Follow up to my "Walk in the park"

I agree. In my case cataracts progressed rapidly.  Optometrist 18 months prior corrected my eyes to 20/20 and mentioned cloudy lens but that didn't register.  Next visit (Jan 2017) could correct beyond 20/70 and 20/60.   Not sure why they progressed so fast.  I am not typical age and no family history cataracts in early 50's

Guess everyone is different but I do think any eye specialist to suggest lens replacement before medically necessary is irresponsible.

My left eye has only been observed by eye doctors to have an early stage cataract formed starting about 3 years ago, so its at least 5 years behind my right eye. Might take several years for it to show any noticeable affects since it still corrects fine to 20/15 and has nice clear vision compared to my right eye that has the cataract that causes blurry vision, night vision halos, and won't correct to better than about 20/50 in the daytime (worse at night).

So I'm mostly relying on my good left eye for the past couple years. I can get the cataract surgery on my right eye, but that would leave my left eye to probably have to wait for several years until its cataract progresses far enough.  After the right eye surgery is done and if its successful for giving me good distance vision in that eye, I might go back to using an RGP contact in the left eye set for good intermediate vision (-1D or so) which is what I used to have several years ago before my right eye's cataract affected my vision - I wore RGP contacts in both eyes for many years that corrected my significant astigmatism (left:-2D cylinder, right:-2.74D cylinder)

Sounds like you have  good plan.  Maybe there will be improved multifocal lenses for your good eye down the road to choose from.

Both my eyes were/are worse than your cataract he so really couldn't wait.  

 Night-Hawk-

My vision seemed like it was kind of foggy in mid summer, 2016 (appx). Some background: I had a lazy eye as a toddler, so until I had surgery to correct at age 13, I'd been taken to countless doctors, worn patches, and ultimately wore glasses from about age 5. It was this history that made me hyper aware of changes in my vision. In fact, I was so excited when LASIK first appeared and thought about doing it. Decided that potential side effects outweighed the possibility of being glasses free.

That visit was to an optician and it seemed the same as every other visit. Results were that there had been a slight change. Wrote a Rx for new glasses. Part of my problem with fuzzy vision may well have been due to the poor quality of lenses from Walmart. 

I questioned the optician about the presence of cataracts and glaucoma, just to make sure she had checked. She had me sit down again, even though she had indeed performed the tests. She saw no glaucoma and "a cataract just beginning to form". If I would have simply gotten a new pair of glasses, I would be fine today. 

But, I decided that it had been quite a while since a check by an actual eye doctor, and I still wasn't convinced there wasn't the optician missed. 

So, when the eye doctor said there were cataracts, my reaction was, "Yep...I just knew it!" That's all it took and my faith in him was established. His opinion was, as I've said",  no where needing them removed, but a lot of people aren't waiting to lose so much vision and are having the surgery earlier". For once in my life I was going to get ahead of something!

At this point, even if I could have a do -over, too many issues have cropped up and it would be impossible to determine whether I was seeing correctly. Retinal fluid is "seeping" over the top of eyeball, and I have black objects floating all over. Range in size from small to horsefly. There seem to be curtains that close when I blink. It has become such a problem to read, I get frustrated and would like to throw the laptop or whatever into the swamp. The letters jump and shift. The strabismus is back in all its glory. It takes a lot of conscious effort to pull it back. I wouldn't have thought this odd, in fact, I had specifically asked him about it because it sometimes felt like it was pulling more. He said the wandering was really insignificant. This was actually the same opinion of the optician and the ophthalmologist I'd seen 2 years prior.

 Same was true with astigmatism.  That was something that, for years, I'd been told was significant.  He said that it wasn't significant. 

When I started complaining, I remember his nurse specifically saying that he had corrected my astigmatism a bit, which seemed kind of stupid if it wasn't bad, and I was also beginning to wonder how much tweaking he tried to do with a scalpel. 

That's as much as I can think of right now, other than the off handed comments by the doctor who conducted the 2 week post surgical exam, and the optical fellow at the clinic I visited for a second opinion. 

Janet have you seen a retina specialist?  Reason I ask is at my post op visit when I learned my opthamologist was taking vacation I asked him about who should I see if there were problems and what signs I should pay attention to.  The curtains when you blink could be detached or torn retina.  Doesn't sound like your opthamologist is motivated by money and very little regard to patient.  Given

Your vision history and what you have gone through sounds like you should seek another expert 

Sorry. Just saw this😳

My surgeon sent me to retina specialist, but that's another strange occurrence. They got pretty snotty when I wouldnt drop the issue of curtains and all the other crap that seemed to be floating around my eyes. The surgeon was giving me the same answer that he couldn't see anything that would account for my symptoms. Before I left, he had me stick my face up to the machine for a last look and guess what. He was super surprised and said oh, there it is. Looks like some vitreous fluid was seeping over the front of my eye. Off to the retinologist to check for detachment. 

The reason he couldn't see what was going on prior to this visit, is that my right eye takes a very long time to dilate. Had he not taken a second look, he would  still be telling me I was crazy. 

The reason this bothers me is that I didn't think the nurse had instilled enough drops in my eye prior to surgery and maybe that's what messed up the results. AND, when he saw the possible tear that sent me to retinologist, i made a comment about right eye slow to dilate, and he told me he'd never noticed that before. Really? How the heck would I know if it was fast or slow if he hadn told me? Too many things that don't make

A lick of sense!!

I have never heard of implantable contact lenses.  Is that same as clear lens exchange ?

Actually, when someone's natural lens (with no cataract) is replaced by an IOL, then it's called refractive lens exchange (RLE). If a lens is inserted along with the natural lens, then it's called an implanted contact lens or implanted collamer lens (and if there's no cataract replacement, it's called a phakic IOL). So Janet had refractive lens exchange.

