LASIK vs PRK: Same Laser, Different Surface, and How Recovery and Candidacy Diverge

The consultation ends with a printout of a colorful corneal map and a sentence that sounds like a coin toss: “You could do either.” You came in expecting a yes or a no. You leave with a choice between two procedures whose names you have seen on the same billboards for years, and a nagging sense that the distinction is being glossed over.

It is not a coin toss. The question of lasik vs prk is really a question about one layer of tissue about as thick as a sheet of plastic wrap: whether the surgeon lifts it as a flap and lays it back, or removes it and lets your body regrow it. Everything that follows, from how you feel on day two to what your surgeon worries about at year ten, flows from that single decision.

This explainer walks through what happens on the table, who tends to be steered toward which option, and what the evidence actually shows when the two are compared head to head.

LASIK vs PRK: what actually happens during each procedure

Both procedures target the cornea, the clear dome at the front of the eye that does most of the eye’s focusing. Both use an excimer laser, an ultraviolet laser that removes microscopic amounts of tissue with each pulse without heating the surrounding cornea. Both take a few minutes per eye, are done with numbing drops while you are awake, and aim to flatten or steepen the corneal curve so light lands on the retina instead of in front of or behind it.

The difference is the route in. The cornea has an outer skin called the epithelium, a thin layer of cells that regenerates throughout life, sitting on top of the stroma, the thicker structural layer that does not regrow once removed.

In LASIK, the surgeon first creates a flap: a hinged disc that includes the epithelium and a shallow slice of stroma, made either with a fine oscillating blade or a femtosecond laser, a second laser that cuts by creating a plane of tiny bubbles. The flap is folded back, the excimer laser reshapes the exposed stroma, and the flap is laid back into place where it adheres on its own without stitches.

In PRK, short for photorefractive keratectomy, there is no flap. The surgeon removes the central epithelium, usually with a dilute alcohol solution, a soft brush or the laser itself, and applies the excimer laser directly to the corneal surface. A soft bandage contact lens is then placed to protect the eye while new epithelial cells grow across the treated zone.

MedlinePlus and Mayo Clinic describe both as outpatient procedures, and patients often report the strangest part is not pain but the sensation of pressure and a brief dimming of vision while the flap is created. From the laser’s point of view, the reshaping step is essentially identical.

Why the surface matters: flap versus no flap

Think of the cornea as a laminated windshield. LASIK peels back the top lamination, treats underneath, and replaces it. PRK scrapes the top lamination away and waits for a new one to form. That single difference explains almost every practical divergence between the two.

The flap preserves the epithelium intact, which is why LASIK patients commonly describe clear-ish vision by the next morning. Nerve endings under the epithelium are covered again within minutes, so discomfort is usually mild and brief. The trade-off is that the flap edge never fully knits back to the strength of uncut tissue; it heals, but a hard blow to the eye years later can, rarely, dislodge it. The flap also consumes corneal thickness, because the tissue in the flap is not available for reshaping.

PRK leaves no permanent cut in the stroma. Every micron of corneal depth can be used for the correction itself, which is why surgeons often turn to it when a cornea measures thinner than average or when the shape map shows subtle irregularities. The price is paid up front: the exposed nerve endings make the first two to three days genuinely sore for many people, and Cleveland Clinic notes the epithelium typically takes about a week to regrow, with vision sharpening over the following weeks.

There is one more consequence. Because PRK heals from the surface, the cornea can respond to the injury by laying down slightly cloudy scar tissue known as haze. Modern techniques have made significant haze uncommon, and surgeons take steps to limit it, but it remains a PRK-specific risk that LASIK largely sidesteps. LASIK, in turn, carries flap-specific risks that PRK cannot have.

Who is usually a candidate for LASIK, and who is asked to wait

Candidacy is less about which procedure you prefer and more about what your eyes and health allow. Mayo Clinic lists a set of conditions that make refractive surgery either unsuitable or something to postpone, and most refractive surgeons screen for them before discussing technique at all.

