Posts by Kenneth Fisher3

coastalstag6 said:Thanks so much...
Just wondering, could anyone point me toward an example of a condition that wouldn't actually show up on a standard blood panel?

Well, there's quite a few—things like spinal issues, osteoarthritis (that's the bone cartilage stuff), most mental health conditions, keratoconus (which affects the eyes), retina or optic nerve issues, sinus problems, certain bladder infections, or even heart anomalies and valve issues. Since I'm definitely not a doctor, this is probably just a tiny fraction of the actual list!

Medical experts generally agree that symptoms like those usually only happen when there’s a massive impact—the kind where things get crushed directly against the pelvic bone.
Honestly, I think the guy should just come clean about who actually hit him instead of trying to hide it.
A stray soccer ball just doesn't do that to you. Back when I was in middle school, getting hit in the groin with a ball was basically a daily occurrence—it happened all the time! Aside from some temporary soreness, nobody was ending up with swelling or, God forbid, blood in their urine. Even when things got a little rowdy during recess and kids would take wild kicks to the junk, it was usually just a sharp pain and then it was over. So, in my opinion, this had to be a violent, direct strike against the bone. It sounds like the kid is just trying to protect someone and is too embarrassed to spill the details.
If you aren't at fault, I say go ahead and sue whoever did this!
And please, make sure he sees a doctor immediately—with injuries this serious, sometimes you need emergency surgery to fix everything.

Daniel Johnson3 said:I've noticed my vision in my left eye is getting a little blurry lately. But—get this—if I press slightly on my eyelid, everything suddenly snaps back into focus. WTF. Does anyone know what might be causing that?

It sounds like it could be astigmatism.
It’s usually nothing to worry about—honestly, most people have at least a little bit of it—and it basically just means you'd see much better with some glasses.
I actually deal with the exact same thing! If I press on my eye under my eyelid, it clears up, but since I already wear glasses to correct my astigmatism, it doesn't actually make the image any sharper than it already is.

Ryan Carter52 said:Hey Billy the Kid, thanks so much for the detailed breakdown and those links!
Unfortunately, those guys aren't even an option!
Back in 1995, I actually gave hard contact lenses a shot—my eye doctor insisted they were a healthier choice than the soft ones—but man, I just couldn't stand them. They were so uncomfortable! Then, when I went in to get a new prescription about a year ago, things got even weirder. The technicians couldn't even get an accurate reading because apparently, after having laser surgery, the surface of your pupil changes shape. They told me there’s a real chance I might never be able to wear contacts at all. To top it all off, my glasses prescription is -3.5, but when they measured me for contacts, they came back at a 5.0?? It's such a headache.

So, I was just digging through some old records from my laser clinic the other day—you know how it is, always finding little nuggets of info when you least expect it—and I found this:
Pre-op checkup:
I'm looking at some Tonus Apl 19mm—for both eyes.
I just got my Schirmer test results back—looks like I'm sitting at 5mm for both eyes.
I just got my latest eye exam results back from Medtronic—it’s always a little nerve-wracking waiting for those numbers to pop up! So, here is the breakdown: my spherical correction is sitting at 0.00, my cylinder is at 0.60, and the axis is at -14.0. Honestly, it’s nothing too crazy, but I guess I'll be seeing my optometrist again sooner than I thought!

It’s been 8 days since my surgery—and honestly, I'm hanging in there!
Just got my latest eye exam results back from Medtronic—sc is sitting at 0.30, cc is up to 0.70, and my correction is -0.25. Not exactly perfect vision, but hey, we're getting there!
So, looking at the numbers—the projected post-op prescription is sitting right at -1.50.
Optical zone: 5.50mm

So, I was looking back at my old glasses prescription from way back in 2008, and it says this:
So, I just checked my prescription and I'm sitting at a -3.50—not too bad, but definitely enough to make life a bit blurry without my glasses! It’s funny how you don't realize how much you rely on them until everything starts looking like an impressionist painting. Anyone else in a similar boat?
My vision is looking a little bit off lately—I’m sitting at 0.5 in my left eye and 0.8 in my right.
So, I was just looking at my latest measurements—my pupil diameter is sitting right at 6.5mm! It’s funny how much you start noticing these little details once you get into the swing of things, isn't it?

