LASIK and -5...
Guest
Posts: n/a
LASIK and -5...
Apparently you can get your eyes operated and still get a class 1 after a year. But, your vision before the operation can't be worse than -5. My vision is about -5,75, so I would like to know if your preoperation vision really is checked, or do they take your word for it? (that your preoperation vision was within the limits?) I would like to know if it's possible to get around these rules. Some even say that it very hard to discover that the eyes have operated on, and if you don't tell them (the medical examiners) they won't even know. Can anyone give me some information? Thanks.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I may have misunderstood you - but are you asking whether the individual performing this precise surgical procedure is going to take your word regarding your prescription? Are you seriously contemplating ablative surgery thinking that you can fudge the figures?
They will vigourously check your eyes before performing any laser surgery.
Also, the post-op result is blindingly obvious to any Doc who performs a subsequent eye exam. You will not get away with lying about it so don't bother.
Best regards
They will vigourously check your eyes before performing any laser surgery.
Also, the post-op result is blindingly obvious to any Doc who performs a subsequent eye exam. You will not get away with lying about it so don't bother.
Best regards
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: England
Age: 40
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont really know but I would like to ask if anybody knows:
why the CAA won't allow more than -5? Its not like you can lose your laser eye surgery all of a sudden like you can lose glasses and then be left with poor eyesight in the middle of a flight?
why the CAA won't allow more than -5? Its not like you can lose your laser eye surgery all of a sudden like you can lose glasses and then be left with poor eyesight in the middle of a flight?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It may have something to do with how long the rule has been in place. As the procedure becomes more established surgeons will treat larger errors. The rule may have been put into place when the the general concensus was that only those with up to -5D refractive errors could be treated safely.
Most operators will treat up to -8D, with some treating even higher. However, the higher the pre-op error, the more likely that regression will occur post-op.
There is a limit to how much treatment can be performed, and that is the thickness of the cornea. You can't take away what isn't there, and you need to leave a certain thickness anyway.
One concern with pilots having refractive surgery is the eye dryness associated with sitting in a plane all day. The cornea thins when it becomes dry, which is a major problem if you have had a fair amount of it removed by a laser.
regards
[ 08 January 2002: Message edited by: Blindside ]</p>
Most operators will treat up to -8D, with some treating even higher. However, the higher the pre-op error, the more likely that regression will occur post-op.
There is a limit to how much treatment can be performed, and that is the thickness of the cornea. You can't take away what isn't there, and you need to leave a certain thickness anyway.
One concern with pilots having refractive surgery is the eye dryness associated with sitting in a plane all day. The cornea thins when it becomes dry, which is a major problem if you have had a fair amount of it removed by a laser.
regards
[ 08 January 2002: Message edited by: Blindside ]</p>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Blindside wrote:
"I may have misunderstood you - but are you asking whether the individual performing this precise surgical procedure is going to take your word regarding your prescription?"
Hi Blindside, thanks for your reply. What I meant was; is the doctor performing the class 1 eyecheck, going to ask for some kind of proof that my eyesight was less than -5 before the operation? Or will he be content with me just telling him that I've had eyesurgery and that my preoperation vision was less than -5?
Blindside continues:
"Also, the post-op result is blindingly obvious to any Doc who performs a subsequent eye exam. You will not get away with lying about it so don't bother."
I know that one shouldn't believe everything one hears, but I have information about a person undergoing ATC Class 1 (ATC, yes I know, but still) didn't tell the Class 1 doctor that he had had eyesurgery, and they didn't notice until he told them afterwards. He hadn't heard about people having to produce some kind of evidence of their preoperation vision, to the Class 1 doctor, either.
So my plan is; have my -5,75 eyes operated, take the Class 1 test after a year, telling them about the operation, saying that my preoperation vision was around -3.
Will I get away with it, you think? Can someone who have had eyesurgery and passed the Class 1 check, enlighten me about wether they demand proof of the preoperation vision?
I'm not really bad, I just want to fly.
Thanks.
"I may have misunderstood you - but are you asking whether the individual performing this precise surgical procedure is going to take your word regarding your prescription?"
