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.

Caveat Emptor. Even more important in refractive surgery.

Sometimes, doctors try to push new treatments that do not demonstrate superiority to the old treatments. A doctor using the old system would say that his methods have a record of producing results, while the doctor using the new methods would say that his methods will produce superior results. I have seen this phenomena in the intraLase flap controversy.

In the refractive surgery industry, however, the newest technologies by the biggest companies: Alcon, VISX, etc. are probably worth using as they are the recognized upgrade to the old technology. They do everything the previous technology did, plus more. There are reasons for conventional vs. custom ablations and older treatments, but they are exceptions rather than the rule.