@@akbenyelles Both methods are used to compensate for refractive errors in the human eye. I chose not to undergo laser eye treatment but collamer lens implantation because lenses, you can take out if something goes wrong. Laser ablation can't be removed.
@@epaminon6196 from a general perspective what you say is true. But in details it does not work like that. Moreover I don’t believe in patients choosing the technique. In 99% of cases there is always a better choice than the other. In the 1% cases where eligibility is equivalent in several techniques, then the patient has an input. But the patient’s demand assessment is crucial in the choice made by the surgeon. I don’t want to dismiss the patient’s input of course
@@akbenyelles I respectfully disagree with your view on patient input. When it was time for me to choose, I had the full range of refractive methods to choose from. PRK, LASIK, SMILE and ICL. My eyes were suitable for all of them. In the end, I chose ICLs because I wanted to reserve the option of having them taken out again once I get presbyopia. ICLs also pose lower probabilities for visual side-effects. It cost me 70 percent more than PRK but I made the choice. Now I've got 20/10 vision and negligible side effects.
@@epaminon6196 fantastic result, good for you. All the four techniques give very high Performance when correctly evaluated for each patient. However, I don’t think presenting ICL implantation and removal as the “practical” way to correct once and correct again later in life is a good way of seeing (😅) things. Whereas for repeated treatments, laser on the cornea is the simplest and safest way to go in my opinion and gives as satisfying results
I wish you all success
Thank God I chose ICLs instead.
Two completely different things. Not used for the same indications
@@akbenyelles
Both methods are used to compensate for refractive errors in the human eye. I chose not to undergo laser eye treatment but collamer lens implantation because lenses, you can take out if something goes wrong. Laser ablation can't be removed.
@@epaminon6196 from a general perspective what you say is true. But in details it does not work like that. Moreover I don’t believe in patients choosing the technique. In 99% of cases there is always a better choice than the other. In the 1% cases where eligibility is equivalent in several techniques, then the patient has an input. But the patient’s demand assessment is crucial in the choice made by the surgeon. I don’t want to dismiss the patient’s input of course
@@akbenyelles
I respectfully disagree with your view on patient input. When it was time for me to choose, I had the full range of refractive methods to choose from. PRK, LASIK, SMILE and ICL. My eyes were suitable for all of them. In the end, I chose ICLs because I wanted to reserve the option of having them taken out again once I get presbyopia. ICLs also pose lower probabilities for visual side-effects. It cost me 70 percent more than PRK but I made the choice. Now I've got 20/10 vision and negligible side effects.
@@epaminon6196 fantastic result, good for you. All the four techniques give very high
Performance when correctly evaluated for each patient. However, I don’t think presenting ICL implantation and removal as the “practical” way to correct once and correct again later in life is a good way of seeing (😅) things. Whereas for repeated treatments, laser on the cornea is the simplest and safest way to go in my opinion and gives as satisfying results
👏👏👏👏👏👏