Not in a million years will that ever be true given the complications of ICL. ICL is much MUCH more invasive, and has a chance to trigger cataracts to develop.
ICL is reversible, and it’s on the surface layer of the eye, which can fully heal itself.
Way less invasive than burning off a part of your inner eye permanently.
Also, Lasik is the one with the higher chance of cataracts, because it’s actually damaging the inner eye.
Meanwhile the lens in the ICL naturally gives a tiny bit of extra UV protection.
ICL is scarier to get, I’ll say that though. A knife on the eye is definitely much more terrifying than a quick laser zap, but the downsides of Lasik are not worth it - the dryer eyes, worse halos, etc.
Worst part with Lasik is since it’s permanent, if you get it at a younger age (45 or under really), you’ll still need glasses if your vision gets worse.
With an ICL, you can swap to a stronger lens that’s adjusted as needed.
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.
y’all mfers need lasik.
ICL > Lasik
Not in a million years will that ever be true given the complications of ICL. ICL is much MUCH more invasive, and has a chance to trigger cataracts to develop.
ICL is reversible, and it’s on the surface layer of the eye, which can fully heal itself.
Way less invasive than burning off a part of your inner eye permanently.
Also, Lasik is the one with the higher chance of cataracts, because it’s actually damaging the inner eye.
Meanwhile the lens in the ICL naturally gives a tiny bit of extra UV protection.
ICL is scarier to get, I’ll say that though. A knife on the eye is definitely much more terrifying than a quick laser zap, but the downsides of Lasik are not worth it - the dryer eyes, worse halos, etc.
Worst part with Lasik is since it’s permanent, if you get it at a younger age (45 or under really), you’ll still need glasses if your vision gets worse.
With an ICL, you can swap to a stronger lens that’s adjusted as needed.
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.