I’ve been thinking about lasik for years. Researching, learning, wondering and wishing. Last year I decided it was time. I made the inital exam appointment with my eye doctor in June. I found out what I thought I already knew, I’m an excellent candidate. Then it was just a matter of saving/financing the procedure. Well, life got in the way, of course, and I never got around to it. Finally, this spring, I got around to it. I had to set up another initial exam, consultation and surgical appointment. It just so happens my job is relocating, so I didn’t have much time to work with. Wouldn’t you know it, it all fell together – I got my consultation the day I called, a week later my initial exam, and 6 days later, my surgery. NICE! That’s how you know it was ment to be.
There are 3 basic steps to lasik:
1. cut and fold back the corneal flap.
2. reshape the cornea with a laser.
3. fold back the corneal flap.
Traditionally, the instrument used to cut the corneal flap has been the microkeratome. This instrument with an oscillating blade called a microkeratome cuts a 100 to 200 micrometer thick flap in your 500 to 600 micrometer thick cornea. Lately there’s been a lot of noise about Intralase. Rather than use the microkeratome, the surgeon uses a separate laser who’s depth can be adjusted, and row after row after row of interjoined bubbles are layed down 100 to 200 micrometers under the surface of the cornea, forming the flap. Sounded great to me. Here is a video of the traditonal microkeratome procedure, and here is a video of the
IntraLase procedure.
The surgeon I chose, however, has opted not to join the Intralase crowd at this time. He uses 3 criteria to evaluate new technology:
1. is there a significant clinical benefit for the patient?
2. is there a significant practical advantage for the surgeon?
3. does it help reduce cost?
He cited 32 complication reports in the FDA MAUDE database (adverse events involving medical devices) from 10/2002 to 6/2004, versus 3 complications with the instrument he uses during the same time period. So #1 = NO.
My surgeon quoted another respected ophthalmic surgeon, “The standard microkeratome blade gives you a more precise cut than the laser if used properly. IntraLase offers an advantage for inexperienced surgeons because it’s harder to make a mistake.” Wow! Yikes! #2 = NO.
The IntraLase company itself published information in their promotional brochures stating that surgeons have increased their fees a national average of $384 per eye, which would be about a 32% increase in cost for me. In actuality, I didn’t find IntraLase for less than $2k/eye around here, which is was about 67% more. #3 = NO.
So, no IntraLase for me, please. I’ll stick with my highly capable, very experienced surgeon who’s not over charging me, thanks.
Check out my EXPERIENCE.