I had Lasik Surgery 3 years ago. For six months I suffered with ruined vision and severe dry eyes.
I was able to stabilize my dry eyes after six months, but then since May I've had a return of terrible eye dryness and pain.
I've been to several OD's and they tell me I have blepharitis and "irregular corneal curvature". I was told by a Corneal Specialist that managing blepharitis and MGD, meibomian gland dysfunction, can be a long, difficult process.
She does Lasik surgery in her practice and I wonder how she is able to continue this surgery after seeing patients like myself.
She also told me that if patients are properly screened, they should not have problems.
I was properly screened, and i have major problems.
What's the truth?
I assume I was properly screened by my operating surgeon, but I suppose it's possible he lied to me. If he didn't lie to me and I was a good candidate, why do i have these vision problems?

I don't see a "cure" for myself and after three years of seeing many doctors and studying these forums, have learned to "accept" this condition, although I am far from happy about it. I still fight a daily battle of grief over my lost vision, sadness and depression. My eyes literally ache and burn every day, even though I've tried everything.

My question is this:
Do you believe that if you were properly screened before Lasik, you would not have had the problems that you did?
I would love to hear the respones.

Scott,

I wish there were some easy answers for you. I've talked to literally hundreds of people with complications, ranging from minor to extremely serious. By far, the most common complaint is dry eye that persists after surgery, even amongst those whose Schirmer's and TBU numbers appear to be within acceptable limits. We don't have a good understanding of this phenomenon, although there are theories about it.

Could you have been a good candidate and still have problems? ABSOLUTELY. I know people who had only mild to moderate myopia, adequate tear film, very skilled surgeons, uneventful surgeries, and no known contraindications for surgery, who still had unexplained poor outcomes. The vast majority of individuals who have refractive surgery report satisfactory results. For the significant minority with complications, there seems to be little awareness of the issues among their surgeons and even less understanding of why we end up with the problems we do.

Personally, I believe that had I been properly screened, I would not have had surgery. There were known contraindications (well, I know now...) and with dry eyes, very high myopia + astigmatism and large pupils, I was at greater risk for poor results.

Scott,

Were you properly screened? I don't know. I do know that patients with dry eye complaints following LASIK several years ago might still be considered good candidates today. I don't think the fault lies merely in proper screening techniques. I think post-LASIK dry eye is an indictment of the procedure moreso than screening procedures.

Some patients are not being screened well for dry eye and other conditions but we can't ignore the physiologic and neurologic changes inherent in the procedure. While bad outcomes in some cases can be placed squarely on the shoulders of the doctors involved in the surgery, we have to recognize that bad outcomes are always going to be part of the procedure. While many people think LASIK and other corneal surgeries will someday be "perfected", I personally don't believe it. The eye is almost the first structure to develop in embryos. On the evolutionary scale, it goes way back. Corneas are pretty amazing for providing good vision in spite of patients developing refractive errors that progress and change through life, in spite of cataracts and even after cataract surgery - all those changes in refractive error - yet we still get satisfactory vision with spectacles. Even with all the technology and all the noise about naturally occurring higher order aberrations in the cornea and lens, it is still the manmade HOAs that create the most frustration. Tampering with the optics of a healthy cornea, altering the nerve endings and the sensitivity it needs to function normally, will always be a compromise.

Being tested properly is certainly better than the alternative! The patient must consider that the physician cannot possibly predict how their individual surgery and healing process will proceed.

A corneal ulcer one year after lasik? Yes. Cataracts after lasik? Yes. Trigeminal neuralgia after lasik? Yes. Dry eyes after lasik? Yes. Cataract surgery with really bad outcome due to the previous lasik surgery? Yes. More dry eyes after lasik? Yes, yes, yes. Dry eyes frequently goes away in 6 months, or 1 year.

In some cases it does, and AW and I are two of the cases where this is just not the case. Lasik can last a lifetime, or seem like it. I'm saying that with sarcasm. My second life began 7 years ago and I want to go back, but can't.

quote:

after three years of seeing many doctors and studying these forums, have learned to "accept" this condition, although I am far from happy about it. I still fight a daily battle of grief over my lost vision, sadness and depression. My eyes literally ache

-------------------------------------
I was not properly screened. I had DRY eyes before Lasik but it was never mentioned and I was told I was a great candidate. Needless to say, I have suffered with dry eyes, tearing, blepharitis and poor vision. My tearing subsided after tear duct surgery but am having some lid problems now. It just never ends...I had LASIk in 2000.