D

Deep Research Archives

  • new
  • |
  • threads
  • |
  • comments
  • |
  • show
  • |
  • ask
  • |
  • jobs
  • |
  • submit

Popular Stories

  • 공학적 반론: 현대 한국 운전자를 위한 15,000km 엔진오일 교환주기 해부2 points
  • Ray Kurzweil Influence, Predictive Accuracy, and Future Visions for Humanity2 points
  • 인지적 주권: 점술 심리 해체와 정신적 방어 체계 구축2 points
  • 성장기 시력 발달에 대한 종합 보고서: 근시의 원인과 빛 노출의 결정적 역할 분석2 points
  • The Scientific Basis of Diverse Sexual Orientations A Comprehensive Review2 points
  • New
  • |
  • Threads
  • |
  • Comments
  • |
  • Show
  • |
  • Ask
  • |
  • Jobs
  • |
  • Submit
  • |
  • Contact
Search…
threads
submit
login
  1. Home/
  2. Stories/
  3. A Comprehensive Analysis of Vision Correction Surgery: Clinical Comparison of LASIK, LASEK, and ICL
▲

A Comprehensive Analysis of Vision Correction Surgery: Clinical Comparison of LASIK, LASEK, and ICL

1 point by karyan03 2 months ago | flag | hide | 0 comments

A Comprehensive Analysis of Vision Correction Surgery: Clinical Comparison of LASIK, LASEK, and ICL

Part 1: Determinants of Surgical Suitability: Clinical Criteria and Limitations

The success of vision correction surgery depends on whether the patient's eye conditions align with the technical requirements and limitations of each procedure. The three main surgeries (LASIK, LASEK, and ICL) operate on fundamentally different principles, and thus, the criteria for patient selection are distinct. This analysis focuses on two key variables that determine surgical suitability: 'corneal thickness' and 'degree of refractive error.'

1.1 Corneal Analysis: The Core Prerequisite for Laser Surgery

LASIK (Laser-Assisted In Situ Keratomileusis) and LASEK (Laser-Assisted Sub-Epithelial Keratomileusis) are surgeries that readjust refractive power by ablating the anterior part of the cornea using a laser.1 Therefore, the patient's initial corneal thickness is an absolute variable that determines the available range and safety of the surgery.2

1.1.1 Clinical Importance of Corneal Thickness
The average thickness of a normal cornea is between approximately $520~\mu$m and $550~\mu$m.3 Since laser surgery permanently removes this corneal tissue 5, a sufficient thickness must remain after the surgery to ensure the cornea can withstand the eye's pressure and maintain structural stability.3
1.1.2 The Structural Calculation of LASIK
LASIK surgery consists of two steps, each consuming corneal thickness:

  1. Flap Creation: A femtosecond laser is used to create a thin flap of about $110~\mu$m to $120~\mu$m in the upper layer of the cornea.3 This flap is closed after the surgery but is considered to contribute little to the structural integrity of the cornea.6
  2. Corneal Stromal Ablation: After lifting the flap, the excimer laser ablates the exposed corneal stroma. To correct $1$ diopter (D) of refractive error, about $14~\mu$m to $16~\mu$m of tissue is consumed.5

1.1.3 The Safety Threshold: Residual Stromal Bed (RSB)
The minimum thickness of the corneal stroma that must be left to prevent structural collapse (corneal ectasia) after surgery is called the 'Residual Stromal Bed (RSB)'. This is the most critical value determining the safety of LASIK.
In clinical practice, there is a spectrum between conservative standards and clinical limits for this minimum RSB. Some conservative guidelines recommend a minimum RSB of $300~\mu$m.5 Other clinical data suggest a minimum limit between $250~\mu$m and $270~\mu$m.3

It is important to note that the risk of ectasia is not determined by a single variable of residual thickness. According to a retrospective study of 282 eyes 6, no ectasia was found even in a patient group with a post-operative central corneal thickness of less than $400~\mu$m (with an RSB $> 275~\mu$m). This suggests that provided the preoperative corneal topography is perfectly normal, an RSB thinner than $300~\mu$m (e.g., $275~\mu$m) may be safe.6 Conversely, cases of ectasia have been reported in patients with thin corneas who had a thicker-than-expected flap created during surgery.7

In conclusion, an RSB of $300~\mu$m is a universal safety standard, while $275~\mu$m should be interpreted as a clinical limit applicable only to ideal patients with no abnormal findings on preoperative corneal topography. The risk arises from a combination of [low initial thickness] + [abnormal corneal topography] + [surgical variables (e.g., thick flap)].

1.1.4 The LASEK (LASEK/PRK) Difference
LASEK or PRK does not create a flap like LASIK.3 Instead, it removes only the outermost layer of the cornea, the epithelium (about $50~\mu$m), before ablating the corneal stroma.8 This method saves the $\approx 110~\mu$m of flap thickness. Therefore, LASEK is a safe alternative for patients with thin initial corneas who cannot secure the necessary RSB for LASIK.3
1.1.5 Implantable Collamer Lens (ICL): Freedom from Corneal Thickness Constraints
ICL (Implantable Collamer Lens) surgery does not ablate or deform the cornea.1 It involves inserting a biocompatible lens through a micro-incision in the cornea.9 Therefore, ICL can be performed regardless of corneal thickness. This makes it the only vision correction alternative for patients whose corneas are very thin or who have corneal diseases like Keratoconus, making laser-based surgery impossible.1

1.2 The Range of Refractive Error: A Fork in the Road for Surgical Choice

The degree of myopia, hyperopia, or astigmatism (in diopters) a patient wishes to correct is directly related to the amount of corneal ablation and is a key factor in choosing the surgical method.

