Tuesday 24 June 2008 12.01pm
I had the "old" PRK laser treatment back in 1992 - but my vision has now regressed to the point that I am considering laser treatment again. Laser eye surgery was in its infancy back then and today's treatments seem to have fewer regression problems.
As you are going with Accuvision, I assume you are booked in for Lasik surgery.
These are the things important to me that I have considered for my future surgery:
1) Lasik is higher risk than Lasek due to the creation of a corneal flap
2) Lasik corneal flap creation with a microkeratome is more risky than a flap created with IntraLase
3) Lasek is less risky than Lasik as no corneal flap is required - however, the procedure is more painful and recovery is slower (this procedure is similar to the PRK I had back in 1992)
4) Accuvision do not offer IntraLase or Lasek
5) Ultralase offers IntraLase but they are more expensive that Accuvision
6) Ultralase seem to have more modern equipment than Accuvision
7) As with most things in life, you get what you pay for and my vision is priceless to me. After researching many laser eye treatment companies, I am drawn to Ultralase
8) The Utralase website
has a great forum
where nervous patients can ask questions pre and post procedure that will be answered by Utralase staff. Also, once you know who your surgeon will be, you can read
about them on the forum
You can tell that I am interested in this subject and have done some research, as I am sure you have, and the above is my personal opinion of Accuvision and Ultralase.
Please don't let me put you off your Accuvision surgery - I am sure you have done your own homework, but having other opinions helps you come to an objective decision. Laser eye surgery is not to be taken lightly.
My choice? - Before IntraLase I would have gone for Lasek with Utralase, but am now drawn to ULTRALASIKplus offered by Utralase. I have no affiliation with either company - this is my personal view.