Surgeons want a prescription that has settled. Mayo Clinic advises that a prescription still changing within the past year is a reason to wait, and the NHS notes that surgeons generally want to see stability for around two years. Younger adults whose nearsightedness is still creeping are commonly asked to return later rather than correct a moving target.

Health conditions that interfere with healing matter for both procedures. Uncontrolled diabetes, autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis or lupus, and medicines that suppress the immune system all appear on Mayo Clinic’s caution list. Pregnancy and breastfeeding are usual reasons to defer, because hormonal shifts can temporarily change corneal shape and prescription.

Eye-specific findings carry the most weight. Keratoconus, a condition in which the cornea progressively thins and bulges into a cone, is a firm reason not to have either laser procedure, since removing tissue can accelerate it. Significant dry eye, active eye infection, a history of herpes infection of the eye, cataract, and poorly controlled glaucoma are all flagged by Mayo Clinic as reasons for caution or exclusion.

LASIK adds its own filters. Corneal thickness must leave a comfortable safety margin after the flap and the treatment are subtracted. People with very deep-set eyes or small openings between the lids can be harder to fit with the suction ring used to make the flap. For those individuals, PRK often re-enters the conversation, not as a consolation but as the more suitable tool.

What disqualifies you from PRK?

PRK is sometimes described as the option for people who cannot have LASIK, which leaves the impression that almost anyone qualifies. In practice, PRK shares most of LASIK’s exclusions and adds a few of its own.

The shared list comes first. An unstable prescription, keratoconus or other corneal thinning disorders, active infection, uncontrolled systemic disease affecting healing, pregnancy or breastfeeding, and advanced dry eye disease are reasons to decline or delay either procedure. Removing corneal tissue is permanent, so surgeons want confidence that the cornea will remain structurally sound for decades.

PRK then asks something extra of the healing process. Because the surface is wiped clean and must regrow, anything that impairs epithelial healing becomes more significant. Conditions that leave the ocular surface fragile, a history of recurrent corneal erosions, severe allergic eye disease and certain medicines that slow healing may push a surgeon toward a different plan.

Life circumstances also count. Someone who needs sharp vision for a safety-critical job within days, who cannot take roughly a week away from screens and driving, or who cannot avoid dusty or contaminated environments while the epithelium is open may be advised that the PRK timeline is a poor fit. A surgeon will also weigh the small but real risk of haze more heavily in people with very high prescriptions, because larger corrections have historically carried more haze risk.

Finally, a prescription that is too strong for safe laser correction disqualifies a person from both procedures. In that situation, lens-based options such as an implantable phakic lens, a corrective lens placed inside the eye in front of the natural lens, may be discussed instead. The point is not to rank the alternatives but to match the tool to the eye.

Is PRK safer than LASIK? What the evidence actually shows

“Safer” is a word that deserves unpacking. Safer from what, and over what time frame?

The most rigorous comparison is a Cochrane systematic review of randomized trials comparing LASIK with PRK for nearsightedness. Its authors found that LASIK produced faster visual recovery and less discomfort in the early weeks, while by twelve months the two procedures showed no clear difference in how accurately they corrected vision or in serious complications. They also rated the overall quality of the evidence as low, which is a polite way of saying the trials were small, older and inconsistent in how they measured outcomes.

That leaves room for reasoning from mechanism. PRK cannot suffer flap complications: a flap that wrinkles, shifts, develops cells growing underneath it, or becomes inflamed in the days after surgery. Those events are uncommon after LASIK but they exist, and every one of them is impossible without a flap.

LASIK, for its part, cannot develop the surface haze that PRK occasionally produces, and it closes the wound immediately, shortening the window in which bacteria could enter. Infections after either procedure are rare, but the PRK healing period is a longer period of vulnerability.

Some surgeons argue that PRK carries a lower risk of ectasia, the progressive bulging of a weakened cornea, because it leaves more uncut stroma. The observational data lean that way, but no randomized trial has settled it, and the biggest driver of ectasia is operating on a cornea that was already irregular. Careful screening matters more than the choice of technique.

