Astigmatism Glasses Distortion

I have recenlty had Lasik surgery to correct the following percription

+2.50 -4.00 75
+2.50 -4.00 105

The result has been superb with a perfect left eye and a little
residual distortion in the right. My vision is brighter, more
colourful,I am more alert, my eyes naturally focuses to the horizon, my
eyes can now focus and move quickly and fluidly.

Compare this to wearing glasses where the image was dull, flat, two
dimentional (all the image was in focus, no sense of depth) and there
was no central point (sweet spot)to the vision (I saw everything at
once).Even though technically had 20/20 vision, compared to what I have
now I could bearly see at all. Wearing glasses seemed to restricted the
movement of the eye and this made me rather dopey.

What I would like to know has anyone else had a similar experience with
glasses? I have worn glasses since the age of seven and am now thirty
four, why won't opticians tell you that glasses do not give you
anywhere near normal vision?

I'm glad to hear you had a good result. Hopefully it will remain stable
for many years.

I think you got bad glasses. I wore astigmatic correction (not as bad
as yours, but 2.5 in one eye and 1.75 in the other) With glasses, I saw
perfect 20/15 from age 18 to 58. Then I got cataracts and had my myopia
and my astigmatism corrected, and I now see better without glasses than
I did at 18 without glasses, but I still wear glasses to correct that
little bit of residual, so with glasses I see the same, perfect 20/15 I
had when wearing glasses at age 18 and all the intervening years. Don't
know why you had a problem, for sure it's not a typical complaint, but
whatever it was it's good that you're apparently fixed.

w.stacy, o.d.

rcam wrote:

>I have recenlty had Lasik surgery to correct the following percription
>
>+2.50 -4.00 75
>+2.50 -4.00 105
>
>The result has been superb with a perfect left eye and a little
>residual distortion in the right. My vision is brighter, more
>colourful,I am more alert, my eyes naturally focuses to the horizon, my
>eyes can now focus and move quickly and fluidly.
>
>Compare this to wearing glasses where the image was dull, flat, two
>dimentional (all the image was in focus, no sense of depth) and there
>was no central point (sweet spot)to the vision (I saw everything at
>once).Even though technically had 20/20 vision, compared to what I have
>now I could bearly see at all. Wearing glasses seemed to restricted the
>movement of the eye and this made me rather dopey.
>
>What I would like to know has anyone else had a similar experience with
>glasses? I have worn glasses since the age of seven and am now thirty
>four, why won't opticians tell you that glasses do not give you
>anywhere near normal vision?
>
>
>

I had exactly the opposite experience as you.
Up to age 40 I had 20/10 vision, uncorrected.
Then I needed glasses for a lot of reading.
Then I needed glasses for any reading.
Now I need bifocals for everything.
It sure isn't the same.
Geez I miss my eyesight. Sadly surgery will only give temporary results for
me.

Larry wrote:
> I had exactly the opposite experience as you.
> Up to age 40 I had 20/10 vision, uncorrected.
> Then I needed glasses for a lot of reading.
> Then I needed glasses for any reading.
> Now I need bifocals for everything.
> It sure isn't the same.
> Geez I miss my eyesight. Sadly surgery will only give temporary results for
> me.
>
>
Not sure if you're replying to me or the original poster of this thread.
When you don't include ANY of the post you're replying to, it's
impossible to tell (hint). Anyway, your last couple of sentences caught
my eye. What do you mean, you LOST YOUR EYESIGHT????

Somehow I doubt that (did you actually go blind?). Maybe you lost a
little focusing ability...

And what's that about surgery only temporary? What surgery for what
problem? Maybe you don't have the whole scoop. Post a few details...

w.stacy, o.d.

In article <(E-Mail Removed) .com>,
"rcam" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:



> What I would like to know has anyone else had a similar experience with
> glasses? I have worn glasses since the age of seven and am now thirty
> four, why won't opticians tell you that glasses do not give you
> anywhere near normal vision?

What LASIK shop did you say you work for?

:-(

Hasn't been my experience at all. I wore glasses for 35 years and now
am rid of them (mostly). They did cause problems, but nothing like
you've described. I didn't have all that much astigmatism, though.

For people who don't like glasses, I highly recommend considering
contacts. They are a lot more hassle, but eliminate some of the
disadvantages of glasses. For some people, they don't work so well for
astigmatism correction.

--
Dan Abel
(E-Mail Removed)
Petaluma, California, USA

> What LASIK shop did you say you work for?
>
> :-(
>
> Hasn't been my experience at all. I wore glasses for 35 years and now
> am rid of them (mostly). They did cause problems, but nothing like
> you've described. I didn't have all that much astigmatism, though.
>
> For people who don't like glasses, I highly recommend considering
> contacts. They are a lot more hassle, but eliminate some of the
> disadvantages of glasses. For some people, they don't work so well for
> astigmatism correction.
>
> --
> Dan Abel
> (E-Mail Removed)
> Petaluma, California, USA

Wore toric lenses for a while, though better than glasses, still no
where as good as now. Besides, contacts were heavy, dried the eyes out
and made the eyes very sore. I was very prone to eye infections and
cysts because the lenses would twist off the meridian and the only way
to adjust was by using a finger (not very hygenic). In the end I could
no longer tolerate lenses (not uncommon) and surgery was the only real
option.