I’ve been doing a bit of digging through some American forums lately, and I'm seeing a lot of people talking about going back in for follow-up procedures—some opting for LASIK and others for PRK. It seems like everyone is having a pretty great experience; most folks are reporting that everything went smoothly and, best of all, those annoying halos they were dealing with have finally cleared up!
Of course, it all really comes down to how much healthy tissue they have left over from that first surgery—that’s the deciding factor in whether a second procedure is even an option at all.
At my first consultation, they told me I could easily go down to -18 without any issues—totally safe for the eyes, considering how much thickness we have to work with!
So, I guess I’ll probably need to head over to Medtronic just for that initial consultation—you know, to get a clear picture of where things actually stand. Once I have the full rundown, then I can make a real call on whether I should go through with the surgery or just leave things exactly as they are.

To be honest, I don't think most ophthalmologists are really equipped to handle the tricky post-LASIK issues—at least not based on what I’ve seen. It feels like a lot of eye doctors actually know surprisingly little about laser correction procedures. My hunch? If you have an irregular cornea, those automated computer tests might just get totally tripped up because the curvature isn't uniform. It's a bit of a headache, really!
You know, there are actually specialists overseas who focus specifically on crafting custom semi-rigid lenses—they basically design them from scratch to fit each patient's unique eye shape. You just send over an eye scan, and they mail the finished lenses right to your door! There’s actually a whole deep dive on this in that massive thread about laser eye surgery started by Disney, who deals with some pretty similar issues himself. Here's the link:

I read about this a while back—I can't quite remember which page it was on, though—but I think the post is probably around a year old now.

When it comes to those 6.5mm pupil measurements, I have to say—I’m a little skeptical about the conditions they were taken under. Some of these machines aren't exactly cutting edge; they can give you a reading even if the lighting isn't totally dark or if the focus is slightly off. In my experience, if you really want an accurate number, you've got to use an infrared pupilometer. It just makes a world of difference!
I was just looking back at that thread I linked earlier regarding how some of our local clinics handle their measurements—and honestly, it’s a bit of a mess. To put it bluntly, the methods they're using are completely unreliable. It’s like they aren't even trying to get it right! Take the staff over at Mayo Clinic, for example—it wouldn't have been any harm to actually check the pupils without all that light interference. In fact, there's a good chance they still haven't bothered to do it properly.
Looking at those results you shared—specifically that comparison of best-corrected vision before and after the procedure—it does show an improvement from 0.6 to 0.7. But here’s the thing about high myopia: when you're looking through glasses, everything looks a bit smaller, which can make your measured visual acuity seem lower than it actually is. If we were talking about contact lenses, the numbers would look totally different! So, it's very likely that the surgery didn't actually change your vision compared to what you could achieve with lenses. Also, let's be real—visual acuity changes depending on how much light you have, but these clinics usually ignore that part of the equation when they're trying to show off how successful their surgeries were.

When they mentioned that the cornea is safe for LASIK up to -18 diopters, they weren't actually talking about avoiding GASH—they were referring to keratoconus. That’s the condition where the cornea becomes too thin under the LASIK flap. Honestly, it might be theoretically impossible for someone with a -18 prescription to undergo an older laser treatment without facing GASH symptoms; you'd need unlit pupil sizes to stay under 4mm, which—if you ask me—is highly unlikely to happen at all.
And even with keratoconus, there's no absolute guarantee it won't develop, even if the corneal thickness under the flap stays above 250 micrometers.
So, why would some surgeons still push ahead with these procedures? Well, it’s pretty obvious they figure a patient's signed consent regarding GASH risks covers their tracks—basically treating the risk as "not that big of a deal" since they're tackling high myopia, and many patients could just settle for hard contact lenses anyway. If clinics were too strict about the wide-pupil criteria, they’d lose too many customers, which means less revenue and potentially putting the whole practice in the red.