An honest summary: the two procedures trade one set of rare problems for another, and the evidence does not crown either as safer across the board.

PRK vs LASIK recovery time: the first days and weeks

Recovery is where the two paths visibly split, and it is the reason many people ultimately choose one over the other.

After LASIK, Mayo Clinic describes blurry, itchy or burning eyes for a few hours, often with watering and light sensitivity. Most people see reasonably well by the next day and return to desk work within a day or two, though Mayo Clinic notes it can take about two to three months for the eye to fully heal and vision to stabilize. Rubbing the eyes is off limits in the early days, because the flap is most vulnerable then, and surgeons commonly provide a shield for sleeping.

After PRK, the timeline stretches. The bandage contact lens usually stays in for several days while new epithelial cells migrate across the treated surface, a process Cleveland Clinic says takes about a week. During that window, discomfort can range from gritty to frankly painful, vision is blurred and fluctuates, and screens are hard to tolerate. Once the surface closes, comfort improves quickly, but vision typically continues to sharpen over several weeks to a few months as the new epithelium smooths out.

Both procedures involve a course of prescription eye drops. Antibiotic drops reduce infection risk while the surface is healing; anti-inflammatory steroid drops calm the healing response and, after PRK, are usually continued longer to limit haze. Preservative-free lubricating drops help with the dryness both procedures provoke. How long each is used, and how they are tapered, is decided by the surgeon and should not be adjusted independently.

Practical planning follows from this. LASIK patients often need one or two days off; PRK patients commonly plan for a week or more away from driving and demanding visual work. Neither should swim or use eye makeup until cleared.

The difference between LASIK and PRK at a glance

The table below gathers the practical contrasts in one place. Timeframes are typical ranges drawn from Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic and the Cochrane review cited in the references, not promises for any individual eye.

Feature	LASIK	PRK
Laser used for reshaping	Excimer laser	Excimer laser
Access to the stroma	Hinged flap lifted and replaced	Epithelium removed and regrows
Early discomfort	Usually mild, hours to a day	Often moderate for the first 2–3 days
Functional vision	Commonly within 1–2 days	Commonly 1–2 weeks after surface heals
Full stabilization	Roughly 2–3 months	Weeks to several months
Bandage contact lens	Not usually	Yes, for several days
Procedure-specific risks	Flap wrinkles, displacement, cells under flap, flap inflammation	Surface haze, slower healing, longer infection window
Corneal thickness required	More, because the flap uses tissue	Less, no flap
Outcome at 12 months	No clear difference in the Cochrane review

Two rows deserve emphasis. The “laser used” row is identical, which is why PRK is not a lesser version of LASIK; the correction itself is the same. The “outcome at 12 months” row is the finding that most surprises patients: after the recovery gap closes, the trials do not separate the two.

What the table cannot show is the texture of the experience. A week of blurred, sore vision is a genuine cost that some people will pay gladly for a flap-free cornea, and others would rather not. Neither preference is wrong.

What are the downsides of PRK surgery?

Patients researching PRK often meet reassuring language about it being the “original” laser procedure with a long track record. That is true. It also has clear drawbacks that deserve equal billing.

Pain comes first. The removed epithelium exposes some of the most densely innervated tissue in the body, and until it regrows, blinking against a bandage lens can feel like sand under the lid. Most people describe the second and third days as the worst, then a rapid improvement once the surface closes.

Slow visual recovery is the second. Vision after PRK is often worse in the first week than it was with glasses before surgery, which is disorienting even when expected. Driving, reading small print and screen work are usually off the table until the surgeon confirms the surface has healed, and fine focus continues to shift for weeks afterward.

Haze is the third and most PRK-specific. As the surface heals, the cornea can deposit faint cloudiness within the treated zone. Mild haze is common early and typically fades; visually significant haze is uncommon with current techniques but can reduce clarity and contrast if it persists. Surgeons address this risk with a longer course of anti-inflammatory drops and strict advice on ultraviolet protection, since sun exposure during healing has been associated with more haze.