Hi Blindside, thanks for your reply. What I meant was; is the doctor performing the class 1 eyecheck, going to ask for some kind of proof that my eyesight was less than -5 before the operation? Or will he be content with me just telling him that I've had eyesurgery and that my preoperation vision was less than -5?
Blindside continues:
"Also, the post-op result is blindingly obvious to any Doc who performs a subsequent eye exam. You will not get away with lying about it so don't bother."
I know that one shouldn't believe everything one hears, but I have information about a person undergoing ATC Class 1 (ATC, yes I know, but still) didn't tell the Class 1 doctor that he had had eyesurgery, and they didn't notice until he told them afterwards. He hadn't heard about people having to produce some kind of evidence of their preoperation vision, to the Class 1 doctor, either.
So my plan is; have my -5,75 eyes operated, take the Class 1 test after a year, telling them about the operation, saying that my preoperation vision was around -3.
Will I get away with it, you think? Can someone who have had eyesurgery and passed the Class 1 check, enlighten me about wether they demand proof of the preoperation vision?
I'm not really bad, I just want to fly.
Thanks.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had my sister in law on the phone last night asking me to look up internet sites regarding these operations. Not sure if you've looked at the Royal College of Ophthalmologists (London) web site: <a href="http://www.rcophth.ac.uk/publications/focus11.html" target="_blank">http://www.rcophth.ac.uk/publications/focus11.html</a>
It gives the gen on all the different types of operation and their possible drawbacks. It also gives a hint as to the questions you should be asking the people doing the operation! There are hunderds of other sites if you do a search on Lasik (mainly companies offering their services.) Interesting to see the rules have changed on this issue. I am considering it myself but will give the docs a couple more years to perfect their methods.
It gives the gen on all the different types of operation and their possible drawbacks. It also gives a hint as to the questions you should be asking the people doing the operation! There are hunderds of other sites if you do a search on Lasik (mainly companies offering their services.) Interesting to see the rules have changed on this issue. I am considering it myself but will give the docs a couple more years to perfect their methods.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would also like to know what the pre-operative limits are for astigmatism?? Anyone know? I understand that the class 1 first issue limit is 2.0 d's and 3.0 d's for renewal.. I'm currently 2.5 astigmatism but ok on refractive limits
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: South Africa
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello Bing. .Your eye surgeon will write a number of reports on the outcome of the surgery, immediately after, and usually at the 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up consultations. These reports will state both your pre-operative and your present prescription strength.. .The CAA will request to see a copy of these when you go for your medical 12 months after the surgery.. .However maybe it is not such a big problem as you think... I had RK done on my eyes 2 years ago which was partly to correct a small amount of astigmatism. At each follow-up my prescription varied by +/- 0.25. The CAA rules say that your vision has to remain stable and also that surgery may not have been to correct any astigmatism.. .When I went for my class 1 the optometrist told me that he is more interested in how your eyes are on the day because that is what really matters! . .Tricky one, I would say give the CAA at Gatwick a call. The person to speak to is Adrian Chorley who is the optometrist. He's very helpful and you could always pretend to be somebody else if you don't want to give him your name on the telephone.. .Good luck. .Dutchie
[ 21 January 2002: Message edited by: Dutchie2 ]</p>
[ 21 January 2002: Message edited by: Dutchie2 ]</p>
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Belfast, N Ireland