Here are some forum links related to this topic:
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Laser-Eye...tarburst-1.htm
http://www.lasik-flap.com/forum/view...a04686b8e9e4b6
http://www.lasermyeye.org/forums/sho...?t=2553&page=4

The issue with clinics here in the States is that they often lack the top-tier tech needed to handle these specific complications. Plus, some surgeons act more like irresponsible businessmen than medical professionals (especially when they don't bother measuring unlit pupils). It's also hard to say how effective the Ivis Suite mentioned in that last link really is; until some actual peer-reviewed research comes out, we're mostly just relying on anecdotal stories from forum users, which can be hit or miss.

Undergoing surgery always carries extra risk. It wouldn't hurt to have a chat with Dr. Smith over at Medtronic just to gather more info, but please—take everything with a grain of salt. Surgeons can sometimes be a bit too "persuasive" when they want to close a deal and secure that procedure fee.
Getting LASIK again could lead to some really tough consequences for you, because the flap would have to be lifted a second time, which usually leads to subpar results. On top of that, if -18 is the limit, using a new LASIK correction to fix your standard prescription would likely bring the corneal thickness under the flap down to
right at the bare minimum threshold that surgeons consider acceptable.
PRK can offer better results, but if you've had LASIK before, you'd always have to use MMC, and we still don't truly know what the long-term risks of that are.
Still, I wonder if PRK would even work for correcting your prescription, since you'd have to go quite deep into a flap that's already questionable in thickness. If the goal is just to reduce higher-order aberrations (rather than fixing the actual prescription), then maybe it's doable. But is current laser technology truly mature enough to solve these issues with total certainty? That's a huge question mark for me. I haven't found any research that proves it works reliably; most studies just seem to debunk the fears. People on forums claim the Ivis Suite is the most powerful tool for these issues, but until the data is published, it’s really just a matter of faith.

Ryan Carter52 said:Hey everyone! I figured I’d start a fresh thread here instead of dragging out that old three-mile-long discussion.
I had Lasik back in April 1999. My prescription was sitting at -14 (Myopia)
Back then, Lasik was basically the "next big thing"—everyone was talking about it.
After my initial exam, the doctor told me my corneal thickness was great—enough to actually bring a -18 down to zero, so I thought, "No worries!"
Well, things happened. About two years later, I drifted back to -1.5, and after another two years, I hit -3.5—which is where I've been stuck for over five years now. Honestly, I played a part in that too, since I went nearly four years without wearing glasses, which I'm sure didn't help the prescription creep.
Now, I’m looking at doing it all over again for a few reasons:

- Getting rid of the prescription entirely
- Poor vision (I struggle with fine details at a distance, and even if I try stronger glasses, everything just gets blurry because the prescription is too strong)
- Most importantly: the halo effect—that massive, annoying glare whenever I look at bright lights.

Looking at the Visumed or LensCrafters websites, they mention you can successfully fix those glares and other higher-order issues using an extra method called Wavefront or something similar.
So, I have a few questions for anyone who has gone through this with them:

- Is it actually possible to have a second procedure, like PRK, after having already done Lasik 11 years ago?
- Do they take care of both eyes in one go?
- Can you combine PRK with that Wavefront method, and will the halo effect finally be gone after a PRK procedure?
- Do I really need to bring someone along with me on the day of the surgery?
- What’s the ballpark cost difference between PRK and Lasik at a place like Visumed?
- How long is the wait for the first consultation versus the actual surgery?
- Which method is better for improving night vision?

Thanks in advance for the help!

P.S. I never dealt with dry eyes or eyelid issues; everything healed up perfectly. I just used some lubricating drops for the first three weeks, and that was that.

Best,

First off, could the moderators please move this post to the main long-term thread about laser eye correction?

What we're looking at here are symptoms of GASH (glare, halos, and starbursts), likely caused by an effective optical zone that's just too small—especially as the correction depth increases. Older lasers often had an optical zone of maybe 6mm, which might drop by 10% at -5 or 20% at -10. So, the effective zone was probably only 5mm at most. Since the average unlit pupil in younger people is around 7mm, the laser's zone likely didn't cover the whole pupil, which is why vision suffers in low light. It's been mentioned before that many clinics here don't really account for how pupils behave when they aren't focused or in the light.