1.2.1 LASIK/LASEK Correction Range: The Gap Between 'FDA Approval' and 'Clinical Optimum'
The range approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for LASIK is quite broad: myopia up to $-12.0$ D, hyperopia (farsightedness) up to $+6.0$ D, and astigmatism up to $6.0$ D.12
However, this 'approved range' does not mean 'clinically optimal range'. Much more conservative standards are applied in actual clinical practice due to two practical issues: 'safety' and 'quality of vision.'

  1. Safety Limit (Corneal Consumption): As calculated in 1.1.2, about $16~\mu$m of cornea is consumed per $1$ D. To correct $-10.0$ D of high myopia, about $160~\mu$m would be ablated. Adding the flap thickness ($120~\mu$m) and the minimum RSB ($275~\mu$m), a preoperative minimum of $555~\mu$m$—a very thick cornea—is required. A patient with an average thickness ($520~\mu$m) cannot physically receive $-10.0$ D of LASIK. The FDA's $-12.0$ D is close to a theoretical value. Clinically, LASIK shows the most reliable results for myopia of $-6.0$ D or less 4, and anything over $-8.0$ D is classified as 'high myopia,' making the surgery more complex and increasing the risk.14
  2. Decreased Quality of Vision: Excessively ablating the cornea to make it 'too flat' dramatically increases 'Higher-Order Aberrations (HOAs),' which are subtle light distortions not corrected by glasses or lenses.16 This can lead to a situation where the patient can read '1.0' on the vision chart but experiences a significant drop in 'quality of vision' due to glare during night driving or reduced contrast sensitivity.16

1.2.2 Definition of High Myopia and the Role of ICL
Clinically, myopia of $-6.0$ D or more 18, or $-10.0$ D or more 16 is defined as 'high myopia.' For patients in this range, the risk of ablating the cornea with laser surgery is too high.
This is where ICL is recommended as the standard treatment.1 ICL can correct a wide range of myopia, from $-3.0$ D to $-20.0$ D, while preserving the cornea.21 Studies show that ICL is as safe and effective as LASIK for high myopia patients, providing excellent visual outcomes regardless of the preoperative refractive error.22

1.2.3 High Myopia and Pathological Risk
There is a critical clinical fact that high myopia patients must understand. High myopia is not just a high prescription; it is a 'pathological state' where the 'axial length' (the front-to-back length of the eye) is abnormally long (e.g., $> 26$ mm).18
As the eye elongates, the retina, which is attached to the inner wall of the eye, stretches thin.24 This puts high myopia patients at a significantly higher risk of developing retinal detachment, glaucoma, myopic maculopathy, and early cataracts compared to the general population.23

ICL surgery allows the patient to remove their glasses, but it does not treat the underlying 'disease' of the eye being abnormally long.24 Therefore, when a high myopia patient considers ICL, a thorough examination of the retinal state (e.g., retinal tears, lattice degeneration) by a retinal specialist is essential before surgery.24 Even after successful surgery, this pathological risk persists for life, making regular retinal check-ups necessary.

1.3 Core Comparison Table 1: Suitability Criteria by Surgical Method

The following table summarizes the key clinical suitability criteria for each surgical method.

Comparison ItemLASIKLASEK / PRKICL / EVO ICL
Surgical PrincipleFlap creation, stromal ablation 9Epithelial removal, stromal ablation 9Lens insertion behind iris, no ablation 9
Recommended Corneal Thickness$\geq 500~\mu$m (Average or above)$\geq 480~\mu$m (Thin) 3No limit (cornea-independent) 1
Minimum Residual Stromal Bed (RSB)$> 275~\mu$m ~ $300~\mu$m [3, 5, 6]$> 275~\mu$m ~ $300~\mu$mN/A (Cornea preserved)
Recommended Myopia Range$-1.0$ D ~ $-8.0$ D [4, 14, 15]$-1.0$ D ~ $-8.0$ D$-3.0$ D ~ $-20.0$ D 21
Recommended Astigmatism RangeUp to $6.0$ D 12Up to $6.0$ DUp to $4.0$ D ~ $6.0$ D [13, 21, 26]
Key CandidateAvg. cornea, moderate myopia, prefers fast recovery 9Thin cornea, moderate myopia, athlete 9High myopia, thin cornea, dry eye [1, 11, 27]

Part 2: Comparison of Surgical Experience and Recovery Process

When deciding on surgery, the surgical experience itself (pain) and the time it takes to return to daily life (recovery speed) are critical considerations for the patient.

2.1 Surgical Pain and Recovery Speed

2.1.1 LASIK
LASIK proceeds by creating a corneal flap, applying the laser, and then repositioning the flap.9 Because it minimizes damage to the corneal epithelium, there is very little post-operative pain.8 Visual recovery is extremely fast, with most patients recovering a significant portion of their target vision within $4$ to $24$ hours.8 A return to daily life is possible after about $2\~3$ days.27
2.1.2 LASEK (LASEK/PRK)
LASEK intentionally removes the corneal epithelium before applying the laser.8 During the period the epithelium regenerates (about $3\~5$ days), patients experience significant pain, foreign body sensation, tearing, and light sensitivity.8 A protective contact lens must be worn during this time to aid regeneration and reduce pain.21 Visual recovery is slower than LASIK 9, with functional vision beginning to appear after $3$ days 8, and it can take from $1$ week to several months for vision to fully stabilize.21
2.1.3 ICL (Implantable Collamer Lens)
ICL does not touch the central cornea; instead, a lens is inserted through a micro-incision at the periphery.9 Therefore, there is minimal corneal damage, resulting in little post-operative pain and very fast recovery.16 Like LASIK, most patients recover their corrected vision the day after surgery and can resume daily activities.16

2.2 Clinical Interpretation of 'Recovery Experience'

There is conflicting information regarding ICL recovery, with reports of "next-day recovery" 16 and "full recovery takes $3\~4$ weeks".9 This is because the definition of 'recovery' differs, and it can be interpreted clinically as follows:

