[asharpe]

I researched this for myself a couple of years back and found a couple of things but only speak from my personal account: 1. There are a couple of different options, the first being done completely without surgery, and the second where they cut the lens and 'flap it up' (literally) and then do the laser surgery. Obviously, the second option is more complex and as a result can result in more problems. 2. A lot will depend on how thick your lens is. I was looking at it and they said that as I had a thin lens, it drastically changed my options. It also raised the risk as they only had one chance (if you have a think lens, they can do follow-up laser surgery to fix mistakes - no such luck with me). It must be said, that overall the chances of anything going wrong are less than 1% or something insignificant and in most cases you will just have the same or slightly worse vision. I just wasn't willing to take the risk given I had no chance for fixing it if they went wrong. Sorry it's not data - just my personal experience a couple of years back.

[coralreef]

Surgery without surgery? Whats that? The second option I believe is standard LASIK. Since I do sports, I'd be at risk of having a flap dislodged, so I have to do PRK, where they remove the cornea by brush and the cells regenerate on their own.

[b_t_s]

"Surgery without surgery?" That's PRK(Photorefractive Keratectomy) that the OP mentioned. I had PRK about 8 or 10 years ago and am very happy with the results. PRK is the older technology where they just laser the surface of your eye rather than cutting a flap and peeling it up before lasering. The risk are the same but different. That is to say, roughly the same (low, <2% if memory serves) chance of making your vision worse but with PRK it'll be caused by infection/poor healing of the epithelium, while with LASIK it'll be caused by complications due to cutting the flap. LASIK is(or at least was) more dependent on doctor skill/mistakes, while PRK is pretty much all computerized and juste depends on your cleanliness and immune system. The other big difference is healing. With LASIK it's zap, done, perfect vision, drive home and enjoy...just don't get poked in the eye for a couple months. With PRK it's zap, hay I can kinda see, have someone drive you home while the pain kilers wear off, oh god it hurts, I can't see anything, lay on the couch crying for 3 days, and then watch your vision get slowly better over the next month or so till eventually it's perfect. That's why LASIK is considered an improvement, because burning the skin off your eyes isn't a lot of fun(think onions under your eyes), and it takes about 3 days to grow back and another month to heal to the healthy smooth state required for 20/20 vision. Still it was worth it. Personally I chose PRK because I was doing MMA at the time so LASIK would have required taking 3 to 6 months off training to make sure I didn't damage the flap, whereas PRK on a friday let me continue training next week. Think I had to take monday off work 'cause I was still in pain, but by Tuesday I was OK. Driving was a bit hairy for a month or so. OK during the day but at night when your pupils dilate I'd have quadruple vision and major star-bursting from headlights, but not so bad I couldn't drive, but kinda freaky. After about 4 or 5 weeks that all faded and I had 20/15 vision. Totally worth it.