1) I've read different calculations. burnt69 uses ~20um/diopter...I've also read of ranges of 12-15um/diopter.bumblebeeeee wrote: ↑Feb 2nd, 2017 11:47 pmI've had two consults, one with Lasik MD and one with Herzig.
Herzig told me my corneas were too thin (both sub 500, one 488 I believe), -5.25 both eyes, and refused to do Lasik, offering wavefront PRK instead. However when I went to Lasik MD they seemed confident that wavefront Lasik would be totally fine.
While I'm ok with PRK, I'm finding it difficult to decide if LasikMD's confidence was due to them believing they could safely do it, or if they were simply more interested in promoting it over PRK. With my thin corneas, I'm worried that opting for Lasik will put me in a situation where there's little cornea left if a revision is ever needed. Thoughts anyone?
A microkeratome flap might average ~140um thickness.
A femtosecond/Intralase laser-made flap ~100um. For you, if you opt for LASIK I would ONLY consider a femtosecond laser flap, NO microkeratome due to the human-made decreased precision of flap thickness.
5.25 x 15um + 100um flap = 179um needed (rounded up)
~488 corneal thickness = ~309 residual thickness left.
It looks like kind of a borderline LASIK suitability, although there is the option of corneal crosslinking to strengthen that remaining cornea. Very little room for any potential enhancements in the future. We are also only talking about ectasia risk here...who knows if it also means more corneal nerves severed = higher dryness risk?
*LASIK MD is the clinic that refused to even discuss PRK with me. It didn't sit well with me. When I said I was worried about keratoconus/ectasia, and eye dryness, they said "Well there are ways to manage those things, with punctal plugs, eye drops, corneal crosslinking..." etc. So it makes me wonder if their solution afterwards is to push patients towards more options and procedures that brings in more money for them.
Maybe you can go to a third clinic and get a consult and make them the tie-breaker.
b) If you were family or friend (or myself) as a candidate, I would prefer PRK. I mean, I still opted for PRK with my -5.75/-5.5 prescription and ~520um corneas.
I'm at Day 10 post-op, not at 20/20 yet (haven't yet returned to optometrist to get the testing yet, but I can tell by comparing with my previous glasses or contacts-assisted vision) but seeing slight daily distance-vision improvements. My right (dominant) eye is also recovering slightly slower and I see slight residual starbursting at night still with really bright lights, like some street lamps or certain car headlights. The left eye is seeing better with no starbursts. Mid-range and near-vision is excellent. I am very very comfortable, no dryness or problems, and am functioning like someone who didn't get surgery at all. I am so pleased and I know my timeline is totally within PRK expectations.
I WILL say that PLEC's final correction was lesser at 5.25 per eye (compared to my glasses Rx being -5.5 and -5.75 as per my optometrist's office.) Maybe with their more precise testing, they calculated that this is what was needed for me. I will follow-up and pepper my optometrists at the 1-month follow-up. I hope I'll get the 20/20 too but if I'm a little under at 20/25 I'll be happy as well.