Lasik is the one with the higher chance of cataracts, because it’s actually damaging the inner eye.
Nope. Lasik is surface level. Also Lasik can be adjusted over the years if need be. This is some qanon-rank misinformation from you. Also I don’t have a horse in this game - I have family with both, and I have perfect, 20/15, never adjusted eyesight without a need for glasses. I understand the benefits and risks of both, and ICL is more intrusive, has more complications, is more expensive. There is no way, without some implicit bias, that you can reasonably call ICL “better” overall.
LASIK permanently changes the shape of the cornea, the clear covering of the front of the eye, using an excimer laser. A mechanical microkeratome (a blade device) or a laser keratome (femtosecond laser) is used to cut a flap in the cornea. A hinge is left at one end of this flap. The flap is folded back revealing the corneal stroma, the middle section of the cornea. Pulses from a computer-controlled laser (excimer laser) vaporize a portion of the stroma and the flap is replaced.[2]
Performing the laser ablation in the deeper corneal stroma provides for more rapid visual recovery and less pain than the earlier technique, photorefractive keratectomy.
[• Undercorrections. If the laser removes too little tissue from your eye, you won’t get the clearer vision results you were hoping for. Undercorrections are more common for people who are nearsighted. You may need another LASIK procedure within a year to remove more tissue.
(Linked texts cover additional risks, just highlighting the ones proving LASIK works by permanently damaging tissue)
versus ICL:
[After dilating and numbing your eyes, your surgeon will make a very small incision at the base of your cornea. They’ll fold and insert the implantable lens into the cut and then adjust it behind your iris and in front of your lens. You probably won’t need stitches because the incision is so small and will heal on its own.
Sorry, y’all have been bamboozled then, and you’re the one spreading qanon level misinformation. The only real thing you’ve said is that ICL is more expensive, which is true. Which calls into question the integrity of the rest of your anecdotal claims as well.
The cataracts comment, for example - because the laser doesn’t affect that part of the eye. Doctors office will tell you that ICL has a larger chance of cataracts than Lasik.
I merely didn’t cite them as a source. But I did double check them as I was making my initial claims, so that I made sure I wasn’t mis-remembering anything I recalled from the doctors appointments that I took my family to.
So I looked further into it, and saw that the information you have on your claim is technically true, but very outdated.
An ICL has an estimated averaged 10.5% chance of causing cataracts - if it’s the old types of lens.
The newer ones, that come with small macroholes in them, drops that chance to an average of 1.2% chance.
And the newest type still, made with micropores as well as the macroholes, is currently at 0.5% chance - although it’s too new for exact long term data, and the percentage is so low it’s within margin of error.
The reason cataracts had a chance of forming in the old type of lenses was
•because the lenses were much bigger
•the lack of holes messed with fluid circulation
•bigger lenses increased the odds of the surgeon messing up the placement
In all cases however, ICL leaves no permanent damage to the eye, unlike LASIK, and has fewer side effects in general. It’s also, importantly, reversible, so even in the case of cataracts, or anything else like worsened vision, you can have the lens removed and replaced. With LASIK, the damage means the change is permanent, and improving eyesight afterwards is much more limited.
This information I found from research papers I had to use sci-hub to read, which I can’t link, but I can go through my search history to give you the DOIs if you want.
Nope. Lasik is surface level. Also Lasik can be adjusted over the years if need be. This is some qanon-rank misinformation from you. Also I don’t have a horse in this game - I have family with both, and I have perfect, 20/15, never adjusted eyesight without a need for glasses. I understand the benefits and risks of both, and ICL is more intrusive, has more complications, is more expensive. There is no way, without some implicit bias, that you can reasonably call ICL “better” overall.
LASIK:
"An excimer laser precisely reshapes the stromal layer of the cornea, removing microscopic amounts of tissue to correct refractive errors. "
LASIK permanently changes the shape of the cornea, the clear covering of the front of the eye, using an excimer laser. A mechanical microkeratome (a blade device) or a laser keratome (femtosecond laser) is used to cut a flap in the cornea. A hinge is left at one end of this flap. The flap is folded back revealing the corneal stroma, the middle section of the cornea. Pulses from a computer-controlled laser (excimer laser) vaporize a portion of the stroma and the flap is replaced.[2]
Performing the laser ablation in the deeper corneal stroma provides for more rapid visual recovery and less pain than the earlier technique, photorefractive keratectomy.
[• Undercorrections. If the laser removes too little tissue from your eye, you won’t get the clearer vision results you were hoping for. Undercorrections are more common for people who are nearsighted. You may need another LASIK procedure within a year to remove more tissue.
• Overcorrections. It’s also possible that the laser will remove too much tissue from your eye. Overcorrections may be more difficult to fix than undercorrections.](https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/lasik-eye-surgery/about/pac-20384774)
(Linked texts cover additional risks, just highlighting the ones proving LASIK works by permanently damaging tissue)
versus ICL:
[After dilating and numbing your eyes, your surgeon will make a very small incision at the base of your cornea. They’ll fold and insert the implantable lens into the cut and then adjust it behind your iris and in front of your lens. You probably won’t need stitches because the incision is so small and will heal on its own.
• If you needed to have the surgery reversed, you could. There’s no structural damage to your eye. ](https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/25050-implantable-collamer-lens-icl-surgery) And unlike LASIK:
• You’re at less risk for dry eye.
• You may have really good night vision.
Sorry, y’all have been bamboozled then, and you’re the one spreading qanon level misinformation. The only real thing you’ve said is that ICL is more expensive, which is true. Which calls into question the integrity of the rest of your anecdotal claims as well.
Your own source material betrays you.
The cornea is not YOUR INNER EYE
Ok, my mistake, I made one error, about which part LASIK permanently burns off and damages.
My bad.
The main point still stands tho.
That fact, obliterates all of your “points”.
The cataracts comment, for example - because the laser doesn’t affect that part of the eye. Doctors office will tell you that ICL has a larger chance of cataracts than Lasik.
My points were quotes from mayoclinic and Cleveland clinic.
Yours are still anecdotal
Mine were from https://www.discovervision.com/blog/what-is-the-difference-between-icl-vs-lasik/
I merely didn’t cite them as a source. But I did double check them as I was making my initial claims, so that I made sure I wasn’t mis-remembering anything I recalled from the doctors appointments that I took my family to.
So I looked further into it, and saw that the information you have on your claim is technically true, but very outdated.
An ICL has an estimated averaged 10.5% chance of causing cataracts - if it’s the old types of lens.
The newer ones, that come with small macroholes in them, drops that chance to an average of 1.2% chance.
And the newest type still, made with micropores as well as the macroholes, is currently at 0.5% chance - although it’s too new for exact long term data, and the percentage is so low it’s within margin of error.
The reason cataracts had a chance of forming in the old type of lenses was
•because the lenses were much bigger •the lack of holes messed with fluid circulation •bigger lenses increased the odds of the surgeon messing up the placement
In all cases however, ICL leaves no permanent damage to the eye, unlike LASIK, and has fewer side effects in general. It’s also, importantly, reversible, so even in the case of cataracts, or anything else like worsened vision, you can have the lens removed and replaced. With LASIK, the damage means the change is permanent, and improving eyesight afterwards is much more limited.
This information I found from research papers I had to use sci-hub to read, which I can’t link, but I can go through my search history to give you the DOIs if you want.
Btw, all this was a bit moot because I also found out that LASIK can also increase the odds of cataracts as well.