If you have been rejected for the LASIK procedure in the past there maybe an alternative treatment for you today. The No Cut LASEK procedure is not new but is less known compared to LASIK, but it yields great results. The No Cut LASEK procedure allows those with larger pupils, or thinner corneas to have the procedure unlike with traditional LASIK. The No Cut LASEK procedure can also repair damage caused by previous procedures.

Below are 3 benefits of the No Cut LASEK treatment:

No Cutting – Unlike other procedures the LASEK procedure doesn’t require any cutting therefore there is less risk.

Less invasive than LASIK- no flap creation required, helps reduce the risk of halos and provides option for thin corneas to have treatment.

Short procedure time- The LASEK procedure is much easier and requires less procedure time. Generally between 5-10 minutes per eye.

With the No Cut LASEK procedure it allows others who didn’t have the alternative new options. The No Cut LASEK procedure also helps Astigmatism, Nearsightedness, and Farsightedness. The benefits of having this procedure far outweigh the risks of other procedures when they have larger pupils or thin corneas and it allows many more people to get the treatment they desire.

Advancements in treatments for nearsightedness, farsightedness, and astigmatism are on the rise. Alternatives for better quality of vision are a possibility for most of the population.

Dr. Brian Boxer Wachler is a renowned eye surgeon specializing in Keratoconus treatments, LASIK, Intra-Ocular Lens, and other procedures. More helpful information is available at www,BoxerWachler.com

3 Benefits of No Cut LASEK Treatments

Over the years Lasik procedures hasn’t been an option for many patients with high amounts of nearsightedness, farsightedness, or astigmatism or with large pupils or thin corneas, but over time they have developed other treatments that are a better option for those patients. The No Cut LASEK procedure give new options to these patients and has a wide range of eligibility.

The risks to No Cut LASEK is much less since there is not cutting. And while there are several good reasons to give No Cut LASEK a try for your treatment plan, take a few minutes and review the ones we have listed below. They may surprise you.

Less invasive than LASIK – Unlike the LASIK procedure the LASEK procedure doesn’t require any cutting therefore there is less risk.

Short procedure time- The LASEK procedure is much easier and requires less procedure time. Generally between 5-10 minutes per eye.

Treat Higher Prescriptions- Since there is no cutting of a flap with this procedure and the laser is performed on the surface of the cornea, higher prescriptions can be treated.

Option for Patients with Large Pupils- Since there is no cutting of a flap with this procedure a larger treatment zone can be created to minimize the risk of glare and halos for patients with large pupils.

No Cut LASEK is also known as PRK and provides an alternative to the traditional LASIK procedure we are all familiar with. This is a much less invasive approach to the treatment of nearsightedness, farsightedness, and astigmatism. If your doctor has told you that you were not a good candidate to the LASIK procedure due to high prescription, large pupils or thin corneas, then chances are this procedure is right for you.

Advancements in treatments for nearsightedness, farsightedness, and astigmatism are on the rise. So don’t look down on your condition new treatments are coming out each year. And with recent advancements in eye related conditions there is hope for a better quality of vision for you!

Dr. Brian Boxer Wachler is a renowned eye surgeon specializing in LASIK, and other procedures. More helpful information is available at www.BoxerWachler.com

Ocular Surgery news posed the question to Ophthalmologist performing LASIK: Do you prefer the traditional microkeratome instrumentor femtosecond microkeratome laser for creating the LASIK flap.

Overwhelming the top experts in the world responded that the traditional microkeratome instrument was preferred.

The reasons given were:

• Femtosecond lasers produce a less regular surface
• Femtosecond lasers create tiny bubbles which makes it difficult for eye trackers to engage 20% of the time
• Femtosecond lasers create a tissue bridge making flap lifting more difficult
• Femtosecond lasers causes more inflammation than a traditional microkeratome and delay visual recovery
• Femtosecond lasers does not reduce ectasia risk
• Femtosecond lasers cost more which is passed onto the patient

Two-thirds of all LASIK procedures performed in the world use the traditional microkeratome instrument for flap creation. 

Experts agreed that those using the femtosecond laser tend to be less experienced surgeons or surgeons who want to create an illusion that all laser LASIK is superior in their marketing materials.

Expert surgeons report the use of femtosecond lasers have an application for patients with map dot finger print epithelial dystrophy or less experienced surgeons with flap creation by the traditional microkeratome instrument.