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My prescription pre-lasik was I believe in excess of -5. Vision now 6/6 and 6/7 uncorrected, 6/4 corrected. Underwent examination by team of 15 eye surgeons at request of my surgeon approx 6 months after lasik. None could see evidence of surgery using slit lamp though comment was made that eyeball length consistent with myopic eye. Obtained Class 1 JAA Medical. Not Gatwick. Didn't conceal history of Lasik though Dr said it was not possible to detect. Was asked what pre-op prescription was. Replied truthfully that I didn't know. Hoping to obtain CAA Class 1. Anyone able to explain pre-op -5 limit. (Still hoping surgeon will confirm I was below this threshold - I'll know next week)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is the story about my LASIK surgery and experiences with the CAA. It will probably answer some questions but is bound to raise a few more.. .. .I had LASIK performed on both eyes about two years ago at the age of 21. In November 2000 I passed the FAA Class 1 medical. The FAA’s only requirement is that the surgery is reported on the official form and that there are no adverse symptoms. However, at that stage the CAA was still refused to give initial Class 1 medicals to those who had undergone any kind of refractive surgery. This rule changed in 2001; the catch being that if you were outside the JAA’s refractive error limits before the surgery you could not get a medical after the surgery. A true Catch 22 scenario. Although I had very little myopia (0.5D) in each eye, pre-operative astigmatism of about 3.00D/3.50D meant that I was not eligible for a Class 1 or even Class 2. The CAA confirmed this themselves. I did consider lying in the medical and trying to hide the fact that the surgery had been done. At one stage I had even booked the Class 1 medical. However, a visit to my optician persuaded me to back out. She had a slit-lamp that was hooked up to a PC and could photograph digital images of the Cornea. Where the surgeon had cut a flap in my eye there was a scar that would be obvious to any medical examiner. In short, there is no hope of concealing LASIK. However, the optician did say that she had once met an ophthalmologist who had PRK performed on one eye. PRK does not leave a scar and my optician said that even a slit lamp examination would not indicate which eye had been operated on. Only corneal topograhy would give the game away. I cancelled the medical in the hope that visual standard modifications pencilled in for late 2001 would let me in. When the changes came there were only slight changes to the rules regarding eye surgery. The strange 5.00D pre-operative limit remained intact; the only changes were that there was no mention that surgery for astigmatism and hyperopia was prohibited. Leaving me very confused as to whether I was now Class 1 eligible I contacted the CAA by email and through my AME. My AME asked the CAA who replied that the pre-operative astigmatism meant that I was not Class 1 eligible; they would grant a Class 2 though. Next came the letter from the CAA themselves. The letter requested a surgeon’s report detailing pre-operative prescription and also a report detailing post-operative progress. After hearing the CAA’s reply to my AME, I assumed they were leading me on a not so merry dance. I decided not to spend/waste any money on a trip to an ophthalmologist so I just sent the CAA a spectacle prescription from before the surgery and an eye evaluation form that was used for my FAA Class 1 medical. When the letter from the CAA (late February) came, I though that my chances of being Class 1 eligible were in the rocking horse excreta league. This is what the CAA said: -. .. .“Thank you for your letter with enclosures. Your surgeon’s report is acceptable. If you were to come for your initial Class 1 medical, provided all is well you will be issued with a medical certificate issued under a long-term exemption as the UK are implementing a proposed set of rules before they have been fully ratified by the JAA”. .. .I don’t have the Class 1 medical yet but I’ll book it for a few months time. As I said at the start of my posting, this story is likely to raise as many questions as it answers. Really though, anyone who is outside the JAA refractive limits should consider using the Baytes method or seeing a vision therapist to reduce their refractive error. These crazy refractive error limits will hopefully disappear in the not too distant future.
