[sageabilly]

I had LASIK a little over a year ago and it turned out very well for me, due in part to having a great doctor and due in large part to all of the research that I did before having the surgery. However, one thing I emphasize to everyone considering it is that (despite the marketing) it should be considered a major elective surgery with a possibility of serious complications, and that anyone considering it should weigh the pros and cons and do their own research before deciding.

Articles such as the one here tend to gloss over patient adherence to post-surgery self-care, which is one thing I believe makes or breaks successful LASIK (in my personal experience and from what I have read). This means eye drops on schedule round the clock, antibiotic eye drops on schedule round the clock, eye protection at night for the first week, avoiding dusty conditions for however long the doctor prescribes, avoiding getting water in the eye for however long the doctor prescribes, etc etc.

I also believe that thanks to a rise in LASIK's popularity and marketing some people do not see it as being "Major surgery being performed on your eyeballs, which you need in order to see". It seems to be talked about more like Botox or Invisalign or any other "lifestyle" type of procedure when in reality it's much more serious than that. Anyone considering the surgery should research carefully beforehand, weigh the pros and cons of the surgery for themselves, and compare multiple doctors before deciding to go ahead with the procedure, same as for any major surgery.

Again, due to its popularity, there are good doctors and then there are patient mills, and from my research pre-LASIK I believe that negative outcomes are greater when someone goes to a "patient mill" vs a good doctor, possibly because the doctor does a better job, or possibly because post-surgery instructions are emphasised more at a good doctor than at a patient mill.

[WaltPurvis]

I had LASIK almost 20 years ago, from one of the leading practitioners in the then-fairly-young field, and I scrupulously followed the post-op regimen, yet I still experience noticeable halos and starbursts with lights at night, and my eyes are considerably more sensitive to the sun (I basically can't tolerate being outside in the daytime for any length of time without sunglasses, whereas I never even owned a pair of sunglasses before the surgery).

These are fairly minor issues for me, and I've never regretted getting LASIK, but a reputable surgeon doesn't guarantee lack of side effects.

[pnutjam]

I've never had Lasik, I'm severely nearsighted, but I've become much more sensitive to light as I've aged.

[tsmarsh]

I'm barely nearsighted, really just use glasses so that I can read presentations in meetings... and yeah, my eyes have become significantly more sensitive to both light and change rapid changes in light.

[sageabilly]

"a reputable surgeon doesn't guarantee lack of side effects."

Absolutely! Side effects are possible for anyone getting the surgery, and like I said in my parent comment (or hoped to say), everyone should weigh the potential pros and cons to decide if the rewards outweigh the risks. For me, I already had terrible night vision (due to my astigmatism) and sensitivity to light, so after reading about potential side effects I determined to go forward with the surgery.

Also, I believe that advances in the LASIK procedure over the years have mitigated a lot of the side effect risks (though not reduced completely), so people getting the surgery today will have less side effects then you did getting the surgery 20 years ago.

[alexhutcheson]

> Articles such as the one here tend to gloss over patient adherence to post-surgery self-care, which is one thing I believe makes or breaks successful LASIK (in my personal experience and from what I have read). This means eye drops on schedule round the clock, antibiotic eye drops on schedule round the clock, eye protection at night for the first week, avoiding dusty conditions for however long the doctor prescribes, avoiding getting water in the eye for however long the doctor prescribes, etc etc.

I had LASIK from a well-regarded doctor in 2015 and I wasn't told to do any of these things, except avoiding opening my eyes under water.

[sageabilly]

Right, so does that mean the post-surgery care that I was recommended is on the "extremely conservative" end and your doctor was more lax, or does that mean your doctor wasn't as well-read as others, or something else? Like the comment up-thread, how does one pick a good doctor for something like Lasik, which is seen as a minor medical procedure but is absolutely a major surgery?

[gm-conspiracy]

You ask your Lasik doctor if he were to get Lasik surgery, what doctor would he personally use?

[guitarbill]

> I believe that negative outcomes are greater when someone goes to a "patient mill" vs a good doctor

A dangerous belief to propagate without any data, insofar as it again trivializes the risk, i.e. "I'll be fine, I picked a good doctor". What makes a "good" doctor? More expensive? More likable? Nicer offices?

For medically necessary procedures, data can be a bit of a double-edges sword, as it might make some doctors shy away from more difficult cases. For elective surgery, this actually sounds like a win.

[sageabilly]

"What makes a "good" doctor?"

Exactly the crux of the issue- I've only been to one doctor for getting my LASIK procedure, so I'm not sure what the best combination of data points would make a "good" doctor.

For me, I researched all of the doctors in my area, read reviews on many different review websites (specifically paying attention to people who had complications and what they said about the doctor's follow-up attitude), picked a couple of doctors who looked right for me, and then had consultations with each of them.

I also paid attention to which doctors didn't downplay the negatives of the surgery- because some doctors absolutely play up the "it'll be great and it's totally safe and nothing bad ever happens!" and some are way more realistic about it being a major surgery with a serious risk of complications.

[emodendroket]

I'd also argue that doctors who cannot offer a reasonable standard of care should not be licensed.

[ericb]

> I believe that negative outcomes are greater when someone goes to a "patient mill" vs a good doctor

The highest correlation to surgical success is number of that type of procedure performed by a surgeon. I'd be interested to see that research if you still have it.