  • Functional Vision Recovery (1 day): The 'functional vision' required for a patient to conduct daily life is sufficiently achieved the day after surgery for both LASIK and ICL.16
  • Full Stabilization (Weeks): However, unlike LASIK, which is a corneal surface surgery, ICL is an 'invasive' intraocular surgery.1 Therefore, a period is required to monitor for subtle inflammatory responses or fluctuations in intraocular pressure (IOP) that can occur immediately after surgery, and for the inserted lens to fully stabilize within the eye. This is why "full recovery" is described as taking several weeks.9

In contrast, LASEK clearly has the slowest recovery process in terms of both pain intensity and speed of visual recovery.8

2.3 Core Comparison Table 2: Surgical Experience and Recovery

Comparison ItemLASIKLASEK / PRKICL / EVO ICL
Surgery Time (both eyes)$\approx 20\~30$ minutes [28]$\approx 20\~30$ minutes [28]$\approx 20\~30$ minutes [28]
Intra-operative PainMinimal (numbing drops) [9, 29]Minimal (numbing drops) 9Minimal (numbing drops) [29]
Post-operative Pain (1-3 days)Minimal (mild irritation) 8High (epithelial regeneration) 8Minimal (mild irritation) [29]
Functional Vision Recovery$4$ hours ~ $1$ day 8$3$ days ~ $5$ days 8$1$ day 16
Vision Stabilization PeriodDays to weeksWeeks to months [9, 21]Days to weeks [11, 21]
Return to Daily Life (Face washing)After $3$ days 27After $5$ days 27Next day 27

Part 3: In-Depth Analysis of Risk Profiles and Complications

All vision correction surgeries are medical procedures, and each carries unique risks and common side effects. A clear comparative analysis of these risk profiles is crucial for patient safety.

3.1 Common Side Effect 1: Dry Eye Syndrome

Post-operative dry eye is a factor that significantly impacts a patient's quality of life, and its risk level varies clearly by surgical method.

  • LASIK: Dry eye is the 'most common' side effect of LASIK surgery.30 This is because it involves the horizontal cutting of corneal nerves to create the flap.31 These nerves are essential for the feedback loop that regulates tear production and maintains tear film stability. When the nerves are cut, the tear film becomes unstable, causing or worsening dry eye.1 In most cases, the nerves regenerate and symptoms improve over $6\~12$ months 33, but for some patients, it can remain a long-term issue.31
  • LASEK (LASEK/PRK): LASEK does not create a flap, so the cutting of corneal nerves is 'less' than in LASIK. Therefore, the post-operative risk of dry eye is 'lower' than LASIK.28
  • ICL (Implantable Collamer Lens): ICL does not change the shape of the cornea and barely touches the corneal nerves, except for the micro-incision for lens insertion.11 Therefore, ICL does not 'induce or worsen' dry eye.1

Due to these mechanistic differences, there is a clear hierarchy in the 'risk of dry eye': ICL (Very Low) < LASEK (Medium) < LASIK (High). Therefore, for patients who already suffer from severe dry eye 11 or whose ocular surface has been weakened by long-term contact lens wear 33, LASIK may be a choice to avoid, and ICL may be the strongest medical alternative.1

3.2 Common Side Effect 2: Decreased Quality of Vision (Higher-Order Aberrations)

'Higher-Order Aberrations (HOAs)' refer to subtle light distortions that are not explained by 'lower-order aberrations' like myopia and astigmatism.34 They manifest as symptoms like night glare, halos, starbursts, and decreased contrast sensitivity.34

  • Laser Surgery and HOA Induction: LASIK and LASEK 'induce' HOAs, such as 'spherical aberration,' by altering the cornea's natural asphericity during the laser ablation process.36 Notably, the more myopia corrected (i.e., the more the cornea is ablated), the greater the increase in HOAs, which can persist for $2$ years or more.17
  • The Solution (Wavefront): 'Wavefront' or 'patient-customized surgery' is a technology aimed at minimizing these side effects. It precisely measures the patient's unique HOAs with a 3D map before surgery 37 and reflects this in the laser ablation pattern to reduce the occurrence of post-operative HOAs and improve the 'quality of vision'.39
  • ICL and Quality of Vision: ICL does not ablate the cornea, so it does not 'induce' HOAs.11 On the contrary, because the ICL lens is positioned closer to the retina inside the eye, it can provide clearer and cleaner night vision, especially for high-myopia patients.1

It is necessary to recognize the clinical limitations of wavefront technology. Wavefront surgery aims for 'clear 1.0 vision' 39, but it relies on a 'static value' measured 'once' before surgery. However, the human eye is a 'dynamic organ' that changes in real-time depending on humidity, lighting levels (pupil size), and tear film condition.42 Therefore, wavefront perfectly eliminating HOAs may be an 'impossible dream'.42

In contrast, ICL has the fundamental advantage of 'avoiding induction' in the first place by preserving the cornea, rather than 'correcting' HOAs.

3.3 LASIK-Specific Risk: Flap-Related Complications

LASIK surgery carries unique risks related to flap creation for a lifetime.

  • 3.3.1 Flap Dislocation: This is the most serious and unique risk of LASIK. The LASIK flap is not sutured and adheres naturally, but this bond is weaker than the pre-surgical cornea. Therefore, even years after surgery, vigorous eye rubbing 43, or direct trauma to the eye (especially tangential force) from sports or accidents, can cause the flap to shift or fold.44
  • 3.3.2 Corneal Ectasia: As discussed in 1.1.3, this is a serious complication where the residual cornea is too thin to withstand intraocular pressure, causing it to bulge.