To be blunt, what Visumed is advertising is mostly just marketing. It's totally unrealistic to expect your vision to be fixed exactly like those perfect diagrams show.
http://hr.opticalexpress.com/advance...wavefront.html

This shows the removal of aberrations in a 6mm zone using the same type of laser used at Visumed.
http://www.eyespacemd.org/App_Themes...nWavefront.pdf

However, the results are unpredictable. Only about 20% of people see significant improvements, while there's a similar chance of seeing more noticeable worsening or other risks from a second surgery. If you were to use PRK, the result might be slightly better, but it's worth noting that this study was based on a 6mm zone. In reality, the zone needs to match the width of your pupil, and since VISX only has a 6.5mm optical zone, I think if they tested against the size of an unlit pupil, the results would be much worse. I've read on international forums about trying to solve this, and honestly, there isn't a guaranteed surgical way to fix it yet. That said, semi-rigid or hybrid contact lenses can often help quite a bit—you might have better luck trying to solve the problem with those.

Elizabeth Jackson64 said:I have the exact same prescription—at night, I honestly can't see a thing. I think it's because my eyes struggle to merge the different focal points into one clear image... 🤷 either way, driving at night would be a total disaster without my glasses...

It really varies from person to person! I used to get those same splitting headaches back in college during lectures—just constantly switching my focus from the chalkboard to my notebook over and over again...

Oops, sorry about that mistake! I was reading a similar thread the other day and totally mixed up my facts 😛

Anyway, the girl who started this whole discussion actually got her issue sorted out 🙂

-0.5 is definitely enough to make your vision significantly worse in low light. I actually looked this up on a medical site, and apparently, with a -0.5 correction, average visual acuity drops to about 60%. And honestly, for people with wider pupils (which can range anywhere from 5-9mm), it could be even lower in dim settings. When you aren't using any corrective lenses, that tiny difference in prescription doesn't play much of a role for distance vision—if both eyes were at -0.5, your far-off vision would look pretty much identical or just negligibly better.
In my opinion, it's a real oversight when an eye doctor won't prescribe glasses for a -0.5 prescription—especially since if the DMV finds out you're even at a -0.25, they'll slap a restriction on your license making glasses mandatory for driving.

Melissa James70 said:They probably actually measured her at 0.25 instead of 1.25.
There’s just no way she’d be feeling things with an S of -1.25.

Honestly, I think it's almost impossible for a -0.25 prescription in both eyes to cause headaches when reading up close or staring at a computer screen—I mean, sure, maybe that was what they measured, but that wouldn't be the culprit behind the headaches. A tiny bit of nearsightedness (especially without any astigmatism or a big difference between the two eyes) doesn't usually trigger headaches during near work; if anything, you might feel even less strain than you would wearing glasses.

Elizabeth Jackson64 said:exactly... 1.25 is actually a pretty significant prescription, whether it’s nearsighted or farsighted—and since you couldn't see the eye chart clearly, it's almost certainly a minus. You might even have a weird mix going on, like one eye being -1.25 while the other has a slight plus... if that's even possible, lol! But honestly, it doesn't matter much right now—the main thing is that you can finally tell the difference between seeing with glasses and without them. Just a heads-up though—your headaches might actually get a little worse for about the first week or so while your eyes adjust to wearing glasses for the first time. Anyway, I'm just glad you're getting this sorted out. 🙂

I didn't catch the OP mentioning she couldn't read the eye chart, but if there's a mismatch between the eyes, vision at a distance is usually okay because the brain tends to favor the image from the farsighted eye and basically ignores the blurry input from the nearsighted one. That discrepancy between the two eyes can definitely trigger headaches, though it isn't the only culprit—there are plenty of other reasons why someone might be dealing with head pain. If there was a -1.25 in either eye, an American optometrist would have caught that immediately during a standard exam, unless they didn't test each eye individually—which seems unlikely. Also, with a +1.25 prescription in younger people, distance vision usually stays fine because their eyes have strong accommodation to compensate for it. Unfortunately, accommodation can't really make up for a minus prescription.

Nicole Castillo26 said:Thanks so much for the reply!