The RAF state that any corrective surgery will lead to someone being grounded permamently / not being allowed to fly in the first place. Their objection is because the eyeball is weakened, and a rapid decompression (more likely in a military aircraft than civil) could lead to the eyeball rupturing. Not a nice thought. . .. .perhaps this gives some insight into the -5 limit. Any more than this leads to too much being taken away thus compromising strength.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: BC
Posts: 450
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope this information helps in regards to corrective eye surgery. This medical group is informative and up to date.. .. .<a href="http://www.aviationmedicine.com/lasik.htm" target="_blank">http://www.aviationmedicine.com/lasik.htm</a>
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dan Winterland, you’re right the RAF do not allow corrective surgery for pilots or any other branches of the service, the same goes for the Army and Navy. Forget any kind of career in the British armed forces (ground branches included) if you have had corrective surgery. However, all of the American and Australian armed forces permit eye surgery, for aircrew and ground crew. For aircrew though, I think that initial applicants are not permitted to have had corrective surgery. It was the case that initial applicants for the Police Force and Fire Brigade were not allowed laser surgery. Now, most forces and brigades are okay about laser surgery.. .. .You are also right about the possibility of the Cornea rupturing in rapid decompression, up to a point. The initial form of corrective surgery was RK, which involved a surgeon making relatively deep manual bicycle spoke incisions into the Cornea to change its shape. The Russian doctor, who developed this surgery Fyodorev, visited Britain on several occasions to demonstrate his surgical technique. My optician attended one of these lectures. Fyodorev was very proud of having operated on a number of Soviet Air force pilots. Hearing this, one delegate replied, “we have nothing to fear from the Soviet Air Force.” Several of the pilot guinea pigs suffered ruptured corneas during decompression and other surgical complications. The complications caused by RK are probably why the UK armed forces will not touch corrective surgery with a barge pole at fifty paces. . .. .The two types of laser surgery PRK and LASIK are far less brutal than RK Both rely on corneal mapping and lasers to change the shape of the Cornea. LASIK is a development of PRK that involves cutting a flap in the cornea before applying the laser treatment. This aids healing and allows higher levels of refractive error to be corrected but has caused some concerns over the integrity of the corneal flap, which is part of the corneas, structure. LASIK is only approved for ground branches in the US armed forces, pending the result of trials. However it is probably the best form of surgery out there, for now. Future advances in surgery are centred on creating super-human eyes with exceptional levels of uncorrected vision. Can the RAF really keep its head stuck in the sand over such developments?. .. .Why does the 5.00D pre-operative limit exist in the JAA regulations? As I said in my previous post it creates a Catch 22 situation. Without this limit, anyone outside of the current JAA refractive error limits who is serious about an aviation career would have the surgery. There would be loads of pilots out there who have undergone a form of surgery that still might (though unlikely) cause long term complications. It would also make a mockery of the JAA refractive error limits. The real reason for the pre-operative limits is JAA politics, not flight safety.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Belfast, N Ireland
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Relegated to Class 2
At initial Class 1 (IAA) a couple of years ago, I informed the eye doctor (truthfully) that I didn't know what my preop prescription was. She examined my eyes, and noted on the form "previously highly myopic". I was nevertheless issued with a JAA Class 1 cert.
I recently applied through IAA for a UK JAA Class 1 and was asked to provide a letter from my surgeon stating preop prescription. This confirmed that whilst I had actually been outside of the limits for Class 1 initial, I was OK for renewal or Class 2 initial.
The IAA has now issued me with a Class 2 Cert.
A word of advice then; make sure you make yourself fully aware of the necessary details of surgery, preop prescriptions etc because even if not pressed for this info at the Initial, you may well be later on!
Any comments anyone?
I recently applied through IAA for a UK JAA Class 1 and was asked to provide a letter from my surgeon stating preop prescription. This confirmed that whilst I had actually been outside of the limits for Class 1 initial, I was OK for renewal or Class 2 initial.
The IAA has now issued me with a Class 2 Cert.
A word of advice then; make sure you make yourself fully aware of the necessary details of surgery, preop prescriptions etc because even if not pressed for this info at the Initial, you may well be later on!
Any comments anyone?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: LASIK and -5...
Bing,
not so fast, lasik is an expensive operation. Since you will have to wait for 12 months anyway, I would wait a bit, JAA may change their requirements. After all, 5.75 is not too much over the limit.
Also, you can try to get a medical anyway, maybe they will make an exception.
As a last resort, you can go the States and get an FAA licence...
I'm in a similar situation, -5.5D, and haven't given up the dream of getting a CPL. I've got a bit of time, though, since I've currently got a career going, and if I want to, I can carry on with it for a few more decades...
Let us know how you get on.
András
not so fast, lasik is an expensive operation. Since you will have to wait for 12 months anyway, I would wait a bit, JAA may change their requirements. After all, 5.75 is not too much over the limit.
Also, you can try to get a medical anyway, maybe they will make an exception.
As a last resort, you can go the States and get an FAA licence...
I'm in a similar situation, -5.5D, and haven't given up the dream of getting a CPL. I've got a bit of time, though, since I've currently got a career going, and if I want to, I can carry on with it for a few more decades...