3.3.3 The Athlete's Dilemma and Technological Advancement
Due to the risk of flap dislocation, LASIK has traditionally not been recommended for athletes with frequent, intense physical contact (e.g., basketball, combat sports).44
However, this risk needs to be re-evaluated in light of technological progress. Unlike the era of creating flaps with a 'blade (Microkeratome),' flaps made with modern 'femtosecond lasers' are thinner, more uniform, and have vertically interlocking edges, making them more stable.48 One report on an MMA fighter, whose flap was dislocated by a severe car accident but not by training or fighting, suggested that femtosecond laser flaps might not dislocate unless subjected to 'severe trauma'.48

Nevertheless, the risk is not '0'. Therefore, athletes face a dilemma with three choices 9:

  1. LASIK: Fastest recovery ($\approx 1$ day), but carries a lifelong, catastrophic risk of flap dislocation.47
  2. LASEK/PRK: 'Zero' flap risk, making it structurally the safest 9, but the extreme pain and slow recovery (weeks) are detrimental to a training schedule.9
  3. ICL (Implantable Collamer Lens): Fast recovery like LASIK ($\approx 1$ day) 49 and 'zero' flap risk like LASEK.49

In conclusion, if the cost can be borne, ICL is the most ideal choice for professional athletes who need to balance 'fast recovery' and 'structural stability'.9

3.4 ICL-Specific Risk: Long-Term Effects of Intraocular Surgery

ICL preserves the cornea but carries potential risks associated with inserting a lens inside the eye.

  • 3.4.1 Risk of Cataract: This is the most seriously discussed long-term risk of ICL. If the inserted lens is positioned too close to the eye's natural lens (Low Vault), it can interfere with the lens's metabolic activity, causing clouding and leading to cataracts.52
  • 3.4.2 Increased IOP and Glaucoma: If the lens obstructs the natural flow of aqueous humor, intraocular pressure (IOP) can rise, potentially leading to glaucoma, which damages the optic nerve.53
  • 3.4.3 Corneal Endothelial Cell Loss: If the lens physically contacts the innermost layer of the cornea (endothelium), the number of non-regenerative endothelial cells can decrease.53 If the cell count falls below a critical threshold, the cornea can lose transparency and swell.

3.4.4 The Critical Difference Between 'Old ICL' and 'New EVO ICL' Data
When assessing ICL risks, it is crucial to distinguish between historical and current data.

  • Historical Data (Old Lenses): A $10$-year long-term follow-up study 52 reported a $19.7\%$ cataract incidence and a $1.5\%$ glaucoma incidence. These are shockingly high figures. This data is likely based on 'older ICL' models. Older lenses required a preoperative 'iridotomy' (a laser hole in the iris) to prevent the blockage of aqueous flow.
  • Current Data (EVO ICL): The latest ICLs (like EVO ICL) feature an innovative design with a 'Central Pore'.26 This hole allows aqueous humor to flow smoothly through the lens.53 This technological innovation has eliminated the need for an iridotomy 26, and the improved aqueous flow has 'relatively and significantly lowered' the risk of high IOP and cataract formation.53
  • In fact, a recent study 56 analyzing EVO ICL reported a '0%' incidence rate for cataracts, glaucoma, and endothelial cell problems (in short-term follow-up).

In conclusion, while the $19.7\%$ cataract risk 52 is historical data that must be taken seriously, the modern EVO ICL with its central pore is evaluated as having dramatically reduced these long-term risks. However, by the nature of the technology, 10+ year long-term data for the EVO ICL is still accumulating.

3.5 Core Comparison Table 3: Key Risks and Complication Rates

Comparison ItemLASIKLASEK / PRKICL / EVO ICL
Dry Eye (Induction/Worsening)High (Nerve cut) [30, 31, 32]Medium (Less nerve damage) [28]Very Low (Nerve preserved) 1
Night Glare (HOA Induction)High (esp. high myopia) 17Med-High (proportional to ablation) 17Low (no induction mechanism) 1
Flap Dislocation Risk (Trauma)Low but Lifelong 44NoneNone
Ectasia RiskRisk if RSB $< 275~\mu$m 6Very LowNone
Cataract Risk (Long-term)NoneNoneLow but Exists (Old $19.7\%$) 52, (New $\approx 0\%$) 56
Glaucoma/IOP Risk (Long-term)NoneNoneLow but Exists (Old $1.5\%$) [55], (New $\approx 0\%$) 53

Part 4: Long-Term Considerations: Presbyopia, Reversibility, and Lifestyle

Vision correction surgery is often performed in one's 20s or 30s, but its effects are closely linked to eye health in the 40s and 50s, especially concerning 'presbyopia' and 'reversibility.'

4.1 The Relationship Between Vision Correction and Presbyopia

4.1.1 The Mechanism of Presbyopia
Many patients worry that 'surgery will bring on presbyopia faster,' but this is a medical misconception. Presbyopia is not a problem with the 'cornea,' the site of surgery. It is a natural aging phenomenon where the 'lens' inside the eye hardens and loses elasticity, diminishing its ability to focus on near objects.57
4.1.2 Surgery and Presbyopia (Myth vs. Fact)
No surgery—LASIK, LASEK, or ICL—can 'prevent' 60 or 'accelerate' 57 presbyopia.
This misconception arises from a 'change in perception.' A myopic person could originally see near objects clearly when they removed their glasses. However, after vision correction surgery makes their distance vision 'normal (emmetropia),' they will, like anyone else with normal vision, require reading glasses to see up close when presbyopia sets in during their mid-40s. This is a natural process experienced because they now have 'normal vision,' not because of the surgery.57

