Why would anyone NOT use a most advanced custom wavefront;
Why risk inferior eye correction?
According to September 2005 Sky & Telescope magazine, a vertical cut is "superior" to a horizontal cut? Why don't doctors talk more about these risks? A doctor pointed out to me the article stated "may" cause problems, as if that "may" word was some ground to discredit the entire claim? What is the truth? What do studies show? That doctor claims allegretto is the most advanced and best, is that true? He also said a single one time eye drop test will show dryness damage and a history of dryness damage? Is that true?
Again, why would anyone risk these older procedures that do not map and test every known factor? It just shows me how weak the judicial system is to be such a mild threat to opportunists: who appear to me to be getting "their"/its claws into victims for a lifetime of problems and alleged (leading to more alleged cures) cures and expenses, deliberately.

I recommend VISX Customvue (Which is wavefront) over standard treatments for patients with prescriptions who are eligible for wavefront. The results with standard treatment are good, but the wavefront-guided treatments are just a little better. The night time vision is better and the chance to get better than 20/20 is better with wavefront (at least in my practice).
As far as superior flaps - I disagree that they are better. They have been shown to be more likely to cause dry eye as compared to temporal-hinged flaps. Dry eye after LASIK can be very problematic.
As far as the Allegretto laser - it is an excellent laser. It uses an treatment that is more optimized than standard treatments with the VISX laser, and provides results in the same ballpark as custom treatments. I am not aware of any studies that have shown that the Allegretto is better or worse than VISX Customvue.

I hope this answers your questions

Bill Trattler, MD
Miami, FL