Talk:LASIK

Depression and other Psychological Effects of Lasik Complications
Any reason why this hasn't been included in this section? There has been a lot documented on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zephyrtrainfan2010 (talk • contribs) 03:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/lasereyesurgery.html#cat57 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.230.129 (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

this reads like an infomercial
from the "patient dissatisfaction" page: For best results, Steven C. Schallhorn, an ophthalmologist who oversaw the US Navy's refractive surgery program and whose research partly influenced the Navy's decision to allow its aviators to get LASIK, recommends patients seek out what's called "all-laser Lasik" combined with "wavefront-guided" software.[31][32] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmac621 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I came to the talk page to make the exact same comment!!!! I was going to ask why whichever practitioner or interest group forgot to include contact information to set up a free consultation in the article. I guess the same is still true ten years later. 208.125.143.178 (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Needed: Studies of subjects having refractive surgery in only one eye
Most people have Lasik on both eyes, but there are some that only have Lasik done on one of their two eyes. This because either the subject has an eye that is 20/20, or because the subject has a nearsighted eye that will work for mono-vision (aka. being able to read without reading glasses after 40). Patients would have the ability to compare comfort level and visual acuity differences between the virgin and operated eye. Campoftheamericas (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested addition
User, who is blocked for other reasons, has asked me by email for this to be inserted in the article: "On January 6th, 2011, ex FDA Chief of Medical Devices, Dr. Morris Waxler, who oversaw LASIK FDA APPROVAL submits FDA Petition to 'Immediately Stop LASIK' surgery: http://lifeafterlasik.com/LASIK%20Morris%20FDA%20Petition%20Jan%206%202011.pdf." User Dkantis signs himself "Founder www.LifeAfterLasik.com Hurt LASIK Patient Network", so it is clear that he has a COI here; however the proposed addition seems factual and sourced. I am therefore posting his suggestion here to let uninvolved editors decide, and will also post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. JohnCD (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I saw this RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. I have no intention of getting too involved with this article, however, my impression is that where Waxler's opinion of LASIK has received coverage in reliable sources, it should be noted. Challenges of his specific opinion in reliable sources should also be noted (e.g., ). With that stated, it does not appear that the media has yet reported on this petition and I do not think Wikipedia should be used to disseminate it until they do so. Location (talk) 23:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. That petition is clearly not an acceptable source for the addition. If and when it receives coverage in reliable sources, it can be added. Glaucus (talk) 02:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

All-Laser LASIK / Femto-LASIK – the situation today
Any surgery is a serious decision but if the procedure is elective, i.e. selected by personal choice and not supported financially by state or insurance company, then all of the facts should be accessible, clearly understandable, honest and free of marketing pressures.

Wikipedia is a trusted source for such information but, unfortunately, with the right effort and abilities it can be manipulated in order to lead enquiries continually back to just one or two sources.

This is not to say that there is anything intrinsically wrong with these sources, but it does deny fair access to the latest in information about “All-Laser LASIK” or “Femto-LASIK” – a procedure which has advanced greatly since it first became available.

So we would like (and this is placed by one of the companies mentioned below) to bring you up to date with regards which companies today offer product used in these procedures.

We urge you, in order that you may make a well-informed decision, to follow up on each of these companies. And remember, these are essentially only advertisements – your final and best source of input should be the Ophthalmologist who is going to treat you.

Company				       Name of Current Product

Intralase (AMO – Abbott) 		IFS

Schwind 				SmartTech

Technolas Perfect Vision		Femtosecond Workstation 520F

Wavelight (Alcon)			FS 200

Zeiss					Visumax

Ziemer					Femto LDV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.193.165.210 (talk) 12:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

