Bleg: Could you elaborate a bit (or hear from a doc in the field ofc)? I quickly went through the abstracts of a bunch of papers on PRK vs. LASIK in the last 10 years or so, and they all seem to say either no difference or LASIK is a bit better. Not going to pretend I looked that closely into methodology, but it seemed pretty unanimous.
Not sure what elaboration you want. The visual results of LASIK vs. PRK are almost identical, or possibly a slight advantage to LASIK. I was talking about compromising the cornea and the problems inherent in creating a corneal flap. These are simple facts, freely discussed in the field. What I don't understand is why LASIK has gained supremacy rather than PRK. LASIK does give more immediate results and has a shorter healing time, but the visual results are almost identical to those of PRK. The only important long-term difference is the flap.
One place to look for information is the unabashedly named
LASIK Complications web site. (Note that many of these complications apply to PRK, as well, though they are less common than flap problems.) One of the quotes:
Vincent P. de Luise, MD: "...a flap is a flap is a flap. Not making a flap is safer than making a flap, regardless of the method employed. True, the femtosecond laser creates a safer flap than a mechanical microkeratome, but it's still a flap no matter how you slice it." Ophthalmology Times, June 1, 2008
I personally have nothing against laser correction of visual acuity. If I were ten years or more younger, I would have it done on my own eyes. (I'm currently battling presbyopia, so "corrective" visual surgery doesn't make a lot of sense.) I will probably pay for my kids when they are in the mid-20s. But I have done extensive (amateur) research and reading on this issue, and am convinced that flap creation is an unnecessary hazard for such surgery. The fact that LASIK generally causes less discomfort than PRK and may have a very slight overall rate of visual acuity improvement over PRK cannot make up for the creation of a permanent, non-healing flap on your eye that will forever be subject to dislocation, irritation, and infection, and which weakens the structural integrity of the cornea to a much greater degree than PRK's surface sculpting.
For heaven's sake, don't take my word for it. Study the issue for yourself. Ask your ophthalmologist about LASIK vs. PRK. (And ignore him when he says "PRK costs more" -- this is your vision we're talking about, so an extra $150 per eye is meaningless. Besides which, PRK should cost
less, not more, since there is no flap creation expense, just the corneal surface sculpting.) Do some Google searches about flap dislocation or complications due to LASIK. It doesn't take a 45 on the MCAT to see that PRK is a better option than LASIK.
Again, if an ophthalmologist reading this thread wants to correct my ignorance, by all means please feel free.