we all had access to the same health care system that those in the military have, given that we're already paying for it? A man can dream.


    Ready to enlist? Because if you aren't, STFU.

    Generally speaking even in peacetime the military is a fairly hard lifestyle. When I was in (during the Gulf War) we worked out that we were getting paid about $2.25 an hour for work that was either very boring or very dangerous.

    Guaranteed: food, shelter (gotta love those two man tents), medical care, and maybe a few perks after you've exited the service (GI Bill rocks). Also guaranteed: a chance to go to a third world shithole and either get killed outright or seriously maimed, and in my unit 55-80 hour work weeks.

    That being said, in the Army I met two damned fine dentists (out of five) and one damned fine doctor (out of at least eight). I'm not sure where everybody gets the cheery "they're awesome" opinion of military docs, but I'm guessing that the Navy and Air Force have real standards when it comes to physicians.
  • Considering (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dubmun ( 891874 ) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @01:25PM (#15570578) Homepage Journal
    I have been thinking about getting the Lasik for a long time. It seem to me that the risk versus reward is low in the short term. But we don't know what the long term effects of the surgery are... By long term I mean the possibility of being more suseptible to eye disease and disorders that are more common in later life.

    My mother had radial keritotomy (sp?) 15-20 years ago. My understanding of the procedure is that it is the equivalant of Lasik but using a blade to make the incisions instead of laser. My point is that she is in her mid sixties now and has developed glaucoma and will be forced to take eye drops every few hours and have regular checkups to keep it under control for the rest of her life. She has been told that her eye surgery may have put her in an elevated risk group for glaucoma, but not until now.

    Until I hear of more long term studies on the effects of Lasik... I think I'll wait.
  • Re:PRK Experience (Score:3, Interesting)

    by pherthyl ( 445706 ) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @01:27PM (#15570600)
    Next up was a device that measured my perscription. I had to stare at
    a little picture while it zoomed in and out of focus. Apparently this
    determines my exact perscription, none of that "Is this better, or that"
    lens swapping. I wonder why eye doctors don't use this all the time.


    My optometrist has one and uses it but says it is not nearly as accurate as a manual exam with the lenses. It's just there to give him a rough estimate as a starting point, but it tends to overprescribe.
  • by ianscot ( 591483 ) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @01:31PM (#15570629)

    But at the end of the day I know that I can see - with my glasses.

    At the end of the day, people with laser surgery can basically see. Some have problems with glare, and some develop vision problems that can't be corrected even with glasses, but the procedure basically works for most people despite the risks.

    That's at the end of the day. How about at the end of the decade, or of your lifetime, though? This thing has only been done for a short while now, and the longitudinal studies aren't in, by definition.

    Military organizations, again, have done studies over shorter periods [dtic.mil]. Eighteen months is not the measure of this surgery, though. It's performed on a sensitive organ that already has problems with deterioration with age. Given that, I'm not exactly jumping to get it done because of the deals on those special ads that come with the Sunday funnies in my paper.

    Are contact lenses such a problem? I can see it for jet pilots, okay, maybe. But for everyday people, what -- you absolutely can't wear goggles when you swim?

  • optical astronomy (Score:2, Interesting)

    by fishbowl ( 7759 ) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @01:37PM (#15570670)
    Small sample I realize, but I know two different people whose ability to do optical astronomy has been severely impacted by
    eye surgery. Combined with an increased risk of glaucoma (and no end in sight to the prohibition of the one medication that is effectively indicated for glaucoma), I believe I will continue to make myself be satisfied with the highest quality glasses I can get.

  • Re:PRK Experience (Score:3, Interesting)

    by moosesocks ( 264553 ) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @01:38PM (#15570691) Homepage
    My doc used to be the same way, but purchased a new one a year or two ago.

    The reason more docs don't have them? They're horrendously expensive (up to $50,000)
  • Anecdotal evidence (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ianscot ( 591483 ) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @01:40PM (#15570704)

    Your point about the med school funding -- I'm considering med school, so I know whereof you speak -- is well taken.

    I did have a friend in the Navy, though, who underwent a nightmarish wisdom tooth extraction. The Navy dentist gave him conscious sedation (a narcotic) instead of a general anesthetic, and then proceeded to perform an extraction that would have given any Civil War surgeon pause. My friend described the fear very effectively. Said he never slept on his back after that, because it reminded him of the surgery chair somehow.

