c0g wrote:With PRK vs LASEK, I believe the difference is LASEK folds the epithelium back and PRK straight up skins the eye. Are there greater risks of long term clouding/other bad things with PRK? I recall reading a report of a study saying that there isn't, but I might be imagining.
PRK has a tendency to cause
corneal haze when attempting to remove too much tissue. Normal healthy corneas with less than about 6.00 diopters of attempted correction would not haze. Over 6.00 diopters of correction and the probability of haze increases exponentially. When everyone switched to Lasik, the concern about haze was all but forgotten. The Lasik flap fools the cornea into not realizing it has had surgery and the wound response is muted. The problem was that Lasik had its limitations too.
In an attempt to have surface ablation and a flap, LASEK was developed. With LASEK the
epithelium is slid out of the way, the laser energy is applied, and then the epithelium is slid back over the treatment area to act as a bandage. The problem is that all of the epithelium cells are mortally wounded in the process. They will die, slough off, and be replaced. This process provided a less even and slightly longer vision recovery period. Just removing the epithelium encourages the unbridled growth of the replacement cells.
The original problem of corneal haze has been addressed in three ways; the newer lasers are less traumatic on the cornea, the use of Mitomycin C during surgery to change the healing response, and the discovery that taking 500mg of vitamin C twice a day twice a day for a week before PRK, LASEK, or Epi-Lasik and at least two weeks after surgery significantly reduces the incidence of corneal haze. Read the portion of our article on
corneal haze prevention.
c0g wrote:Thanks for your input on P-IOLs. One clinic I've been speaking to told me when asked that they're the future of refractive surgery- in 5 years everyone would be having them. Should this ring alarm bells?
It was
eight years ago that our organization testified of our
concerns with the P-IOL to the US Food and Drug Administration. P-IOLs are very limited in their application.
c0g wrote:Thanks very much for your help.
Glad to be of service.