My eye doctor tells me I'm an excellent candidate for PRK and Intacs. I really like that Intacs are reversible. If I play contact sports like basketball, is PRK the better option? Thanks in advance

Mike

In theory, a traumatic impact with Intacs may cause the inserts to dislodge or cause damage within the cornea. That is not a highly probable scenario, but it is a possibility. PRK does not include inserts within the cornea; so on this point PRK would have a small advantage.

Intacs are reversible and do not involve an ablation across the visual axis. Intacs would have a small advantage on this point.

Although Intacs have been highly successful when used for the reduction of myopia, PRK has a long success rate and is considered by some as slightly more accurate.

It seems that both have unique advantages and disadvantages. It appears that for you, the issue is about the effects of trauma to the eye. That would indicate that PRK (if anything) would be a better choice, but only you can decide.

Glenn Hagele
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
Email: glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org

I am not a doctor.

Hi Glenn,

Thank you for the quick response! I met with my surgeon yesterday and talked to her about the possibility of Intacs. She told me that the technology has come and gone for refractive surgery. She told me it's a great option for people with keratoconus. She also told me that since I have large pupils, Intacs may not be the way to go. She has done intac surgery in the past but not at the present time. She recommended me PRK surgery. Before our consultation I was able to visit with a patient and watch PRK surgery. The surgery itself seemed pretty simple and straightforward. I only have a mild case of myopia and am still debating to go ahead because of the risks. The guy who was having the surgery done had a terrible prescription. I can see 20/15 with my glasses on. Like you said - I guess I'm the only one who can decide to do it or not. Thanks again

Mike

This all sounds perfectly reasonable. Intacs have become a treatment of choice for advancing keratoconus, but have most certainly fallen out of favor for refractive purposes - although I submit that they are still viable for low levels of myopia.

Large pupils are a consideration for both Intacs and PRK. You will want to read:

http://www.usaeyes.org/faq/subjects/pupil_size.htm

It is possible that your vision after PRK would be equal to the 20/15 corrected vision you have now, but it is unreasonable to expect uncorrected vision after surgery to be better than 20/20. It can happen, but it is an unreasonable expectation.

This means that it is reasonable for you to expect to lose one line of vision. That is not much and may not make any difference to you, but I know from my personal experience that it can be important.

My distance vision with glasses is 20/10, so I can reasonably expect to lose two lines of vision with refractive surgery. Since I have replicated 20/20 vision with contacts and know that “normal” vision drives me nuts, I’m not a very good candidate for refractive surgery. Another person may consider the benefit of life with a reduced need for corrective lenses more than worth the probability of having *only* normal vision. Refractive surgery is very much a personal decision.

In all elective surgery the issue is about benefits vs. risk. It appears that with your small amount of myopia and possibility of uncorrected vision being reduced by one line, your potential benefit is diminished. The risks, however, are about the same.

Best of luck, whatever you decide.

Glenn Hagele
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
Email: glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org

I am not a doctor.

If the company manufacturing Intacts is out of business, why are intacts still being offered.

I also noticed that there have been over 3 years since new posts have been posted regarding intacts. Is this procedure no good?

if you are 20/15 with glasses, I probably wouldnt even bother with either, why risk losing a line or two of vision? I am 20/40 with glasses so I have more reason. I can see why intacs arent so popular, seems like everyone wants the laser despite the fact intacs are safer