would latent hyperopia / astigmatism make me a bad lasik candidate?

Hi guys,

I'm 28, a healthy male, and for a long time would only need glasses
when I did computer work/reading. Before, they had diagnosed me with
minor nearsightedness and some astigmatism correction. Turns out,
however, that the optometrists found out ( after dialating me ) that
I'm actually a latent hyperope; my muscles were just working extra hard
to focus before. In fact, I was starting to get headaches easily
while doing computer work, so it makes sense. They prescribed a
half-way prescription that doesn't go all the way to what my dialated
state would be, just takes some of the strain off my eyes while making
a more gradual adjustment. The downside is that now, though the
headaches have gone away, I can no longer see as clearly without my
glasses. This all makes sense to me: my muscles have been trained to
work less hard, but that means blurrier vision without correction.

But sounds like when I'm 40, as my eye muscles weaken, I'm going to
need the full correction, and wear them all the time. I'm just
wondering if eye surgery will be an option for me. My ex actually was
the one who did the exam (we were together at the time ) and she said
that lasik was not a good idea for someone like me, but I never really
understood why not. ( I'd feel weird asking her now what the logic
was. ) Any ideas, or maybe she was just being conservative?

Thanks!

Isaac

According to the website of one laser manufacturer, for example, only
61% of patients who had up to 4 diopters of hyperopia and up to 2
diopters of astigmatism achieved 20/20 vision. Not exactly stellar
results for your kind of prescription.

DrG

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I'm 28, a healthy male, and for a long time would only need glasses
> when I did computer work/reading. Before, they had diagnosed me with
> minor nearsightedness and some astigmatism correction. Turns out,
> however, that the optometrists found out ( after dialating me ) that
> I'm actually a latent hyperope; my muscles were just working extra
hard
> to focus before. In fact, I was starting to get headaches easily
> while doing computer work, so it makes sense. They prescribed a
> half-way prescription that doesn't go all the way to what my dialated
> state would be, just takes some of the strain off my eyes while
making
> a more gradual adjustment. The downside is that now, though the
> headaches have gone away, I can no longer see as clearly without my
> glasses. This all makes sense to me: my muscles have been trained to
> work less hard, but that means blurrier vision without correction.
>
> But sounds like when I'm 40, as my eye muscles weaken, I'm going to
> need the full correction, and wear them all the time. I'm just
> wondering if eye surgery will be an option for me. My ex actually
was
> the one who did the exam (we were together at the time ) and she said
> that lasik was not a good idea for someone like me, but I never
really
> understood why not. ( I'd feel weird asking her now what the logic
> was. ) Any ideas, or maybe she was just being conservative?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Isaac

You seem to understand the underlying issues regarding your prescription
pretty well. Yes, you are not the ideal candidate for LASIK. If the
surgery procedure uses your current distance prescription (which is actually
only "half-way" as you describe) then you will see fine until you approach
age 40. Then your ciliary muscle will relax further and you will manifest
more hyperopia. LASIK is much better for myopes than hyperopes.

But to look at it another way-- you will probably have about 8-12 years
after the surgery where you will not need any glasses. And even then, your
prescription will be much less than if you didn't get the surgery at all.

The bottom line is that while you are not an "ideal candidate", you will
enjoy some years of good vision without specs and then afterward you will be
somewhat better off than if you did nothing.

============

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> Hi guys,
>
> I'm 28, a healthy male, and for a long time would only need glasses
> when I did computer work/reading. Before, they had diagnosed me with
> minor nearsightedness and some astigmatism correction. Turns out,
> however, that the optometrists found out ( after dialating me ) that
> I'm actually a latent hyperope; my muscles were just working extra hard
> to focus before. In fact, I was starting to get headaches easily
> while doing computer work, so it makes sense. They prescribed a
> half-way prescription that doesn't go all the way to what my dialated
> state would be, just takes some of the strain off my eyes while making
> a more gradual adjustment. The downside is that now, though the
> headaches have gone away, I can no longer see as clearly without my
> glasses. This all makes sense to me: my muscles have been trained to
> work less hard, but that means blurrier vision without correction.
>
> But sounds like when I'm 40, as my eye muscles weaken, I'm going to
> need the full correction, and wear them all the time. I'm just
> wondering if eye surgery will be an option for me. My ex actually was
> the one who did the exam (we were together at the time ) and she said
> that lasik was not a good idea for someone like me, but I never really
> understood why not. ( I'd feel weird asking her now what the logic
> was. ) Any ideas, or maybe she was just being conservative?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Isaac
>