4.1.3 Surgical 'Correction' of Presbyopia (Monovision)
While LASIK/LASEK cannot 'cure' presbyopia, they can 'compensate' for it using a method called 'Monovision'.61 This approach corrects the dominant eye for distance and the non-dominant eye for near vision.61 The brain blends the two images, but it is not suitable for everyone as it can cause reduced depth perception or quality of vision. It must be tested with contact lenses before surgery.58
4.1.4 The Importance of Preserving the Cornea for 'Future Surgery' (Future-Proofing)
A very important long-term perspective emerges here. If a patient undergoes LASIK or LASEK in their 20s or 30s and their cornea is ablated to the 'safety limit' 64, this patient will have no 'corneal reserve' left when they develop presbyopia in their 40s or 50s. Their 'options' for future laser-based presbyopia corrections (like 'PresbyLASIK') are permanently limited.64
Conversely, ICL preserves $100\%$ of the cornea.1 An ICL patient who develops presbyopia in their 40s or 50s still has a pristine, untouched cornea, just like someone who never had surgery. Therefore, they retain the 'full options' for all laser-based presbyopia surgeries, including monovision LASIK. From this perspective, ICL can be considered a 'future-proof' option.

4.2 Reversible Choice vs. Permanent Change

'Reversibility'—the ability to undo the procedure if the results are unsatisfactory or better technology emerges—is an important criterion.

  • Irreversibility of LASIK/LASEK: Corneal stromal tissue ablated by a laser does not regenerate and is permanently altered.65 This surgery is 'irreversible.'
  • Reversibility of ICL: ICL is a 'reversible' procedure.66 The implanted lens can be 'Removed' or 'Replaced' through a simple procedure.1

This 'reversibility' has significant clinical value:

  1. Safety Net: If serious complications like high IOP or cataracts occur, removing the lens itself can be a fundamental treatment.26
  2. Future-Proofing: If a more advanced technology (e.g., an accommodating artificial lens) becomes available decades later, the ICL can be removed and the new technology applied.67
  3. Prescription Changes: In the rare event vision changes again, the lens can be replaced to match.67

Part 5: Economic Analysis and Long-Term Alternative Comparison

The decision for surgery is influenced not only by medical factors but also by financial cost. Furthermore, a long-term risk and cost-benefit analysis against the only non-surgical alternative, 'contact lenses,' is required.

5.1 Surgical Cost Comparison: Initial Investment Analysis

Surgical costs vary by hospital, region, and technology used (e.g., wavefront), but the general cost structure is as follows:

  • LASIK/LASEK Cost: Averages $1,500\~3,000$ per eye.1
  • ICL Cost: Averages $3,000\~5,000$ per eye, making it about $1.5\~2$ times more expensive than LASIK/LASEK.1
  • Reason for Cost Difference: The significantly higher cost of ICL is not primarily due to surgical difficulty or physician fees 70, but rather the high 'cost of the lens itself'.71 The ICL lens is made of a special biocompatible material called 'Collamer' 9 and is an expensive medical device that is 'custom-made' for each patient's eye prescription and size.71 In particular, 'Toric ICLs' that also correct astigmatism are much more expensive than regular ICLs.71 In contrast, LASIK/LASEK is more of a procedure utilizing expensive capital equipment (the laser).

5.2 Non-Surgical Alternative: Comparison by Contact Lens Type (Daily vs. Reusable)

Many patients view contact lens wear as a 'safe alternative' to avoid surgical risks, but this needs to be re-evaluated medically and economically.

  • 5.2.1 Cumulative Cost: Surgery has a high one-time initial cost 69, but contact lenses are a 'cumulative cost' incurred over a lifetime. Generally, daily disposable lenses have a higher annual cost than reusable lenses (e.g., monthly). Reusable lenses may be cheaper, but they incur ongoing costs for separate cleaning and storage solutions. The cumulative cost over decades can exceed the cost of surgery.
  • 5.2.2 Medical Risk Comparison: Wearing any type of contact lens carries a higher infection risk than wearing glasses. However, the risk profile differs significantly by lens type.
    • Reusable Lenses:
      • High Infection Risk: Reusable lenses have a 'much higher' infection risk than dailies. One study found that reusable lens wearers are
        nearly $4$ times more likely to develop 'Acanthamoeba Keratitis,' a rare, sight-threatening infection, often linked to poor lens hygiene.
      • Allergic Reactions (GPC): Protein deposits accumulate more easily on the lens surface, leading to a higher risk of allergic reactions like 'Giant Papillary Conjunctivitis (GPC)' compared to dailies.
      • Long-Term Complications (Maintained from original): Negligent lens care can lead to bacterial infections and corneal ulcers, which can leave permanent 'corneal opacities' (scars) that reduce vision.33 Chronic oxygen deprivation (Hypoxia) can cause 'corneal neovascularization' (new blood vessels) 33, and lenses destabilize the tear film, causing or worsening chronic dry eye.33
    • Daily Disposables:
      • Hygiene & Convenience: Considered the 'most hygienic option' with the lowest infection risk, as a new, sterile lens is used daily. No cleaning is required.
      • Dry Eye & Allergies: Often recommended for people with dry eyes, and the risk of GPC is lower as deposits do not have time to build up.
      • Absolute Risk (Do Not Reuse): Daily disposables must 'never' be reused. If a lens that has lost moisture after a day is worn again, it will draw moisture from the eye to rehydrate, causing severe dry eye. They also generate significant environmental waste.

In conclusion, patients tend to be highly concerned about the 'one-time risks' of surgery (e.g., flap dislocation, cataracts), but often overlook the 'low but lifelong cumulative daily risk' of contact lenses. Ironically, the long-term complications of contact lens wear (corneal opacity, neovascularization) can make a patient 'ineligible for surgery' altogether.33

Therefore, the decision for vision correction is not about finding a 'risk-free' option, but rather making a rational choice between: 1 the one-time, predictable risk of surgery, 2 the high cost and daily waste of hygienic daily disposables, or 3 the lower cost but high maintenance and high infection risk of reusable lenses.