Let us know how you get on.
András
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Florida
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hrm, not meaning to be an alarmist (since I'd consider this procedure myself, had I the $$ 
) -just something for thought. Here's a recent happening here in the states:
The Arizona Daily Star
Friday May 10 06:18 AM EDT
Damaging eye surgery brings $4M
By Carla McClain , ARIZONA DAILY STAR
2001 Star photo
Steve Post, 35, of Sierra Vista, lost his job - and his career - after LASIK surgery destroyed his night vision. He had become a United Airlines (news - web sites) 737 captain about 10 years ahead of most pilots.
UA case yields biggest LASIK verdict ever
A former airline pilot who lost his job after undergoing LASIK eye surgery at a UA clinic was awarded a record $4 million in a unanimous jury verdict Thursday.
It is the largest award ever given in this country for damage done by the extremely popular, elective surgery to correct common vision problems.
The amount - more than double the previous LASIK damage record - was given to Steve Post, 35, of Sierra Vista. He was grounded by United Airlines a year ago, after LASIK surgery destroyed his night vision, leaving him unfit to fly for any major commercial airline.
Post had flown for United since 1991 and had risen to the rank of captain of the 737 jet about 10 years ahead of most pilots.
His surgery was performed in May 2000 at The LASIK Center in Tucson, affiliated with the University of Arizona, to correct nearsightedness and allow him to function without glasses or contacts.
"The bottom line is that no matter what the amount of the money, my career basically is gone and no jury award will bring it back," Post said shortly after yesterday's verdict in Pima County Superior Court.
"So I think this is a good point for me to go on with the rest of my life. No matter how small or large the award, I was just happy to have the jury validate what I did accomplish in my career, and that what happened to end it was not right."
After coming into widespread use by the late '90s, LASIK surgery - technically known as Laser-Assisted In-Situ Keratomileusis - has exploded in popularity, making it the most common elective surgery in the United States, surpassing even high-demand cosmetic surgery such as breast implants and fat suction.
About half of all Americans suffer the vision problems - nearsightedness and farsightedness - that LASIK can correct, enabling people to chuck their glasses and other vision aids (news - web sites). That's why nearly 2 million are expected to demand it this year.
An elective procedure - not considered "medically necessary" - LASIK is not covered by insurance, so patients pay out-of-pocket for it, at about $1,000 to $2,000 an eye. LASIK requires only 10 to 15 minutes of a surgeon's time, and has developed into a major money-maker for doctors and clinics, triggering intense competition for a high volume of patients.
Those high-profit dynamics are blamed by critics for a creeping number of bad outcomes - up to 5 percent of all patients - and about 200 LASIK-related lawsuits now working their way through U.S. courts.
Post is typical of many LASIK patients who suffer damage not because the surgery itself was botched, but because they were improperly screened and accepted as candidates, according to testimony in the case.
Post's attorneys - Robert Beal, Ted Schmidt and Michael Redhair - argued that the UA's LASIK team failed to accurately measure the size of his pupils in dim light. Patients with pupils that are especially large under those conditions are considered poor candidates for LASIK, because they often emerge from the surgery with damaged night vision, as Post did.
"I think the jury was very definitely trying to send a message that it's important for LASIK centers to properly train and supervise those who are doing the preoperative screening," said Schmidt.
"That's the single most important area where problems can be prevented."
Schmidt acknowledged that the surgery itself, done by UA chief of ophthalmology Dr. Robert Snyder, was "superb."
"The problem is, they should have never done it in the first place on Steve - he was not a proper candidate. And because of his occupation - which required him to fly planes at night - he should have had a very specialized screening. But they didn't even consider that," he said.
Attorneys for the defendants - the UA LASIK team and University Physicians Inc., the nonprofit doctors group at the UA College of Medicine - have not decided if they will appeal.
"Of course, we're disappointed with this verdict," said Jeff Campbell, who represented University Physicians. "I think UPI met the standard of care for this procedure in this region.
"And Steve Post was aware of the risks involved in LASIK, the possible outcomes were known to him and he elected to go ahead with it. Yes, we are disappointed, but this kind of thing can happen with a jury verdict."