    In general the reputation of the military's medical services was that of a poor-to-middling staff model HMO, based on my friend's description of the general situation. Maybe that reflected all the young doctors doing their five years and gaining experience, maybe not.

  • by e2d2 ( 115622 ) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @01:44PM (#15570737)
    How many moons are we talking? Because my experience differs.

    I worked at Walter Reed Army Medical for years on a software project for the chief of neurosurgery. I came to find that he was considered one of the best neurosurgeons in the world. Why? Because the military sees a lot of spinal injuries of course. Walter Reed is the same place that works on the President of the US, congressman, etc. Is the president going to get a hack for a doctor?

    I also was in the Army and worked with the doctors at Ft Knox for my asthma. I have yet to see an asthma expert that knew as much as these guys.

  • Re:PRK (Score:3, Interesting)

    by thatguywhoiam ( 524290 ) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @01:45PM (#15570747)
    You recover in 3 - 5 days instead of 5 - 8 with PRK. But with PRK you don't have the heebie geebie factor of eye flaps busting loose. In fact most eye doctors will recommend PRK to those under 30 with any kind of an active lifestyle for sports, scuba diving, etc.

    That's not quite accurate. "Most" doctors will recommend PRK for those with thin corneas. You need a certain amount or corneal tissue available to be ablated (12 microns per diopter of correction), that leaves your eyes with enough structural integrity that you won't get ectasia.

    A LASIK flap will re-seal its outer interface within 5 days, but it actually continues to heal further over the next two years, forming a basement of tissue over the Bowman's layer, and the further adding tendrils of biomechanical 'thread'. At the end of about 18 months typically, a LASIK flap is (figuratively) sealed, glued and stiched to your eye. While the interface always exists, at this point the pressure required to dislodge it would damage any normal eye.

    The fact that the military is doing PRK really only speaks to the fact that the LASIK prodecure gives you more immediate results (and much faster healing), but takes longer for the eye to return to full integrity.

  • PRK rocks! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by naChoZ ( 61273 ) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @02:24PM (#15571036) Homepage Journal

    Not...

    I had it a couple years ago. I reposted my blog entry afterwards here in my slashdot journal [slashdot.org].

    Excerpt:

    She took her time. A swipe swipe here, a swipe swipe there, here a swipe, there a swipe... After she satisfactorily buffed away the covering of my eyeball, she used an actual broom to sweep away the leftover shit in my eye. I know this because I heard her say the word "broom" before she used it. There were other tools used. Again I express my thanks to the inventors of those magical eyedrops. She continues to remove the last remnants of the covering of my eye like one might remove a proof of purchase from a can of Jif to win the $300,000 grand prize, gently now, don't want to ruin the serial number.

  • by gordo3000 ( 785698 ) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @02:27PM (#15571061)
    that is odd that he had such a problem with not getting general anesthetic. when I had mine pulled, I Had to have general anesthetic because they were going to cut them out of the jaw bone and not let them get severely impacted(they were sitting partially under my 12 year molars already). But everyone else in my family that had the procedure done just used local and was awake during the procedure. sometimes, it just helps to request general if you are squeamish about what they are doing. I mean, those are your strongest teeth and therefore, the most difficult to pull. I'm just saying, don't always blame the doctor. A lot of amputations are done without using general anesthetic and this is for the patient's safety. I'm sure it can leave a severe mental scar though.
  • by Joiseybill ( 788712 ) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @02:45PM (#15571226)
    Friends & Family in the service have told me that not only are eyes checked, but other parts, too.
    Any dentistry that isn't done right is fixed by military dentists - or you get disqualified from some jobs. One can't be expected to perform on high-altitiude jumps & flights or high-pressure underwater dives when air bubbles inside fillings could expand / boil / explode.
    It makes sense that certain medical procedures need to be done to a different tolerance level in the military.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @03:22PM (#15571536)
    Opthalmologists are the most conservative doctors on the planet. A good friend of mine is an opthalmologist and a pilot, and in years flying with him, I have never seen him do anything remotely fun in the airplane. He has no sense of excitement, and anything with more then minimum risk is a "bad thing".
  • by Animats ( 122034 ) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @03:24PM (#15571547) Homepage
    The U.S. Army also offers free laser eye surgery to soldiers. Preference is given to combat troops. "The bottom line is that if you're in the middle of a fight and you can't see the enemy before they see you, you're dead". [defenselink.mil] The Army has been doing this since 2001. Combat troops with glasses are now considered obsolete.
  • by LordVader717 ( 888547 ) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @03:50PM (#15571723)
    Ulcers are also just one of the many complications associated with contact lenses. According to Wikipedia, complications affect 5% of user each year [wikipedia.org].

