Up Next

I tried this instrument some three years ago with the intent of repositioning the flap which failed in eight out of 9 flaps. so, the flap was simply brushed away and I rejected the instrument and went ahead and do PRK whever I can't do lasik. My present objection to epi-lasik is the manner in which some doctors market it as the "latest" and being better than lasik. I do not agree with this claim. joe

Reply

When I first started using this instrument I failed to perfectly reposition the flap many more times than I had hoped. In fact, I found it curious that the eyes whose flaps I had to "toss" did at least as well as what I had considered a perfect result. Milne and others showed us that preservation of the flap actually delays healing. Certainly, back in 2006,7 and 2008 when manual microkeratomes could give us 150 microns flaps, epi-lasik was the superior technology. Even today the contrast sensitivity scores and dry eye rates are better with epi. But I agree, especially today, Epi is not the latest but then again, LTK, at one time, was the latest and we know how that turned out. I believe Epi provides a superior surface to ablate than alcohol based PRK or Amoils brush PRK, and for many it is the best procedure. I believe a reassessment of the device would not disappoint. {I have no financial interest in Moria or Epi-LASIK but I do market the procedure as an excellent alternative to LASIK"}

Reply

How is this different from PRK if the epithelial flap is not repositioned?

Reply

How is this different from PRK if the epithelial sheet is not repositioned?

Reply