During the trial, which began April 23, the eye surgeon, Snyder, argued that the preoperative pupil measurement was not related to the postoperative night vision damage, Campbell said.
"What happened was due to spherical aberrations in the eyes, that can be increased by the LASIK procedure," he said. "Every patient has some degree of aberration, but there is no way to know in advance how significantly it will be increased by LASIK. That differs in every patient."
Campbell described Snyder as a "very conservative" LASIK surgeon, who will not operate on a patient whose pupils are larger than the area to be ablated by the laser.
The $4 million awarded to Post was based on losing his high-paying career at such a young age and on the possible cost of future surgery to correct his vision damage, said his attorneys. Such surgery has not yet been approved in the United States and might not be available for three to five years.
"To be honest, the thought of undergoing another eye surgery doesn't seem like a very good idea to me right now," Post said.
In the past year, Post has radically changed his life - volunteering to work with troubled teens at the Cochise County Children's Center, where he is now employed as a behavioral health worker. He also volunteers as a court-appointed special advocate for youth and has trained his dogs to provide pet therapy for nursing home patients.
He said he plans to use some of his award to improve conditions and programs for neglected children in Southern Arizona.
Before yesterday's Tucson jury verdict, the largest award ever made to a LASIK patient was $1.7 million, to a 38-year-old Kentucky woman in November, after four flawed LASIK surgeries forced her to undergo a corneal transplant to restore vision in one eye.
The year before, a Buffalo, N.Y., man was awarded $1.2 million after his eye was lacerated by the laser, leaving him nearly blind without corrective lenses.
) -just something for thought. Here's a recent happening here in the states:The Arizona Daily Star
Friday May 10 06:18 AM EDT
Damaging eye surgery brings $4M
By Carla McClain , ARIZONA DAILY STAR
2001 Star photo
Steve Post, 35, of Sierra Vista, lost his job - and his career - after LASIK surgery destroyed his night vision. He had become a United Airlines (news - web sites) 737 captain about 10 years ahead of most pilots.
UA case yields biggest LASIK verdict ever
A former airline pilot who lost his job after undergoing LASIK eye surgery at a UA clinic was awarded a record $4 million in a unanimous jury verdict Thursday.
It is the largest award ever given in this country for damage done by the extremely popular, elective surgery to correct common vision problems.
The amount - more than double the previous LASIK damage record - was given to Steve Post, 35, of Sierra Vista. He was grounded by United Airlines a year ago, after LASIK surgery destroyed his night vision, leaving him unfit to fly for any major commercial airline.
Post had flown for United since 1991 and had risen to the rank of captain of the 737 jet about 10 years ahead of most pilots.
His surgery was performed in May 2000 at The LASIK Center in Tucson, affiliated with the University of Arizona, to correct nearsightedness and allow him to function without glasses or contacts.
"The bottom line is that no matter what the amount of the money, my career basically is gone and no jury award will bring it back," Post said shortly after yesterday's verdict in Pima County Superior Court.
"So I think this is a good point for me to go on with the rest of my life. No matter how small or large the award, I was just happy to have the jury validate what I did accomplish in my career, and that what happened to end it was not right."
After coming into widespread use by the late '90s, LASIK surgery - technically known as Laser-Assisted In-Situ Keratomileusis - has exploded in popularity, making it the most common elective surgery in the United States, surpassing even high-demand cosmetic surgery such as breast implants and fat suction.
About half of all Americans suffer the vision problems - nearsightedness and farsightedness - that LASIK can correct, enabling people to chuck their glasses and other vision aids (news - web sites). That's why nearly 2 million are expected to demand it this year.
An elective procedure - not considered "medically necessary" - LASIK is not covered by insurance, so patients pay out-of-pocket for it, at about $1,000 to $2,000 an eye. LASIK requires only 10 to 15 minutes of a surgeon's time, and has developed into a major money-maker for doctors and clinics, triggering intense competition for a high volume of patients.
Those high-profit dynamics are blamed by critics for a creeping number of bad outcomes - up to 5 percent of all patients - and about 200 LASIK-related lawsuits now working their way through U.S. courts.