5.3 Core Comparison Table 4: Long-Term and Economic Summary

Comparison ItemLASIKLASEK / PRKICL / EVO ICLContact Lenses (Daily)Contact Lenses (Reusable)
Avg. Cost (Both Eyes)$3,000\~6,000$ [29]$3,000\~6,000$ [29]$6,000\~10,000$ 1Cumulative Cost (High)Cumulative Cost (Medium)
ReversibilityImpossible (Permanent) 65Impossible (Permanent) 65Possible (Lens removal) [11, 67]Possible (Stop wear)Possible (Stop wear)
Future Presbyopia OptionsMay be limited 64May be limited 64No Limit (Cornea preserved) 64No Limit (if cornea undamaged)No Limit (if cornea undamaged)
Athlete SuitabilityMedium (Flap risk) [44]High (Slow recovery) 9Very High (Safe/Fast) [49, 51]Low (Dislodging/Infection) 47Low (Dislodging/Infection) 47
Long-Term RiskFlap dislocation, Ectasia [45]Corneal haze (rare)Cataract/Glaucoma [53, 55]Risk if reused, (vs. glasses) infectionHigh infection rate, Ulcers, Neovascularization 33

Part 6: Expert Comprehensive Opinion and Recommendations by Patient Profile

The clinical data analysis in this report clearly shows that LASIK, LASEK, and ICL are not competing technologies, but rather 'complementary' technologies selected based on a patient's unique eye conditions, degree of refractive error, and lifestyle.

The optimal recommendations for each patient profile can be summarized as follows:

1. When LASIK is the Optimal Choice

  • Patient Profile:
    • Has sufficient corneal thickness, at or above average (e.g., $> 520~\mu$m).
    • Has moderate myopia and astigmatism (e.g., $-3.0$ D ~ $-7.0$ D).4
    • Does not have severe dry eye before surgery.
    • Does not participate in high-impact contact sports or high-risk occupations.47
  • Reasoning:
    For this profile, LASIK offers the best balance of 'very fast recovery' 9, 'minimal pain' 8, and 'decades of proven data stability.'

2. When LASEK (LASEK/PRK) is the Optimal Choice

  • Patient Profile:
    • Corneal thickness is borderline thin for LASIK.3
    • Combat sports athletes (boxing, jiu-jitsu, MMA) or military personnel with a high risk of direct facial trauma.9
    • Willing to endure $1\~2$ weeks of significant pain and a slow visual recovery period.8
  • Reasoning:
    LASEK provides absolute structural stability with 'zero' risk of flap-related complications.9 This is suitable for specific patient groups where this clear advantage (safety) outweighs the pain of recovery.

3. When ICL (Implantable Collamer Lens) is the Optimal Choice

  • Patient Profile:
    1. Patients with 'high myopia' greater than $-8.0$ D.1
    2. Patients for whom all laser surgery is impossible due to very thin corneas or disease (e.g., keratoconus).1
    3. Patients suffering from 'severe dry eye' who must avoid the worsening caused by laser surgery.11
  • Reasoning:
    For these patients, ICL is the 'only' or 'superior' alternative. It preserves $100\%$ of the cornea 1, does not cause dry eye 11, induces fewer high-order aberrations (glare) 1, and preserves all future presbyopia surgery options.64 The fact that it is the only 'reversible' surgery 67 is a powerful safety net. The patient gains all these advantages in exchange for a higher cost 1 and the (significantly reduced in modern EVO lenses) long-term risks of intraocular surgery.53

Final Recommendation

Vision correction surgery is not a cosmetic procedure to remove glasses; it is a sophisticated medical surgery that alters the structure of the eye or inserts a foreign body. This report provides a comprehensive analysis based on data, but the final decision must be made based on the results of a patient's individual, precise examination.

Patients should demand a thorough analysis of the following test results from their medical provider:

  • When considering LASIK/LASEK: Not just the corneal thickness number, but an analysis of 'Corneal Topography' and 'posterior elevation' to rule out the risk of potential ectasia.6
  • When considering ICL (especially high myopia): In addition to axial length and anterior chamber depth (ACD), a 'retinal specialist' consultation and a dilated fundus exam to assess pathological risks.24