New inaccuracies found?
This comment from User:Benchoff copied from article text for consideration here: The wordings of some parts of the above section on Laser remodeling might be considered toward lay terms to an extent and in need of greater quality considerations, for instance many sites such as the wikipedia site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix-assisted_laser_desorption/ionization discuss the ionizing aspect of the radiation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser, indicating both measurable limits as the eyes are especially vulnerable in terms of radiation so elective works for artistic (reference artistic contact lenses) values are hardly preferred (noting the need for better organizing of studies), and also measurable opportunities for instance in theory if a cornea is too thin (perhaps due to previous LASIK surgery) then a Fresnel lenses method might be evaluated such as the Fresnel pattern cut under the flap with a counterpart clear material of certain other velocity (the idea being less about various cuts / techniques, and rather about one standard cut matching a reasonably standardized insert, so the cuts do not perform the vision corrections and rather the velocity so corrects and if needed can be upgraded with an insert of another suitable velocity in the future) ready for insertion and fitting the corneal grooves under the flap [this sentence was provided by Robert Benchoff of A Check Exact April 26, 2011 and has not been verified by certain other pertinent specific experts though to help those in need more comprehensive federal requests by Robert Benchoff were made previous years and again this year, for Doctors, patients, technicians, consultants, lawmakers, and so on]. Continuous improvement [sentence added April 27, 2011 by Robert Benchoff "Properly coordinating experts can best help the United States President before-the-fact"]: raising the bar: rather than making complex cuts to the eye the insert can be two [or more] Fresnel cut [or other cut if appropriate] properly bonded materials each of appropriate velocities with the insert having a smooth exterior [unless there is a need for positioner(s)], yet this solution does not contain more advanced proposals such as circa 1990s [pending further legislation] / VGC Foundation such as on NASA CREW cyborg [thought controlled bio-material manipulations], ortho-molecular level and other drugs including [foods, with] proven results from what is known as Bible foods including seeds, and more simple technologies though also conditionally useful such as welder mask optics automatically nearly instantly shielding people from light flashes [similar to this optic pattern for instance in electronics to how an isolation transformer functions, in part a predecessor to current television film layer technology that can be used: patent restrictions apply]. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

corneal nerves
Why is the article not mentioning damage to corneal nerves?

See, for example, this science paper, "Mapping the entire human corneal nerve architecture" at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2939211/

"It has been predicted that there are between 300,000 and 630,000 free nerve endings in the cornea."

Also, the article does go into detail in which part of the cornea, the flap and the modification are made. The stroma is mentioned but epithelium should be mentioned too, I guess.

Planning (pre-) and analysis (post-) of results
I don't see much here on the degree of myopia, hyperopia, and/or astigmatism that can be corrected; the level of success attained per amount of myopia/hyperopia/astigmatism; how approaches change per level of myopia/hyperopia/astigmatism; how surgeons plan (or how lasers are programmed) to correct specific amounts of myopia/hyperopia/astigmatism; and how results are analyzed and reported. I'm working on a new entry for the Alpins method of astigmatism analysis, which offers at least one approach to accomplishing some of these goals. The new entry is currently an orphan; LASIK should definitely link back to it. I'm not sure of the protocol involved in doing that...all suggestions welcomed. Kcroes (talk) 14:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Contact lenses after operation
I've heard that right after the procedure, some protective contact lenses are aplied (more precisely, I've heard a story of a patient, who've got terrified after such lense fell out as he thought it was his corneal flap). Maybe that should be mentioned at "postoperative care"? --Vikte (talk) 11:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Separate Page about Lasik Complications
I have been doing some research on the Internet and their is extensive evidence of complications in Lasik procedure. Moreover, there is a lot of information in this article about complications that can happen because of Lasik. I suggest that we should create a separate page for Lasik Complications to detail all the information we have.Muhammad Ali Khalid (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I fully support this suggestion as reported problems are global and need to be highlighted. RingARoses (talk) 12:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Undue weight given to adverse effects of LASIK
I posted a concern about this article on WTMED (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive_38), and another user agreed with me that there appears to be an undue weight issue here. The article needs to be more balanced. Lesion ( talk ) 10:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

MEDRS
, please review your recent edits to this page. Medical content on Wikipedia must be based on reliable, secondary and tertiary sources (i.e. review papers and textbooks ... see WP:MEDRS for more info). I have not looked in detail at your edits, but it looked to me like there were some primary sources have been used, i.e. original research studies and case reports. Many thanks, Lesion  ( talk ) 11:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Statistic Posted in a Misleading Manner
The lead statement under "Risks" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LASIK#Risks) states that, "daily contact lens wearers have a 1-in-100 chance of developing a serious, contact lens-related eye infection in 30 years of use, and a 1-in-2,000 chance of suffering significant vision loss as a result of infection. The researchers calculated the risk of significant vision loss consequence of LASIK surgery to be closer to 1-in-10,000 cases."