So, I headed over to that Mickey Mouse optical shop today—a friend recommended them, they're over on Rockefeller 🙂. They did a full exam, used all the high-tech computer stuff and everything, and concluded I'm at a -1.25 prescription. It’s actually the worst kind, honestly—you don't even realize you need them because nothing looks blurry, but my eyes just get so incredibly tired, especially when I'm working hard—looking at my phone, the monitor, whiteboards, reading, you name it...
I went ahead and picked out some frames right then and there (my head was hurting worse than Harry Potter's, but now I actually look like Harry Potter 🙂 ) and I'm picking them up tomorrow!!

Yay!

With a -1.25, it's actually impossible to see everything clearly without anything being blurry. That prescription wouldn't give you more than 50% distance vision, unless you're in bright daylight, squinting, or really straining. In dim indoor lighting when your eyes are relaxed, your sharpness with that prescription is probably only about 30% of your max. Basically, what you can barely see from 10 feet away with glasses, you might only be able to see from 3 feet away without them in low light without squinting.
It's likely either a +1.25, or maybe it's just -1.25 in one eye while the other is fine or has a smaller correction—it could even be astigmatism in one eye; that's usually marked as "cyl."

ruggedhawk11 said:But I grew 2 cm since last year... Does that mean I can only get maybe another 0-3 cm total?? (roughly)??

Well, if we assume the measurements were actually accurate—maybe another half inch at most—it's worth noting that you'll always measure a bit taller in the morning than you do at night; I read somewhere that you can be up to an inch taller right when you wake up! Plus, if someone has bad posture, straightening out their spine might add a little height too. Both of those things don't actually count as true growth, though.

redsailor15 said:I grew three inches between fifteen and eighteen, so you still have some time on your hands :P
nothing happens after eighteen, though I ended up hitting 6'3"...

Yeah, but I’m guessing you didn't just sprout an extra inch between being 14 and 15 like the original poster did—you probably shot up way more than that! I mean, if Bosanacusrac actually grew 7cm over the next three years, his growth spurt would have had to pick up speed compared to the year before. But that’s just not how it works biologically—once you hit that stage where your growth starts to taper off after puberty, there's no "speeding up" again; it’s really just a gradual slowdown from there.
It’s funny how much variety there is—you've got some guys who hit their stride after they pass that 6-inch mark and end up well over 8 inches, while others just stay exactly where they started. It really is a total toss-up!

ruggedhawk11 said:I messed up my math... I've grown 2 cm since last year, not 2 from before! Does that actually mean anything?

Well, here's the thing—during childhood or even through puberty, the growth rate for a typical American kid rarely ever dips below 4 cm a year. Usually, you're looking at about 5-6 cm during childhood, and then during those peak puberty years, it can easily jump over 10 cm in a single year. So, seeing a number like yours means your growth has definitely slowed down significantly. Next year, you'll likely see an even slower pace, and there's a real chance things might just hit a wall and stop altogether. How much height is left in the tank? Honestly, I'd guess maybe another 0-3 cm at most.
Generally speaking, once things start slowing down, the growth rate tends to cut in half almost every year—though, of course, some people just hit a sudden plateau regardless of that rule.

wearybison14 said:With my glasses, everything is much sharper and easier to see.
Since I spend most of my time on the computer, I usually have them on to keep from straining my eyes too much.
They are pretty old, though. They get in the way when I'm walking around because they're all scratched up, but for watching TV or working, they get the job done.

Honestly, your best bet is probably to head to a different eye doctor with your old prescription just to be safe. I mean, there's no way you don't need glasses if your current pair actually gives you sharper vision—plus, that kind of astigmatism doesn't just vanish overnight.
That machine they use to measure your vision clearly missed the mark because it was totally off. Even with your current prescription and those cylinders, being able to read the letters on a chalkboard from the back row isn't proof that you don't need help. For example, I have -0.75 astigmatism in one eye, and if I get lucky, I can hit all the letters on the 20/20 line without any correction—but once I put on my astigmatism lenses, I can easily clear the 20/15 line.
Besides, it’s not just about how sharp things look. Having uncorrected astigmatism or a big difference in prescription between your eyes can cause headaches, general discomfort, and even mess with your depth perception.
So, the big question is: could you just wear glasses that correct the cylinder part?
I think you could, and it shouldn't be an issue. Given your age, I doubt a simple +0.75 would cause all that trouble on its own; the real culprit is likely the astigmatism and the fact that it's significantly different between your two eyes.

