ICL was the best option for me because I had a high prescription (-10.00 with mild astigmatism in both eyes), thin corneas, and dry eyes. I was told in the past by a refractive surgeon in California that I was a good candidate for PRK. I didn’t think it was appropriate for me because of my dry eyes, very thin corneas, and the recovery time was not optimal with my work schedule. When the opportunity arose to consider ICL, I felt that it was the right choice for a number of reasons. The recovery time was one day, I was back at my practice the next day after my post-operative visit. It’s reversible so if I was not happy with the results, it could be explanted. Based on my research, the resulting visual acuity and contrast sensitivity is subjectively better in patients compared to those who have had corneal refractive surgery. Because there is a smaller incision made rather than a flap and ablation, there would be less chance of increased dry eyes.
When I had my first eye done, I was amazed. I couldn’t believe how clear my vision was. The surgery was quick and painless. I felt nothing during the procedure and before I knew it my surgery was done! I’m glad I stuck to my gut and waited until there was a surgery out there that was right for me. When I have patients who are considering refractive surgery and are -4.00 and above, ICL is the refractive surgery that I recommend for them.