    It might sound a little scary, but laser eye correction is a routine procedure performed on millions of people every year.
  • by winkydink ( 650484 ) * <sv.dude@gmail.com> on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @04:30PM (#15572015) Homepage Journal
    Earlier than that. Almost Vietnam Era, but not quite. I still have a scar from where a doc at Keesler AFB decided to treat a rather angry boil with antibiotics rather than lancing it. It burst on its own the next day. What fun!
  • by zenslug ( 542549 ) * on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @04:44PM (#15572109) Homepage
    I can tell you my experience. My vision was -3.00 and -2.75 with some astigmatism in both eyes (right eye was worse). So my vision was not THAT bad, but things would start to get blurry at about 18 inches. My vision today is pretty good, almost 7 months since the surgery. I don't think it is 20/20, and I do have a slight astigmatism that wasn't there before, but the best measure of success is that I would do it again. I still have some halos/starbursts in low-light conditions, but it isn't a new experience. Dirty contact lenses or even just wet eyelashes causes the same effect. Part of that is due to my large pupils (blue eyes do that), so if you have brown eyes your chances of those sorts of things is lower. My sister had her eyes done a month after me, and because she had no astigmatism before her vision is perfect. No halos at all. I've got slightly-imperfect vision now, but that is only because I am very picky. For the days and weeks following the surgery I would see how small of print I could read from across the room. It got to be ridiculous. The point is I can see quite well now. Traveling is easier (no need to bring glasses, contacts, solution, cases, backup glasses, etc.). Make sure you read up on the procedure ahead of time so you don't get freaked out. It took about 5 minutes total, from the time I entered the surgery room to the time I was helped up out of the operating chair. If you have had cavities, you'll recognise the smell. (that's the worst part) Good luck.
  • by tgrigsby ( 164308 ) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @04:56PM (#15572223) Homepage Journal
    I'm 41. I had lasik surgery 3 years ago. At the time I decided that I'd lived enough of my life tied to glasses and contacts, and I wasn't going to win any beauty contests anytime soon. I trusted the procedure and the doctor enough to believe that nothing overly bad would happen. Worst case, I'd still be wearing glasses afterwards.

    As it turns out, I have perfect vision in my right eye and near perfect in my left. It's certainly disconcerting to have someone peeling your eye, burning part of the front off, then gluing the peel back on (that's my maximum-gross-out version of what happens), but I no longer wear glasses. The bridge of my nose smoothed out, but the dents behind my ears seem to be permanent. I can see in the shower and in the rain, I can kiss my wife without taking off my glasses first, etc.

    I remember, for the first time, realizing I didn't have to look down while walking in the rain because there were no glasses to get spotty. I stopped, looked up, and watched the rain fall on my face. It was beautiful.

    I now have a large collection of sunglasses. I could never wear them before without putting on contacts first, and contacts were a pain to deal with. Now I have a selection, and I'm never without a sporty pair.

    I wish I'd done it about 10 years sooner, but the procedures and the equipment for performing them weren't as advanced as they are now.
  • by GWTPict ( 749514 ) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @05:59PM (#15572631)
    Permanent it ain't, I've worn glasses to correct short sightedness since I was 11 years old and yes, I could have had laser surgery at some point to correct it, I never bothered because wearing glasses has never bothered me and I quite like being able to make the world go fuzzy when it's all getting a bit to much. Now at the age of 43 my prescription requires varifocals to correct my near point as the elasticity/flexibility of the muscles that change the shape of my lens deteriorates. As you get older your sight changes, possibly that could be corrected with more laser surgery but it is not in of itself a permanent fix. Anyway it's night time here and it's raining so I'm going to take my glasses off and look at the pretty patterns on the street lights :>)
  • by apflwr3 ( 974301 ) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @06:22PM (#15572747)
    Laser eye surgery, from my perspective, amounts to _elective_ surgery on what I consider to be an irreplaceable part of my anatomy.