Post is typical of many LASIK patients who suffer damage not because the surgery itself was botched, but because they were improperly screened and accepted as candidates, according to testimony in the case.
Post's attorneys - Robert Beal, Ted Schmidt and Michael Redhair - argued that the UA's LASIK team failed to accurately measure the size of his pupils in dim light. Patients with pupils that are especially large under those conditions are considered poor candidates for LASIK, because they often emerge from the surgery with damaged night vision, as Post did.
"I think the jury was very definitely trying to send a message that it's important for LASIK centers to properly train and supervise those who are doing the preoperative screening," said Schmidt.
"That's the single most important area where problems can be prevented."
Schmidt acknowledged that the surgery itself, done by UA chief of ophthalmology Dr. Robert Snyder, was "superb."
"The problem is, they should have never done it in the first place on Steve - he was not a proper candidate. And because of his occupation - which required him to fly planes at night - he should have had a very specialized screening. But they didn't even consider that," he said.
Attorneys for the defendants - the UA LASIK team and University Physicians Inc., the nonprofit doctors group at the UA College of Medicine - have not decided if they will appeal.
"Of course, we're disappointed with this verdict," said Jeff Campbell, who represented University Physicians. "I think UPI met the standard of care for this procedure in this region.
"And Steve Post was aware of the risks involved in LASIK, the possible outcomes were known to him and he elected to go ahead with it. Yes, we are disappointed, but this kind of thing can happen with a jury verdict."
During the trial, which began April 23, the eye surgeon, Snyder, argued that the preoperative pupil measurement was not related to the postoperative night vision damage, Campbell said.
"What happened was due to spherical aberrations in the eyes, that can be increased by the LASIK procedure," he said. "Every patient has some degree of aberration, but there is no way to know in advance how significantly it will be increased by LASIK. That differs in every patient."
Campbell described Snyder as a "very conservative" LASIK surgeon, who will not operate on a patient whose pupils are larger than the area to be ablated by the laser.
The $4 million awarded to Post was based on losing his high-paying career at such a young age and on the possible cost of future surgery to correct his vision damage, said his attorneys. Such surgery has not yet been approved in the United States and might not be available for three to five years.
"To be honest, the thought of undergoing another eye surgery doesn't seem like a very good idea to me right now," Post said.
In the past year, Post has radically changed his life - volunteering to work with troubled teens at the Cochise County Children's Center, where he is now employed as a behavioral health worker. He also volunteers as a court-appointed special advocate for youth and has trained his dogs to provide pet therapy for nursing home patients.
He said he plans to use some of his award to improve conditions and programs for neglected children in Southern Arizona.
Before yesterday's Tucson jury verdict, the largest award ever made to a LASIK patient was $1.7 million, to a 38-year-old Kentucky woman in November, after four flawed LASIK surgeries forced her to undergo a corneal transplant to restore vision in one eye.
The year before, a Buffalo, N.Y., man was awarded $1.2 million after his eye was lacerated by the laser, leaving him nearly blind without corrective lenses.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: europe
Age: 49
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hi there, aparently ,laser surgery is undetectable, only with "corneal topography" they can tell you had it done in your eyes (thats what my eye doctor told me) are you sure they will perform it in the first exam?
sorry for my english, spoken it is better !
cheers to all
RMM
sorry for my english, spoken it is better !
cheers to all
RMM
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PG123608 said that the Australian Military allows refractive surgery in all of it's services. This is true, up to a point. It is not allowed in initial applicants. Serving aircrew in some aircraft types are permitted to undergo PRK only (no LASIK), and can only be returned to flying after lengthy follow-up to ensure a suitable and stable result.
My understanding of the -5D limit for pre-operative refractive error, is that high myopes are at a significantly higher risk of retinal detachment after even relatively minor trauma. These are screened out of military flying at the entry medical, so it is usually not a problem there.
My understanding of the -5D limit for pre-operative refractive error, is that high myopes are at a significantly higher risk of retinal detachment after even relatively minor trauma. These are screened out of military flying at the entry medical, so it is usually not a problem there.
