- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Messages
- 421
- Reaction score
- 4
PRK (Photorefractive Keratectomy)...Why don't we hear more about it? What have you heard about it? Your opinions in comparison to Lasik?
Prk
- Thread starter Mewcakes
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2009
- Messages
- 1,167
- Reaction score
- 3
PRK is more painful/slower recovery. IMHO it's superior as your removing less cornea and I haven't heard anything about it being bad in the long term. LASIK patients who had there's done 10+ years ago are starting to have issues, I have not heard the same about PRK. PRK is an older procedure. It's not that there's anything wrong with it, in fact it's considered by many refractive surgeons to be superior, it just never got the same buzz as LASIK.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2008
- Messages
- 706
- Reaction score
- 4
I agree. Surgeons are starting to learn that PRK is in fact superior to LASIK because of many reasons. The pain is the only set back, but its as they say "No pain, no gain!"
I had PRK done in 1997 by an MD I worked for. The only problems are halos in dim light because of my large pupils.
I did have some dry eye issues for the first few years after, but surprisingly those are gone. I even live in a much drier climate.
There were a few episodes of mild corneal erosion (upon awakening) both in the first few years post. In both cases, I put in a SCL bandage for 24 hrs and it healed by the next day.
If it is possible, if you were going to have it done, ask for a larger optical zone size to minimize halos.
Overall, I'm pleased. I'm stable refractively. I was plano for one year after Sx. Then I regressed into myopia a bit with a trace of cyl. Then I got a trace far sighted (might be age HA!). Presently I'm +0.12-100X90 OU corrected to 20/15+3. OU 20/10 barely. Original script was -1.25-1.75X090 and -1.75-2.25X090. Original VA was 20/200 monocular.
Actually, I can read 20/25 monocular, barely 20/20 OU, uncorrected but I'm so ... picky ... that I like to have my glasses on for the more precise 20/15+ VA.
At the time of surgery, I was given a choice of LASIK or PRK and I chose the latter because at the time it was the treatment of choice for low myopic refractive errors. Also, I felt I might have panic attack during the microkeratome "blackout." I just didn't think I could handle that on my eye, not even with someone I trusted completely.
But hey, over time both procedures are proving to work quite well.
Just my two cents.
I did have some dry eye issues for the first few years after, but surprisingly those are gone. I even live in a much drier climate.
There were a few episodes of mild corneal erosion (upon awakening) both in the first few years post. In both cases, I put in a SCL bandage for 24 hrs and it healed by the next day.
If it is possible, if you were going to have it done, ask for a larger optical zone size to minimize halos.
Overall, I'm pleased. I'm stable refractively. I was plano for one year after Sx. Then I regressed into myopia a bit with a trace of cyl. Then I got a trace far sighted (might be age HA!). Presently I'm +0.12-100X90 OU corrected to 20/15+3. OU 20/10 barely. Original script was -1.25-1.75X090 and -1.75-2.25X090. Original VA was 20/200 monocular.
Actually, I can read 20/25 monocular, barely 20/20 OU, uncorrected but I'm so ... picky ... that I like to have my glasses on for the more precise 20/15+ VA.
At the time of surgery, I was given a choice of LASIK or PRK and I chose the latter because at the time it was the treatment of choice for low myopic refractive errors. Also, I felt I might have panic attack during the microkeratome "blackout." I just didn't think I could handle that on my eye, not even with someone I trusted completely.
But hey, over time both procedures are proving to work quite well.
Just my two cents.
