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So I looked further into it, and saw that the information you have on your claim is technically true, but very outdated.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.
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So I looked further into it, and saw that the information you have on your claim is technically true, but very outdated.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.