Angela Wright said:You can, and you probably will. Most people keep growing until they hit 20 or 21.

Now, if you look at some of the theories out there, they say growth can actually continue until you're 27 or 28. But let's be real—it’s pretty rare for someone to grow more than an inch after they turn 19. By that stage, any progress is usually just tiny increments, like millimeters. It isn't even that unusual to see girls stop growing entirely after 13, just like it's not unheard of for guys to basically stall out after 15. I remember back in my high school days, I had plenty of guys in my class who didn't grow a single thing after they were 14 or 15—maybe an inch or two if they were lucky.
In my opinion, if your growth has already slowed down to the point where you're only gaining maybe 2cm over two years, you've likely reached your limit. You might squeeze out another inch or so, but that's about it.

wearybison14 said:Thanks for the info.
I need to dig deeper then. My vision has been giving me real trouble lately, but apparently, everyone ignored my astigmatism during the last exam.
Everything gets blurry and it's making me nauseous.
Plus I get headaches and dizziness. I have no idea what's causing it.

The biggest issue is driving. I can't tell the difference between the shoulder and the road. Once, I thought they had widened the lane, but it was just the shoulder and I hit it because I couldn't see the height difference.

Same thing on three-lane highways. When I'm in the middle lane, it's hard to focus on the lines without drifting into another lane. That's why I went to the eye doctor, but they told me I don't need anything.🤷

So should I only be wearing glasses for the astigmatism? Without the actual prescription?

By the way, how does your vision hold up with your old glasses while you're driving, sitting at the computer, or looking left and right? Is it better or worse than going without them at all?

Douglas Green31 said:It's possible, though unlikely.
Especially since you mentioned your vision feels worse lately.

Dealing with astigmatism and shifting prescriptions can be a headache.
I actually had an eye exam recently because I noticed my vision slipping.
Everything looked crystal clear during the tests, and the ophthalmologist gave me a prescription that seemed perfect in the office.
But once I actually got my contacts and started wearing them, I realized I needed a stronger prescription after all.
It makes no sense, considering I passed every test he gave me.

Even now, my vision fluctuates between being sharp and being blurry.
I'm blaming it on astigmatism. It isn't severe—they don't even make lenses for my specific cylinder measurement—but clearly, even a small amount is causing issues.

You need to get a second opinion.
I get why you're frustrated, but what else can you do?
Keep struggling with an incompetent doctor?

I know it's a hassle and it's infuriating, but go see a specialist who knows what they're doing so you can actually fix this.

A +0.75 change isn't massive, but it's enough to be annoying.

As for the subtitles, that's likely the astigmatism talking.
If you truly have a farsightedness issue (+ prescription)—which is a bit odd given how young you are, since that usually hits later in life—you'd struggle with reading up close, but distance vision should be fine.

Most people with decent vision actually have some kind of plus prescription. A "zero" prescription is basically a myth—it would mean the length of your eyeball perfectly matches the focal point. Mathematically, that's almost impossible because there's always going to be some deviation. Just a single millimeter difference in eyeball length creates a 3-diopter shift! Almost every young person who claims they have perfect vision without glasses actually has a tiny bit of "plus" in their eyes, but it's not enough to require reading glasses or anything. Since young people have great accommodation (that ability of the eye to focus), they easily compensate for it. However, accommodation won't help you with a "minus" prescription, which is why even a -0.5 can noticeably blur your distance vision.
So, how does someone so young end up needing a small plus prescription?
Usually, it's because that plus prescription comes along with a significant cylinder or a difference in power between the two eyes. You rarely find a healthy 20-year-old who needs +0.75 in both eyes without any cylinder; if a computer scan shows +0.75, their vision would feel the same with or without glasses. The only real difference is that the glasses might let them see something sharply at 5 inches from their face instead of 5.5 inches. Basically, the glasses let them see fine details closer up, but thanks to strong accommodation, they can still see great up close without them. Near-vision issues usually don't kick in until much later when the eye's focusing power starts to fade.

wearybison14 said:Fine, I will. But I was just wondering if anyone actually knows if my vision could have improved on its own? I’m trying to give this doctor at least a little credit. :-)

