> I would also recommend PRK over LASIK because LASIK requires permanent flaps to be cut on the surface of your eyes.
The newer SMILE procedure does not require a flap: http://eyewiki.aao.org/Small_Incision_Lenticule_Extraction_(...
The newer SMILE procedure does not require a flap: http://eyewiki.aao.org/Small_Incision_Lenticule_Extraction_(...
SMILE is new but insanely expensive, though it's the only procedure you can do if you need high correction.
LASIK you flap up the epithelial cells and part of your cornea, and then the laser comes in and ablates the inside of your cornea and you put it back on. If you need high correction, you need more depth of ablation. Since you "lost" some of your cornea because of the flap in terms of depth that can be ablated, for medium to high correction, it is not possible. I think if you have -5 or so it starts getting dicey.
PRK you don't have the flap, they just rub off the epithelial cells so you have the entire cornea to ablate if you want. I think this also starts getting dicey with really high ablation depth, obviously. If you have like -12, the doctor will not even think about PRK.
SMILE you actually pop in a high diffraction, engineered lens in, which can be used to achieve a ludicrously high correction, at the cost of well, cost, and maybe more uncertain long term prognosis?
I also got weird stuff like my own blood plasma that has been centrifuged and filtered to put in my eye, as well as Mitomycin-C. Your doctor may offer those, and both of those seemed to have clinical trials to reduce the chance of hazing.
Just think whether or not glasses bother you so much that you need it though, I never really got bothered by glasses a lot, and laser ablated vision is a little wonky for me because my pupils dilate a lot and that causes lots of starbursting at low light which I think I didn't see with glasses.