Lasik or Intacs?

I've been wanting to get Lasik for a while, and am having a consultation about it Wednesday morning. However, I noticed a comment on the 43things goal about Intacs and it sounds way more pleasant:

-no lasers
-no corneal destruction
-inserts can be removed later on, and/or replaced with different sizes if vision has changed

Has anybody out there gotten Intacs, or heard anything good/bad about it?


  1. I'm a medical student... unfortunately I can't answer your question (it will take 3 years for me to become a doctor!) but I think/hope you'll find the information you're looking for in the PubMed site. Here you are the link:
    Bye ;)

  2. I had my Lasik done last year for my myopia, and now i dont need glasses anymore. My doctor asked me to go for Lasik, as he suggested Intacs only for low diopters, but mine was -11 :)

  3. all laser treatments are cheaper and much easier for doctors but have much higher vision-degradation (eg flaring when looking at lights at night (unsafe to drive)) issues than the more difficult to do/more expensive equipment to buy radial keratotomies.

    of the laser treatments, i have read repeatedly that Lasek is much better than Lasik as it has lower rates of problems, plus actively smooths the surface of the eye to create typically better than 20:20 vision. for example, many UK soldiers heading to the Iraq war paid for Lasek treatment before they went. non-farsighted 20:60 is reportedly not uncommon (ie, can still focus close normally, but far away is equally sharp).

    but for reversability and hence near-guarantee of no risk of permanent complications, wouldn't an implantable contact lens (b/w iris and lens) be a better route?

  4. Having Intacs inserted is placing a foreign object in your eye and will increase the chance of an infection. Lasik is a permanent procedure sculpting your cornea for optimal vision. Go to www.laserchoice.com to choice the best eximer laser for you.