Just for context and as this article only mentions LASIK and not other options such as (Trans-)PRK and SMILE, the majority of negative side effects one experiences post LASIK are not linked to the ablation/"carving" of the cornea, as they call it, but rather is a result of the need to sever the subbasal nerve plexus in the anterior stroma, which tends to be regenerate in a less comprehensive manner and significantly slower around the margins of the flap compared to other methods.
Flaps aren't inherently dangerous either (flap detachments are very rare, even more so with modern systems that create essentially a cavity where the flap can rest in), but the difference in healing post OP is a lead cause of heightened dry eye after LASIK. Both PRK and SMILE, due to the way they work, are less likely to suffer from this, but every procedure has trade-offs naturally.
With PRK, the epithelium in the area is removed and has to regrow, a process that takes a few days (to get the initial part done, full regrowth takes far longer but isn't noticeable in general). This regrowth can be both rather painful and also rob you of the "instantly perfect sight"-effect many people desire from their laser eye surgery. As the epithelium does regrow naturally however, it is less likely (both in theory and in medical literature) to lead to dry eye and other side effects in the short and long term, making it the preferred choice by many ophthalmologists when choosing such surgery for themselves.
SMILE, on paper, might be able to offer the best of both worlds, but is severely more expensive than either and there is not a sufficient degree of long term research to make a definitive statement that the side effect amount and severity is comparable to PRK, simply because it is rather new. What research is out there is promising though.
Overall, each option is very well tolerated, leads to major QOL improvements and we need to keep in mind that even the more common side effects one may face with LASIK may not affect everyone and still are comparably small considering other medical fields and their elective procedures.
In this context, I'm very excited to see whether this method might have even fewer short and long term side effects than PRK, but like with SMILE, it may take decades to have a conclusive answer.
Edit: Another thing I missed and which was not covered in the article, is the potential that this new method could be applicable to people who, because of a variety of factors, are not eligible for any ablative eye surgery. I myself was at the upper limit for Trans-PRK in regard to the severity of my Myopia and the thickness (or lack there off) of my Epithelium. In that regard, I see far more potential than just reducing already low side-effect risks further.
I am wondering whether EMR could help people with keratoconus (degenerative cornea condition). Due to cornea thickness laser correction surgery is not performed in such case.
Readit News
Flaps aren't inherently dangerous either (flap detachments are very rare, even more so with modern systems that create essentially a cavity where the flap can rest in), but the difference in healing post OP is a lead cause of heightened dry eye after LASIK. Both PRK and SMILE, due to the way they work, are less likely to suffer from this, but every procedure has trade-offs naturally.
With PRK, the epithelium in the area is removed and has to regrow, a process that takes a few days (to get the initial part done, full regrowth takes far longer but isn't noticeable in general). This regrowth can be both rather painful and also rob you of the "instantly perfect sight"-effect many people desire from their laser eye surgery. As the epithelium does regrow naturally however, it is less likely (both in theory and in medical literature) to lead to dry eye and other side effects in the short and long term, making it the preferred choice by many ophthalmologists when choosing such surgery for themselves.
SMILE, on paper, might be able to offer the best of both worlds, but is severely more expensive than either and there is not a sufficient degree of long term research to make a definitive statement that the side effect amount and severity is comparable to PRK, simply because it is rather new. What research is out there is promising though.
Overall, each option is very well tolerated, leads to major QOL improvements and we need to keep in mind that even the more common side effects one may face with LASIK may not affect everyone and still are comparably small considering other medical fields and their elective procedures.
In this context, I'm very excited to see whether this method might have even fewer short and long term side effects than PRK, but like with SMILE, it may take decades to have a conclusive answer.
Edit: Another thing I missed and which was not covered in the article, is the potential that this new method could be applicable to people who, because of a variety of factors, are not eligible for any ablative eye surgery. I myself was at the upper limit for Trans-PRK in regard to the severity of my Myopia and the thickness (or lack there off) of my Epithelium. In that regard, I see far more potential than just reducing already low side-effect risks further.