This is extremely misleading because it appears to have factored the odds to improve their appearance. Here it states that there is a 1:100 chance of developing a serious infection, and then a 1:2000 chance of suffering a significant vision loss as a result of infection. This means that one must first develop the infection. That is, the contact lens wearer has a 1:200,000 chance of having significant vision loss as a result of infection because only 1 in 100 develop an infection at all, and then, of that 1 in 100, only 1 in 2,000 of THOSE will go on to have vision loss.

This is compared with the "close to 1:10,000" risk of significant vision loss with LASIK. The misleading part here is that the reader is encouraged to compare 1:2000 odds of vision loss with contact lenses with the "close to 1:10,000" odds of vision loss with LASIK, when in reality the comparison should be 1:200,000 chance of vision loss with contact lenses and "close to 1:10,000" chance of vision loss with LASIK.

This is further encouraged by the opening sentence, which ends, "... statistical analysis revealed that the infection risk for contact lens wearers is greater than the infection risk from LASIK." This statement makes NO REFERENCE to the risk of vision loss, but only to infection. The article then mentions the statistics, and again, makes the comparison of vision loss of 1:2000 in contact lens wearers (who already have a significant infection) to the vision loss of 1:10,000 in LASIK recipients (with no statement of infection prior to the procedure).

Furthermore, rather than citing a source for the material, the citation links to a website (WebMD) which cites a source, and ultimately the source is a letter and not a peer-reviewed article. That is, without any peer review or fact check, the statement is opinion.

I would like to see this portion removed from the Wikipedia article, but this is my first interaction with suggesting a change to Wikipedia and would like another user or editor to take the action so I don't screw anything up.

Thanks, 67.211.144.2 (talk) 15:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC) Chuck Saunders

When I read that language, I don't reach the same conclusion. "One in 2,000 chance of suffering significant vision loss as a result" sounds like the correct statistic to use. It does not say "Given that you have an infection, the chance of vision loss is one in 2,000". Anyway I found the reference but can't access the full paper: http://archopht.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=418674 I'll add the citation. Rotiro (talk) 07:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem has already been solved.Rafaelosornio (talk) 21:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Is the order correct or should be different?
Nowadays it is:

1 Effectiveness 2 Risks 3 Procedures 4 Wavefront-guided LASIK 5 Onset of presbyopia 6 History 7 Further research 8 LASIK versus photorefractive keratectomy 9 FDA's position I suggest another order.Rafaelosornio (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the current order is fine. but let's know your suggestion! k18s (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on LASIK. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060311094336/http://www.aao.org:80/education/focal_points/upload/6202_Mod13.04-2.pdf to http://www.aao.org/education/focal_points/upload/6202_Mod13.04-2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on LASIK. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130731030413/http://www.aao.org/publications/eyenet/200906/feature.cfm to http://www.aao.org/publications/eyenet/200906/feature.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928093030/http://www.aip.org/ca/srinivasan.html to http://www.aip.org/ca/srinivasan.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Possible Rearrangement of Page Headings and Sources
Hello everyone! New Wikipedia editor here. I personally think the LASIK page headings can be organized in a more efficient manner to facilitate reading. Here is my proposed change:

1.	History 2.	Process 3.	Types of LASIK (Wavefront-guided, then Topography-assisted 4.	 Comparison to photorefractive keratectomy 5.	Effectiveness 6.	Risks 7.	 Further research 8.	 References 9.	External links

What are your thoughts? I wanted to post this in the Talk Pages for discussion prior to making such a drastic change.

Regarding sources, I do not understand how to cite sources that I have used before. For example, sources 10-14 are the same. My original intention was to have it cited once and reuse the 10 in brackets, but I cannot figure out how to do that on Wikipedia.

Thanks for your input in advance! Soniakhalid18 (talk) 22:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

LASIK eye surgery needs to stop, former FDA adviser says
Those with more time than me can determine how this might be used in the Wikipedia article.

14 Nov 2019: LASIK eye surgery needs to stop, former FDA adviser says: Report. From the article (emphasis added): -- Timeshifter (talk) 00:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC)