Originally there was a mention of developing a less invasive method of correcting a deviated septum, but I guess they went with the harder problem first.
In any case I'm up for both, because while my vision is not terrible, it's slowly, but consistently getting worse, so max-twice-a-lifetime interventions like laser eye surgery won't cut it for me.
amelius · 41s ago
As we age, most of us will have to deal with farsightedness. What's the best option nowadays, besides glasses?
Topfi · 45m ago
Just for context and as this article only mentions LASIK and not other options such as (Trans-)PRK and SMILE, the majority of negative side effects one experiences post LASIK are not linked to the ablation/"carving" of the cornea, as they call it, but rather is a result of the need to sever the subbasal nerve plexus in the anterior stroma, which tends to be regenerate in a less comprehensive manner and significantly slower around the margins of the flap compared to other methods.
Flaps aren't inherently dangerous either (flap detachments are very rare, even more so with modern systems that create essentially a cavity where the flap can rest in), but the difference in healing post OP is a lead cause of heightened dry eye after LASIK. Both PRK and SMILE, due to the way they work, are less likely to suffer from this, but every procedure has trade-offs naturally.
With PRK, the epithelium in the area is removed and has to regrow, a process that takes a few days (to get the initial part done, full regrowth takes far longer but isn't noticeable in general). This regrowth can be both rather painful and also rob you of the "instantly perfect sight"-effect many people desire from their laser eye surgery. As the epithelium does regrow naturally however, it is less likely (both in theory and in medical literature) to lead to dry eye and other side effects in the short and long term, making it the preferred choice for many ophthalmologists.
SMILE, on paper, might be able to offer the best of both worlds, but is severely more expensive than either and there is not a sufficient degree of long term research to make a definitive statement that the side effect amount and severity is comparable to PRK, simply because it is rather new. What research is out there is promising though.
Overall, each option is very well tolerated, leads to major QOL improvements and we need to keep in mind that even the more common side effects one may face with LASIK may not affect everyone and still are comparably small considering other medical fields and their elective procedures.
In this context, I'm very excited to see whether this method might have even fewer short and long term side effects than PRK, but like with SMILE, it may take decades to have a conclusive answer.
Edit: Another thing I missed and which was not covered in the article, is the potential that this new method could be applicable to people who, because of a variety of factors, are not eligible for any ablative eye surgery. I myself was at the upper limit for Trans-PRK in regard to the severity of my Myopia and the thickness (or lack there off) of my Epithelium. In that regard, I see far more potential than just reducing already low side-effect risks further.
raverbashing · 16m ago
Very good writeup
My bet is on SMILE evolving but we'll see where it goes
chronogram · 1h ago
This seems ideal. The only question I had was whether it's permanent on living cells, "Potentially reversible" at the end makes me think it is.
brians · 1h ago
There’s a current product that does simple mechanical remodeling: sleep with this chunky contact lens in and the next morning you see better. But it wears off in ten hours or less.
platelminto · 5m ago
Night lenses! Yeah they're pretty crazy (I'm in the process of getting them and a friend of mine has them). 10 hours is low though - they're supposed to easily make your vision last all day, even two. My friend says he only really stops seeing well after 3 nights of not wearing them.
Would anyone know could they use this to fix the glares and halos from lights at night in person's vision, I understand cannot be fixed with any technology now? Including risk of making worse by laser surgery.
I only have wore glasses, i dont care about trying contacts. Its the glare with or without thats pretty bad driving at night in US
nelox · 22m ago
Halos and glare at night are usually a sign that something in the eye is scattering light. Sometimes it’s just uncorrected prescription, but it can also come from things like dry eye, early cataracts, or the way the cornea focuses light. Glasses can’t always fix that because they only correct the main focusing errors, not the little imperfections that cause glare.
Contacts (especially the rigid or scleral kind) can sometimes smooth out those imperfections, but if you’re not interested in them, the next step is usually an eye exam to look for things like lens changes or surface dryness. Cataracts, even very early ones, are a common culprit for glare driving at night in the U.S.
Laser surgery can sometimes make halos worse, especially if someone already has them, so you’re right to be cautious. But it’s not the only option. Treating dry eye, using anti-reflective coatings on your glasses, or addressing cataracts (if present) can all help a lot.
In short: it’s not hopeless, but the “fix” depends on what’s causing the scatter in the first place. A detailed eye exam is the best way to pin that down.
qskousen · 24m ago
Sounds like astigmatism, which I also have. I don't know if this procedure, unlike LASIK, can correct astigmatism. I know you said you weren't interested, but for me personally, wearing contacts (not glasses) completely fixes my astigmatism and makes it much easier to drive at night.