And both are considered alternatives to LASIK.

Thanks for explanation - not sure why a surgeon would promote that

Not sure I know what you mean. Mine were called IOL. 

If that's what I had, I don't recall ever having it explained to me. But, most things weren't explained very well. 

Do you live in a larger city.  I don't like sound of explanations (or lack there-of) of your eye doctor.  Really seek another one out for advice.  

I live in the suburbs of the Twin Cities in MN, so yes. I got a second opinion from another top clinic in the area. I asked that ophthalmologist specifically if my near vision is anywhere near what anyone would choose. She danced and danced around the issue, but ultimately agreed that it wasn't anything she'd suggest to her patients. 

For this reason, I honestly believe there  isn't one doc that would  be honest with me. I think they have each other's back when it comes to LASIK/laser procedures. 

It made sense to me when I read about the astronomical cost of these instruments for laser. So expensive that a lot of  clinics can't afford them so it's not unusual to share. 

If this is true, it would not be beneficial for anyone if people began questioning results. Just a thought. 

Our healthcare systems seem very different.  I can see pros and cons to both.  Due to our free healthcare for everyone we sometimes have enormous wait times for non emergency surgeries. you may need to see a 3rd or 4th specialist.  Maybe compile a list of questions.  In USA I know they are more concerned than Canada is over lawsuits so maybe tailor your questions around what the issues are with your eyes and there opinions on how to proceed with fixing them.  

They're called IOLs when used for cataract surgery or when used for refractive lens exchange.

Did your insurance cover your surgery?

To make money.

This was in response to where you asked why they would promote that.

Doesn't seem right that anyone in healthcare profession would put money above patient's best interest and suggest a procedure they don't need.  

Hi Nina,

Yes. Insurance paid for surgery because I opted to have scalpel surgery and the basic lens. 

Hi SueAnn

Just to clarify:  I've no intention of filing a suit against the doctor. Well...I guess if he caused irreparable harm to my eyes and it was directly connected to negligence on his part, I'd definitely see a lawyer. 

Stuff happens and I get that, but I can't shake the feeling they are giving me a line of bull. THAT angers me to no end.  To be told that this lousy outcome is what I asked for, is insulting. Since learning that there are quite a few reasons NOT to jump the gun and perform the surgery before it's needed, also infuriates me. But, I should have be a much more informed patient. 

One of the most disturbing side effects of having such a lousy outcome, is how crazy it makes me. I've ended up in tears at the grocery store when realizing I'd forgotten my cheaters in the van. It sucks because it was avoidable.  It sounds like such a bratty reaction, and I'm very thankful to not have ended up blind. 

I usually end up with two or three pairs of glasses on the top of my head, one will always be sunglasses as I literately cannot keep my eyes open in sun light or bright car lights. 1)Put the sunglasses on to drive 2) Remove sunglasses, put on cheaters to read gps. 3)Remove cheaters. Grope  about for sunglasses. 4) Repeat

👀👀

Oh boy.....That ship has sailed,  I'm afraid.

 It may be because I'm recently jaded, but in matters of elective surgeries and locating affordable and decent legal representation, people really don't matter. It's all about the dough$$$$!

What kind of IOL did you receive?  A standard mono focal lens?  

Doesn't seem right but that's how it works with elective surgeries like refractive eye surgeries and cosmetic surgeries (this is my opinion of course).

Then you had to have had a cataract bad enough for insurance to pay for it (you're in the US, right?). Insurance will not pay for RLE or other refractive eye surgery.

I find it almost impossible to believe an insurance company would pay for unnecessary surgery. Are you sure you didn't meet the minimum requirement for an insurance company to approve cataract surgery?

I saw you live in MN - I never heard of an insurance company that pays for elective surgeries.

After reading that its never advisable to perform cataract surgery until it's necessary, I had to wonder why my surgeon was so quick to offer it up as a suggestion. He told me it wouldn't be necessary for a number of years, and he certainly never pushed me to have the procedure. Yet, I was completely convinced this was right for me. 

I wouldn't have considered my surgery elective/cosmetic, but for all intents and purposes, it was. Maybe I'm being a bit conspiratorial, but is it beyond the imagination to think that the line between essential and elective eye surgeries is beginning to blur? The machines are astronomical in price and I'm sure advances are being made daily.  Considering the number of laser procedures that can be kicked through in a day, are some of the docs pushing the envelope? Just a thought. 

All I can tell you is that the optician didn't see enough of a cataract to mention it. After I asked her specifically if she was sure there were no cataracts or signs of glaucoma, she looked again and said no glaucoma and cataracts that were at very early stages. 

It was probably not more than a month before I saw the doc who would end up doing the surgery. He said it could take a number  of years before they needed to be removed. However, an ever growing number of people were choosing to have cataracts removed at this stage, while their vision was relatively decent. Why wait until it gets really bad. 

I have absolutely no idea what criteria my insurance company required. 

I have been told by eye doctors that cataract surgery is only supposed to be covered by insurance or medicare when its "medically necessary" which they usually require that the best corrected visual accuity of that eye is 20/40 or worse. Thats where I'm at now in my right eye, worse than 20/40 at best correction with eyeglasses so its deemed "medically necessary" but still up to me to decide when I want to do it.

It is same here in Canada - in order for Mexicare to cover the cost of cataract surgery best corrected visual acuity has to be 20/40 or worse.  She me cataracts take years to develop whereas some develop quickly like mine mine did.  

I think the benchmark of 20/40 is where one would fail the eye test for drivers license.

Then it sounds like your doctor falsified your records that were sent to the insurance company.