Actually, that info was posted on this website by a forum doc. Maybe it varies case by case.
Oh really? I was under impression that removing the ReStor is more risky than the initial surgery simply because it's always more risky to have a secondary surgery and it's hard to predict how the eye would react being messed with for the second time.
LASIK will not alleviate the halo problem. For some people, the halos do diminish over time; for others, they are permanent.
I've read that explanting and replacing the ReStor is about as risky as having cataract surgery. Considering what it will do for your uncle's quality of life, the benefits might far outweigh the risks.
Thank you very much for your responses. If everything would be corrected with glasses, he would not consider additional procedures. His biggest problem right not is the halo effect. He says it's extremely severe and makes him feel very uncomfortable. Unfortunately, wearing glasses does not get rid of this problem.
Would LASIK alleviate the halo problem at all? Or all it would do is correct nearsightedness and astigmatism?
I am worried that removing the ReStor lens is very risky and that at least LASIK is more on the surface of the eye, whereas the removal of the lens is more invasive.
Is removal of the ReStor (to be replaced with a monofocal IOL) a common procedure?
Both courses of action involve risk as does doing nothing. The safest course of action is to wear glasses all the time if that corrects the problem.
Most patients (and there are many) on this website that have similiar problems have opted for removel of the multifocal IOL and insertion of a high quality aspheric monofocial IOL.
JCH MD
Since your uncle is very unhappy with his first ReStor, getting a second ReStor doesn't make much sense. Is his vision satisfactory with glasses? If it isn't, it might not be any better after LASIK.
If your uncle chooses the first option, he should select a surgeon who has a lot of experience explanting IOLs.