3 ms·

> I would also recommend PRK over LASIK because LASIK requires permanent flaps to be cut on the surface of your eyes. The newer SMILE procedure does not requir

by dao- 10y ago

> I would also recommend PRK over LASIK because LASIK requires permanent flaps to be cut on the surface of your eyes. The newer SMILE procedure does not require a flap: http://eyewiki.aao.org/Small_Incision_Lenticule_Extraction_(SMILE) http://eyewiki.aao.org/Small_Incision_Lenticule_Extraction_(...

dood 10y ago
I'm interested in getting this, but am concerned that it is much less battle-tested than PRK. I'm currently leaning toward PRK since it is so tried-and-tested.
- hatsunearu 10y ago
  Go for PRK if you have low correction. I had -4.50 on both eyes and LASIK was kind of dicey. Just know that for a month or 1.5 months you're blind, guaranteed. Don't freak out like I did. I also got weird stuff like my own blood plasma that has been centrifuged and filtered to put in my eye, as well as Mitomycin-C. Your doctor may offer those, and both of those seemed to have clinical trials to reduce the chance of hazing. Just think whether or not glasses bother you so much that you need it though, I never really got bothered by glasses a lot, and laser ablated vision is a little wonky for me because my pupils dilate a lot and that causes lots of starbursting at low light which I think I didn't see with glasses.
hatsunearu 10y ago
(Not a doctor, just read some papers before doing my PRK) SMILE is new but insanely expensive, though it's the only procedure you can do if you need high correction. LASIK you flap up the epithelial cells and part of your cornea, and then the laser comes in and ablates the inside of your cornea and you put it back on. If you need high correction, you need more depth of ablation. Since you "lost" some of your cornea because of the flap in terms of depth that can be ablated, for medium to high correction, it is not possible. I think if you have -5 or so it starts getting dicey. PRK you don't have the flap, they just rub off the epithelial cells so you have the entire cornea to ablate if you want. I think this also starts getting dicey with really high ablation depth, obviously. If you have like -12, the doctor will not even think about PRK. SMILE you actually pop in a high diffraction, engineered lens in, which can be used to achieve a ludicrously high correction, at the cost of well, cost, and maybe more uncertain long term prognosis?

by dao- 10y ago

dood 10y ago

I'm interested in getting this, but am concerned that it is much less battle-tested than PRK. I'm currently leaning toward PRK since it is so tried-and-tested.

hatsunearu 10y ago
Go for PRK if you have low correction. I had -4.50 on both eyes and LASIK was kind of dicey. Just know that for a month or 1.5 months you're blind, guaranteed. Don't freak out like I did. I also got weird stuff like my own blood plasma that has been centrifuged and filtered to put in my eye, as well as Mitomycin-C. Your doctor may offer those, and both of those seemed to have clinical trials to reduce the chance of hazing. Just think whether or not glasses bother you so much that you need it though, I never really got bothered by glasses a lot, and laser ablated vision is a little wonky for me because my pupils dilate a lot and that causes lots of starbursting at low light which I think I didn't see with glasses.

hatsunearu 10y ago

(Not a doctor, just read some papers before doing my PRK) SMILE is new but insanely expensive, though it's the only procedure you can do if you need high correction. LASIK you flap up the epithelial cells and part of your cornea, and then the laser comes in and ablates the inside of your cornea and you put it back on. If you need high correction, you need more depth of ablation. Since you "lost" some of your cornea because of the flap in terms of depth that can be ablated, for medium to high correction, it is not possible. I think if you have -5 or so it starts getting dicey. PRK you don't have the flap, they just rub off the epithelial cells so you have the entire cornea to ablate if you want. I think this also starts getting dicey with really high ablation depth, obviously. If you have like -12, the doctor will not even think about PRK. SMILE you actually pop in a high diffraction, engineered lens in, which can be used to achieve a ludicrously high correction, at the cost of well, cost, and maybe more uncertain long term prognosis?