Astigmatism isn't something that just goes away on its own. Now, farsightedness (that plus diopter stuff)—well, that can shift a bit as you get older, sometimes even flipping over to nearsightedness—but regardless, a tiny plus prescription like yours wouldn't be the culprit behind headaches or blurry vision. At your age, your eyes usually compensate for that kind of small change pretty easily through accommodation.
Looking back at your previous measurements, the cylinder reading in your left eye was way too low to cause any real trouble. Usually, when you look with both eyes open, your brain just leans on whichever eye sees better—though it doesn't always work perfectly for every distance. A +0.75 correction in younger people doesn't really impact sharpness or cause headaches, and a -0.25 cylinder is almost negligible. If your vision feels the same whether you use just your left eye or both together, it’s a telltale sign that your right eye is the one throwing things off—basically, the cylinder measurement there is likely too high for smooth vision. Could that trigger headaches or dizziness? Honestly, yeah, it’s possible. When there’s too much of a mismatch in cylinder readings between the two eyes, they struggle to stay in accommodative balance. Some people's brains are great at filtering out the "bad" image from one eye, but for others, it's a real struggle.
My best advice? Head over to a different eye clinic and bring your old prescription with you. It's highly unlikely that your right eye's cylinder just vanished into thin air! Plus, those screen-related issues don't *always* have to be about your prescription, though they certainly can be.
If you show them the old results, they can cut lenses that match those specific numbers so you can test whether life is actually better with or without them. Some places, like a big chain like LensCrafters, often have free digital eye exams, so you shouldn't have to shell out extra just for the measurement.

wiredridge152 said:if they weren't checking things like activity levels and all that stuff...

The search my cousin did was for VEP—Visual Evoked Potentials. Basically, they place electrodes on the back of your skull—right where the visual processing center is—and connect them to special glasses you wear while looking at things.

It’s totally possible this could be neurological—like, something happening in the brain itself, maybe specifically in the visual processing center. A cousin of mine dealt with something similar; she had this constant glare issue and her vision would just blur out randomly. She went through every eye exam under the sun, and honestly, everything came back perfectly normal. But eventually, her doctors realized they needed to look deeper and sent her for some brain imaging. It feels a bit strange to me that they haven't suggested further testing for you yet, because the root cause doesn't necessarily have to be an issue with your eyes. The facility where my cousin went for those specialized scans is located in Washington, D.C., and let me tell you, the waitlist there is absolutely brutal.

ambermason16 said:Just a quick heads-up regarding the sub-forums—please merge these if they're being mentioned elsewhere. The other threads, even though they touch on similar stuff, didn't really feel like the right fit for what I'm struggling with..

First off, I should mention: this might seem totally trivial to anyone with a much higher prescription, but it's actually been weighing on me quite a bit..

So, here's the deal: I'm 32, and for most of my life, my vision was basically perfect. Then, out of nowhere, I realized I was having a hard time reading things at a distance—you know, subtitles, scrolling news tickers, street signs... About six months ago, I went in for an eye exam, and they gave me a -0.5 prescription..

Which is fine, right? But then, just three months later, I noticed that the glasses—which had made such a massive difference when I first got them—weren't working nearly as well anymore..

So I go back for another checkup: -0.75

In just three months?! 😢

I know these are tiny numbers, and honestly, I haven't seen a specialized ophthalmologist yet—just two different local optometrists (just to be safe!)—but the speed of this change is really starting to freak me out. And now—and I'm talking about just a month after that last check—it feels like my vision is actually worse when I *don't* have them on. Before, I'd only grab them for driving or watching TV... I didn't really need them for anything else..

Can anyone with a bit more experience in this area give me some advice or even just a second opinion? 🙂

Thanks in advance!

It’s actually possible for your prescription to climb because of all that constant near-work; there's a whole breakdown of why that happens here.
http://www.korcula.net/ppages/myopiaprev/default.htm

Basically, according to this article, wearing glasses for close-up tasks doesn't make sense. Up to about 1.33 meters, your vision is essentially the same whether you're wearing them or not—plus, using them for close work can actually force your eyes to accommodate more, which is what drives that prescription up.