참고 자료

  1. What Is the Difference Between ICL vs. LASIK? - Discover Vision Centers, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://www.discovervision.com/blog/what-is-the-difference-between-icl-vs-lasik/
  2. LASIK and Corneal Thickness | Orange County Eye Doctor - Coastal Vision Medical Group, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://www.coastalvisionmedical.com/blog/lasik-and-corneal-thickness/
  3. LASIK Corneal Thickness, Requirements, and Alternatives, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://www.tlcvision.com/blog/lasik-cornea/
  4. Laser In Situ Keratomileusis (LASIK) - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK555970/
  5. How Does Cornea Thickness Affect My Candidacy For LASIK ..., 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://pricevisiongroup.com/blog/how-does-cornea-thickness-affect-my-candidacy-for-lasik/
  6. Long-term evaluation of eyes with central corneal thickness <400 μm following laser in situ keratomileusis, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4820216/
  7. Debate Over Corneal Thickness for LASIK - American Academy of Ophthalmology, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://www.aao.org/eyenet/article/debate-over-corneal-thickness-lasik
  8. LASIK vs LASEK vs PRK: What Are The Differences - Focus Clinics, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://www.focusclinics.com/blog/lasik-vs-lasek-vs-prk/
  9. Comparing Vision Correction Options: LASIK, PRK, and ICL - SoCal Eye, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://socaleye.com/2025/03/comparing-vision-correction-options-lasik-prk-and-icl/
  10. EVO ICL Vs. LASIK | Which Procedure Is Right For You? - Cornea & Laser Eye Institute, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://www.vision-institute.com/comparing-evo-icl-vs-lasik-which-is-right-for-you/
  11. EVO ICL vs LASIK - San Antonio Eye Specialists, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://www.mysaeyes.com/post/evo-icl-vs-lasik
  12. What are the Vision Parameters of LASIK Eye Surgery? - Austin, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://www.austineye.com/what-are-the-vision-parameters-of-lasik-eye-surgery/
  13. Limits of Treatment - Laser Refractive Surgery - UCLA Health, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://www.uclahealth.org/medical-services/ophthalmology/laser-refractive-surgery/services-offered/limits-treatment
  14. What is the prescription limits for Laser Eye Surgery? - London Vision Clinic, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://www.londonvisionclinic.com/is-there-a-prescription-limit-for-laser-eye-surgery/
  15. LASIK For High Prescriptions? | Success Rates & Considerations, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://www.vision-institute.com/lasik-for-high-prescription-success-rates-and-considerations/
  16. 초고도근시가 렌즈삽입술을 할 수 밖에 없었던 이유ㅣ증례 와 함께하는 시력교정술 Part 4 ‍, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_jMtB46PqA
  17. 고등각막표면굴절교정레이저절제술에서 근시교정량이 고위수차의 장기간 - KoreaMed Synapse, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://synapse.koreamed.org/upload/synapsedata/pdfdata/0035jkos/jkos-51-1184.pdf
  18. Exploring the Research Landscape of High Myopia: Trends, Contributors, and Key Areas of Focus, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10748438/
  19. IMI – Defining and Classifying Myopia: A Proposed Set of Standards for Clinical and Epidemiologic Studies - PMC, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6735818/
  20. IMI - Defining and Classifying Myopia: A Proposed Set of Standards for Clinical and Epidemiologic Studies - PubMed, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30817826/
  21. Quick Recovery: LASIK and EVO Visian ICL Vs. PRK - Dr Tom Campbell, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://drtomcampbell.com/index.php/blog/post/recovery-time-after-vision-correction-surgery-compare-your-options
  22. Indications and Outcomes of Surgery for High Myopia: STAAR Intraocular Collamer Lens (ICL) vs. LASIK | IOVS, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://iovs.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2781690
  23. Complications of high myopia: An update from clinical manifestations to underlying mechanisms - PubMed Central, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11260019/
  24. [안내렌즈삽입술] 초고도근시가 라식, 라섹보다 렌즈삽입술을 선택해야 하는 이유 7가지 | 카이안과TV - YouTube, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVF1A-yK1cQ
  25. High myopia and its risks - PMC - PubMed Central, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6688422/
  26. EVO ICL: A reversible solution for vision correction | Nebraska Medicine Omaha, NE, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://www.nebraskamed.com/health/conditions-and-services/eye-surgery/evo-icl-a-reversible-solution-for-vision-correction
  27. 시력교정수술비교 - 진주 이성수안과, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://www.lasik114.com/comparison_vision_correction
  28. ICL vs LASIK vs LASEK: A Comprehensive Comparison of Vision Correction Treatments, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://precisionvisionlondon.com/icl-vs-lasik-vs-lasek/
  29. Evo Visian ICL vs. LASIK: Facts, Costs & Benefits - NVISION Eye Centers, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://www.nvisioncenters.com/laser-surgery/lasik-vs-icl/
  30. LASIK surgery: Is it right for you? - Mayo Clinic, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/lasik-eye-surgery/in-depth/lasik-surgery/art-20045751
  31. What Is Better, PRK, or LASIK for Dry Eyes? | Kraff Eye Institute, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://kraffeye.com/blog/what-is-better-prk-or-lasik-for-dry-eyes
  32. LASIK vs. SMILE vs. PRK: Which Vision Correction Procedure is Right for You in 2025? - Idaho Eye Center, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://idahoeyecenter.com/lasik-vs-smile-vs-prk-which-vision-correction-procedure-is-right-for-you-in-2025/
  33. 장기 렌즈착용과 시력교정술, 어떤게 눈건강에 유리할까, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://hqcenter.snu.ac.kr/archives/33425
  34. Higher Order Aberrations: Starburst Vision, Trefoil & More, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://www.allaboutvision.com/conditions/aberrations/
  35. Higher Order Aberrations of the Eye: What They Are (& Treatment) - NVISION Eye Centers, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://www.nvisioncenters.com/conditions/higher-order-aberrations/
  36. Central and Peripheral Ocular High-Order Aberrations and Their Relationship with Accommodation and Refractive Error: A Review, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10054659/
  37. Wavefront-LASIK (Custom LASIK) - Stanford Medicine, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://med.stanford.edu/eyelaser/procedures/wavefront-2.html
