I have a low prescription -1.75 and -2.00 with a .25 stigmatism on one eye. My pupil size is only 5mm. Is it correct that wavefront will not benefit me as much since glares and halos mostly occur with patients with larger pupil size and higher prescription?

I'm not sure if this makes a difference but lasik will use the nidek EC 500 w/ 200hz eye tracker.

Thanks.

If you visit the FDA website at http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/lasik/ and look at the patient outcomes from the clinical trials of the different lasers, you will see that the outcomes of other lasers and wavefront-guided lasers were very different than those of the laser you mention. Of course, no amount of technology can compensate for an inferior surgeon, but a good surgeon with an advanced laser may be the better investment.

You may also want to visit http://www.usaeyes.org/counterfeit_lasik_lasers.htm Hopefully somebody will correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think the FDA approved version of the Nidek EC-5000 has a tracker.

Glenn Hagele
http://www.USAEyes.org

I am not a doctor.

They are using the Ladar4000 for custom wavefront. Considering the increase in cost and also low prescription and pupil, which one would you recommend?

with your low myopia, I would definately consider intacs. They have several key advantages over lasik by not needing a flap cut, removing no cornea, keeping a prolate cornea plus they can be removed for any reason. You could get one in your non dormant eye removed when presbyopia hits then enjoy monovision. If you still prefer lasik, get wavefront epi-lasek with the best machine and not an older one. You dont want to create more high order abberations! Another thing, if impending dependancy on reading glasses is a concern and youd rather not trade your near vision for distance, you could get just the dormant eye done or leave things alone.