InMice · 19m ago
Oh, I wonder what about the contact lens makes it different. I should try then I suppose
selfsimilar · 26m ago
I think the word you're looking for is "astigmatism".
gambiting · 26m ago
As in, you have this without any eye surgery? My dad had LASIK and that gave him 20/20 vision but also what he described as horrible halos around all lights at night, to a point where he really found it difficult to drive in the dark. He had it done about 15 years ago so I wonder if the state of the art has improved in that area.
neffy · 23m ago
When I looked into it last year, it´s still an under-acknowledged issue. The impression I formed was that it was a bit of a crapshoot - along with some bad practitioners, there didn´t seem to be much information on when and why it would or would not occur.
chpatrick · 1h ago
I think they'll have to come up with a less scary name for it though.
boppo1 · 1h ago
Yeah, but knowing the analagous name for lasik is 'slicing off your cornea then gluing it back on', this one is immediately more appealing.
singularity2001 · 1h ago
Is it even glued on I thought it just put there and sticks through adhesive forces
serf · 58m ago
it's placed into a flap that is cut into corneal tissue.
the flap size itself keeps the lens in place; the elasticity of the underlying tissue itself, until it heals into an encapsulation.
the surgery videos of that procedure make me squeamish unlike other surgery videos. Watching an eyeball get deflated/inflated with liquid pressure from the surgeon is just un-nerving to me; not as bad as watching a glaucoma surgery -- but up there.
Tade0 · 9m ago
I heard about this research six years ago and at the time it was called "molecular surgery".
jacknews · 1h ago
This is amazing!
Let's hope it pans out for eyesight, and I'm sure there must be a whole lot of other things this could apply to.
https://www.youtube.com/live/Dw9D7C8CpM0?si=e-KJ8J2u_oVy4RvM
Originally there was a mention of developing a less invasive method of correcting a deviated septum, but I guess they went with the harder problem first.
In any case I'm up for both, because while my vision is not terrible, it's slowly, but consistently getting worse, so max-twice-a-lifetime interventions like laser eye surgery won't cut it for me.
Flaps aren't inherently dangerous either (flap detachments are very rare, even more so with modern systems that create essentially a cavity where the flap can rest in), but the difference in healing post OP is a lead cause of heightened dry eye after LASIK. Both PRK and SMILE, due to the way they work, are less likely to suffer from this, but every procedure has trade-offs naturally.
With PRK, the epithelium in the area is removed and has to regrow, a process that takes a few days (to get the initial part done, full regrowth takes far longer but isn't noticeable in general). This regrowth can be both rather painful and also rob you of the "instantly perfect sight"-effect many people desire from their laser eye surgery. As the epithelium does regrow naturally however, it is less likely (both in theory and in medical literature) to lead to dry eye and other side effects in the short and long term, making it the preferred choice for many ophthalmologists.
SMILE, on paper, might be able to offer the best of both worlds, but is severely more expensive than either and there is not a sufficient degree of long term research to make a definitive statement that the side effect amount and severity is comparable to PRK, simply because it is rather new. What research is out there is promising though.
Overall, each option is very well tolerated, leads to major QOL improvements and we need to keep in mind that even the more common side effects one may face with LASIK may not affect everyone and still are comparably small considering other medical fields and their elective procedures.
In this context, I'm very excited to see whether this method might have even fewer short and long term side effects than PRK, but like with SMILE, it may take decades to have a conclusive answer.
Edit: Another thing I missed and which was not covered in the article, is the potential that this new method could be applicable to people who, because of a variety of factors, are not eligible for any ablative eye surgery. I myself was at the upper limit for Trans-PRK in regard to the severity of my Myopia and the thickness (or lack there off) of my Epithelium. In that regard, I see far more potential than just reducing already low side-effect risks further.
My bet is on SMILE evolving but we'll see where it goes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthokeratology
I only have wore glasses, i dont care about trying contacts. Its the glare with or without thats pretty bad driving at night in US
Contacts (especially the rigid or scleral kind) can sometimes smooth out those imperfections, but if you’re not interested in them, the next step is usually an eye exam to look for things like lens changes or surface dryness. Cataracts, even very early ones, are a common culprit for glare driving at night in the U.S.
Laser surgery can sometimes make halos worse, especially if someone already has them, so you’re right to be cautious. But it’s not the only option. Treating dry eye, using anti-reflective coatings on your glasses, or addressing cataracts (if present) can all help a lot.
In short: it’s not hopeless, but the “fix” depends on what’s causing the scatter in the first place. A detailed eye exam is the best way to pin that down.
the flap size itself keeps the lens in place; the elasticity of the underlying tissue itself, until it heals into an encapsulation.
the surgery videos of that procedure make me squeamish unlike other surgery videos. Watching an eyeball get deflated/inflated with liquid pressure from the surgeon is just un-nerving to me; not as bad as watching a glaucoma surgery -- but up there.
Let's hope it pans out for eyesight, and I'm sure there must be a whole lot of other things this could apply to.