  38. Vision Correction: Wavefront LASIK - Video - Stanford Health Care, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://stanfordhealthcare.org/stanford-health-care-now/videos/laser-vision-correction-wavefront-lasik.html
  39. 시력의 질을 높이는 방법, 고위수차를 잡아야한다?! #고위수차 #에스앤유안과의원 #스마일프로 - YouTube, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqXq1ro2Tyw
  40. Bladeless Lasik Procedures - personalEYES, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://www.personaleyes.com.au/bladeless-lasik-procedures-at-personaleyes
  41. 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://www.personaleyes.com.au/bladeless-lasik-procedures-at-personaleyes#:~:text=Bladeless%20LASIK%20Procedures%20At%20PersonalEYES&text=New%20wavefront%20technology%20(personalEYES%20Custom,a%20better%20quality%20of%20vision.
  42. Wavefront Optimized versus Wavefront Customized - Turner Eye Institute, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://www.turnereye.com/wavefront-optimized-versus-wavefront-customized/
  43. Lasik Flap Dislocation? - Visual Aids Centre, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://www.visualaidscentre.com/lasik-flap-dislocation/
  44. The Ultimate Guide to LASIK and Contact Sports: Guidelines and Consideration, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://conloneyeinstitute.com/ultimate-guide-lasik-guidelines-contact-sports/
  45. Traumatic corneal flap displacement after laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) - PMC, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5403011/
  46. LVC: No Longer Out of Bounds for Athletes - Review of Optometry, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://www.reviewofoptometry.com/article/lvc-no-longer-out-of-bounds-for-athletes
  47. LASIK Surgery for Athletes | Dallas, TX - LaserCare Eye Center, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://www.dfweyes.com/lasik/athletes-need-consider-laser-eye-surgery/
  48. Traumatic Flap Dislocation After Laser Vision Correction - CRST Global, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://crstodayeurope.com/articles/jan-2022/traumatic-flap-dislocation-after-laser-vision-correction/
  49. Are Athletes Right for the EVO ICL? - Herschel LASIK and Cataract Institute, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://lasikeyeorlando.com/blog/are-athletes-right-for-the-evo-icl/
  50. LASIK for Sports Enthusiasts: Improving Performance and Safety, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://www.vision-institute.com/lasik-for-sports-enthusiasts-improving-performance-and-safety/
  51. Boosting Athletic Performance: How LASIK and EVO ICL Transform Vision for Athletes, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://visionforlife.com/boosting-athletic-performance-how-lasik-and-evo-icl-transform-vision-for-athletes/
  52. Long-term Outcome and Related Risk Factors in Implantable Collamer Lens Implantation of High Myopia - PubMed, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40007092/?utm_source=Chrome&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=pubmed-2&utm_content=1L_cQ9MDBbAJXvYY58dlZRH0aFBGxoI74DDm_A1HHHCBY-6wI5&fc=20250103122157&ff=20250227002432&v=2.18.0.post9+e462414
  53. Analysis of perioperative problems related to intraocular Implantable Collamer Lens (ICL) implantation - PMC - PubMed Central, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9587946/
  54. Adverse events associated with Implantable Collamer Lens: insights from the FDA MAUDE database - PubMed Central, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12319018/
  55. Long-term Outcome and Related Risk Factors in Implantable Collamer Lens Implantation of High Myopia - PubMed Central, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12010185/
  56. A Comprehensive Retrospective Analysis of EVO/EVO+ Implantable Collamer Lens: Evaluating Refractive Outcomes in the Largest Single Center Study of ICL Patients in the United States - PMC - PubMed Central, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10787571/
  57. 라식, 라섹 수술을 받으면 노안이 빨라진단 말 사실일까? - 모두닥, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://www.modoodoc.com/blog/post/563/%EB%9D%BC%EC%8B%9D-%EB%9D%BC%EC%84%B9-%EC%88%98%EC%88%A0%EC%9D%84-%EB%B0%9B%EC%9C%BC%EB%A9%B4-%EB%85%B8%EC%95%88%EC%9D%B4-%EB%B9%A8%EB%9D%BC%EC%A7%84%EB%8B%A8-%EB%A7%90-%EC%82%AC%EC%8B%A4%EC%9D%BC%EA%B9%8C
  58. Can LASIK cure presbyopia or age related near/reading vision loss?, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://www.gwsvision.com/lasik/lasik-for-presbyopia/
  59. Can LASIK Surgery Correct Presbyopia? Exploring Solutions for Age-Related Vision Changes - ICON Eyecare Grand Junction, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://grandjunctioneyecare.com/eye-care-blog/can-lasik-surgery-correct-presbyopia-exploring-solutions-for-age-related-vision-changes/
  60. Can Presbyopia Be Corrected with LASIK? - Broberg Eye Care, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://brobergeyecare.com/lasik/can-presbyopia-be-corrected-with-lasik/
  61. 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://brobergeyecare.com/eye-conditions/can-presbyopia-be-corrected-with-lasik/#:~:text=Presbyopia%20is%20a%20natural%20result,nearsightedness%20in%20the%20other%20eye.
  62. Your Guide to LASIK for Presbyopia - Healthline, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://www.healthline.com/health/eye-health/lasik-for-presbyopia
  63. Can Presbyopia Be Corrected With LASIK? - Eye Center of Texas, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://www.eyecenteroftexas.com/2021/06/can-presbyopia-be-corrected-lasik/
  64. 노안수술 이 영상으로 끝! 노안라식 직접 수술해 본 의사가 알려드립니다 - YouTube, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2to1w-raDaQ
  65. 라섹 수술 후 주의사항 ( 눈비비지 말라는 것과 같이 뻔한 소리는 하지 않겠습니다. ), 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzepOfr0la4
  66. Is ICL Surgery Reversible? - Woodhams Eye Clinic, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://woodhamseye.com/blog-is-icl-surgery-reversible/
  67. EVO ICL: The Only Reversible Vision Correction Procedure, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://www.haydenvision.com/evo-icl-the-only-reversible-vision-correction-procedure/
  68. Visian Implantable Collamer Lens (ICL): Pros and Cons | Kraff Eye Institute, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://kraffeye.com/blog/visian-implantable-collamer-lens-icl-pros-and-cons
  69. Comparing the Cost of LASIK and Contacts - Mark R. Mandel, MD - Optima Eye, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://optimaeye.com/comparing-the-cost-of-lasik-and-contacts/
  70. Trying to Understand the High Cost of ICL Surgery Compared to LASIK and Cataract Surgery - Reddit, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://www.reddit.com/r/lasik/comments/17fxxp5/trying_to_understand_the_high_cost_of_icl_surgery/
  71. 렌즈삽입술 Q&A7 #렌즈삽입술가격 #라식라섹 보다 고가인 이유? #ICL가격 차이 완벽 정리, 11월 4, 2025에 액세스, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhJnK643a3U

Related Topics

Latest StoriesMore story
No comments to show