(Bear in mind that if the first eye does not
heal to expectation, the second operation will
never be done and the imbalance will be
permanent).
"Outpatient follow up visits are
required on a frequent and regular basis in order
to monitor the eye for complications and to
appraise the refractive result."3
"I understand that...it is
essential that I attend all follow up visits and
adhere to the taking of all recommended
medications"' (these include
antibiotics, steroid drops, painkillers, which
are presumably not supplied free).
All right, so it's going to hurt, it has a
few risks attached and it's going to be a certain
amount of trouble, but at least at the end of it
all I'll have normal sight: I mean, with the
Bates method, you don't know whether it's going
to work or not, do you?
"...relatively low degrees of
uncomplicated myopia (2-6 dioptres) can be
predictably neutralised. After one year 92% of
treated eyes were within 1 dioptre of the
intended refraction"1
This doen't sound too bad, until you reflect that
the margin for error is a full 2 dioptres, more
than enough to keep many people permanently in
glasses and most people feeling dependent on them
for driving.
The clinical guidelines document3 quotes
a study on 26 eyes (sic - i.e. 13 people) with
errors of -1.5 to -6D. The 90%
'success' rate was only achieved with those with
an initial error of 2D (i.e. starting with a 2D
error you can correct to within 2D accuracy -
amazing!) while at -6D (generally considered as
the limit for the procedure) the success rate was
down to 40%. The number of people, sorry, eyes,
with uncorrected vision better than 6/6 (ie
normal) was 50% of those with an initial <2D
error and only 25% of those with initial 6D.
Given those figures, the likelihood of two eyes
belonging to the same person both ending up
seeing perfectly can only be guessed at.
In other words: the procedure, although quick in
itself is likely to lead to a period of at least
six months of disturbed vision and considerable
discomfort, at the end of which one eye only may
have 'normal sight', in which case the process
can be repeated, or may not, in which case the
patient will be left indefinitely with the eyes
out of balance.
So: it's not all that reliable: that is, it is
almost certain to improve vision to some extent,
but it is unlikely to improve it to normal and
there is a high probability that one will still
need glasses for some or all purposes. It has
risks attached that may only just be beginning to
emerge, and involves an interim period of
complete or partial disability. But at least when
it's done, the improvement is permanent?
"About 80% of eyes heal in a
predictable fashion leaving 20% with a less
certain outcome which may include over-correction
or regression of the effect."1
| "After having
laser surgery 6 months ago and expecting
to have good vision now; I am finding
that the eye has reverted to some
shortsightedness and I cannot seem to get
things into focus. My left seems to be
taking over; as I am wearing a contact
lens in it and I am relying on this for
driving etc. I have the opportunity to
have surgery on the other eye shortly,
but I have lost faith in this operation
now and feel quite desperate about my
eyes." (letter from an
enquirer).
|
It is no wonder then that a long list of
those unsuitable for treatment3 includes:
"...those who are
inappropriately motivated or do not comprehend
the rationale of treatment"
"Contra-indications: patients with
unrealistic expectations or with obsessive,
compulsive or perfectionist personalities (ie
anyone who seriously believes this operation is
going to give them perfect sight and is likely to
make a fuss if it doesn't) are
to be avoided."
Yes indeed!