    The article's not about you. You presumably work in a field where contacts or glasses are an option. If you're a fighter pilot and your vision is failing your career is simply over. That's completely understandable-- Glasses fall off, they fog, they skew perception. Contacts tend to fall out at inopportune times (like when the wind is in your face) and have to be taken out and cleaned, which would be less than convenient in a combat situation. They can get the surgery and continue to fly, or they can fret about the risks and go fly 747s for Delta.

    Look at it from the Navy's perspective, too-- it takes years, if not a decade to train a "Top Gun", as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars. These guys are difficult to replace, to say the least. If minor and routine surgery will extend a pilot's usefulness you can damn well bet they're going to push for it.

    Finally-- these guys are more than willing to take risks and even lay down their life for their country. What's the chance eye surgery will go wrong, versus the chance of sustaining a more serious injury (or worse) in a combat situation, or due to equiptment failure?

  • by winkydink ( 650484 ) * <sv.dude@gmail.com> on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @06:59PM (#15572929) Homepage Journal
    Wrong thing. It burst while I was sleeping, so it was open for several hours without disinfectant, etc... I would like to think that if it were done in a medical setting that the scarring, if any, would have been reduced.
  • by sd790 ( 643354 ) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @09:07PM (#15573383)

    My wife also had a great experience. So good that I decided to get it done myself.

    I am now one of many others who have not had such a pleasant experience even after coughing up thousands of dollars and spending many hours finding the best surgeon in the Columbus Ohio area. Luckily, I can still see with glasses after my botched surgery, but it was one of the most frightening experiences of my life. The microkeratome [oasismedical.com] lost it's grip (suction) on my left eye during the actual cutting of my cornea. Now my eyes cannot create tears and I will be using artificial tears every couple of hours for the rest of my life.

    Is it worth it? No way! [pcli.com]

  • by mikequad ( 950828 ) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @09:50PM (#15573502)
    I had Lasik done. I had 20/400 vision (although this really is an estimate once you get that bad) and now see 20/15 in one eye and 20/20 in the other. I paid $2300 per an eyeball (it's tax deductible if you plan and your company has a cafe 125 FSA or something like that). Yeah the first 6 months or so I had some halos and had to drop in eye drops like a stoner fiend, but now (2.5y removed) it's awesome. YMMV since I was a non-diabetic 25 y/o male. The worst thing is not being able to rub your eyes for 3 months after the procedure.

    I'm sure once you get down into the sub 1% instances of side effects with a good doctor, many of those effects are due to some dumbasses not following the doc's instructions and not owning up to their f-ups. If you're a healthy person who is semi-disciplined, I'd recommend it.

    I did my research, but you should do yours. I see better now than I ever remember with contacts or glasses.

    On a side note, the funny thing is you would think the top places in the world to have the procedure done are in US, Europe or Japan. As it turns out, Saudi Arabia and Columbia have the tops.
  • by FirienFirien ( 857374 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @06:27AM (#15574771) Homepage
    Permanent it can't be, because of the way the eye ages. However as the process becomes cheaper and cheaper it may be a viable option to have it done multiple times - slightly overcorrect, allow the aging of the eye to lapse through and out the other side; rinse, repeat. Currently only an option for the very rich; but with advances in the field improving rapidly (astigmatism can now be corrected where it couldn't 3-5 years ago; I think they're up to being able to fix 7 of the eye's 12 parameters) and prices going down (the cost of the research and the outlay for the machines are presumably recouped now, as can be seen by the lowering prices to attract more people) it may well be a viable option later.

    Me, I'm 22. I got my eyes done last year because the cost of glasses is high enough that the treatment is seriously offset, and have healthy enough eyes of the right shape/type/etc that I have fantastic vision now, 99% or more of perfect. To those who can afford it early, it's a great saving over time; I even got it done at a clinic with 10000+ treatments rather than on the high street store that was doing it at half the price, because they're the only eyes I have. But until my eyes start to deteriorate - 20 years at least, on the going average - I can now see everywhere that I couldn't before, in the rain, in any steamy room, in bed. Add that to the cost saving, and permanence becomes irrelevant - even when my eyes do start to go, they'll start going from 0/0 instead of -2.5/-3.5.

"Look! There! Evil!.. pure and simple, total evil from the Eighth Dimension!" -- Buckaroo Banzai

Working...