Light sensitivity, fluctuating dryness and the sheer disruption of a week away from normal life round out the list. None of these are reasons to dismiss PRK. They are the specific costs that buy its specific advantage: a cornea with no permanent flap interface and more structural tissue left untouched. Deciding whether that trade is worth it is exactly the conversation to have with the surgeon.

Why don't some doctors recommend LASIK?

The question circulates because a noticeable number of eye doctors wear glasses, and patients reasonably wonder what they know. The honest answer is less dramatic than the framing suggests, but it is worth taking seriously.

Some clinicians decline LASIK for themselves because their own eyes are poor candidates: thin corneas, meaningful dry eye, or a prescription that keeps drifting. Others simply do not mind glasses and see no reason to accept any surgical risk for a problem they consider trivially managed. Neither position is a verdict on the procedure.

There are, however, clinical reasons a surgeon might steer a particular patient away from LASIK specifically. Dry eye is the most common. Creating the flap cuts through corneal nerves that drive tear production, and Mayo Clinic notes that dryness after LASIK can persist for months. Someone who already struggles with dryness may be advised to consider PRK, which disturbs fewer of those nerves, or to avoid laser surgery altogether.

Occupation and lifestyle matter too. People in contact sports, some military roles or physically hazardous jobs may be counseled toward a flap-free procedure because of the small long-term risk of flap displacement after blunt trauma.

Age is another factor that gets misread. Laser correction reshapes the cornea; it does nothing to stop presbyopia, the age-related stiffening of the natural lens that makes reading glasses necessary in the forties and beyond. A surgeon who hesitates to recommend LASIK to someone approaching that stage is often trying to prevent disappointment, not expressing doubt about the technique.

The pattern is consistent: good surgeons decline patients more often than they decline procedures. Screening is where safety is decided.

Does the military prefer LASIK or PRK?

Military policy is a useful lens on this question precisely because it is written by people who worry about worst-case scenarios: a service member taking a blow to the face, working in blowing sand, or spending months without access to an eye specialist.

Historically, US military services favored PRK over LASIK, and in some roles required it. The reasoning was the flap. A cornea with no flap has nothing to dislodge under trauma and no interface for debris or fluid to enter under extreme conditions, such as high-altitude flight or diving. PRK’s longer recovery was considered an acceptable cost for that structural simplicity.

That stance has softened as flap-making technology improved and as long-term data accumulated on LASIK flaps in active populations. Both procedures are now generally accepted across the US services, though specific requirements still vary by branch, by occupation and by the stage of training or aviation qualification a person is in. Some specialized aviation and special-operations pathways retain particular rules about which procedure is permitted and how long ago it must have been performed.

What this means for a civilian is limited but real. The military’s caution about flaps is a reasonable data point for anyone whose work or sport involves a meaningful chance of eye trauma. It is not evidence that PRK produces better vision; the Cochrane comparison found no clear difference at one year. It is a judgment about durability under stress.

Anyone considering enlistment or a commission should confirm the current standards for their intended role before scheduling any procedure, since a poorly timed or wrong-type surgery can complicate qualification. Recruiters and service medical offices, not surgical consultants, are the authority on those rules.

Dry eye, halos and night vision: the risks both procedures share

Because the reshaping step is identical, most of the risks that follow laser vision correction belong to both procedures. They are worth understanding on their own terms rather than as tiebreakers.

Dry eye leads the list. Mayo Clinic notes that laser surgery temporarily reduces tear production and that dryness can persist for up to six months as the eye heals, occasionally longer. Both procedures cut corneal nerves; LASIK’s flap cuts more of them, which is why dryness tends to be more pronounced and prolonged after LASIK, though PRK is not immune. Lubricating drops are the mainstay of management, and the surgeon may suggest other measures if symptoms linger.

Glare, halos around lights and reduced night vision are common in the early weeks after either procedure and usually fade as the cornea settles. A minority of people notice them long term, particularly those with large pupils or high corrections, and Mayo Clinic lists these as recognized risks rather than rare surprises.

Undercorrection, overcorrection and regression describe results that miss the target or drift back toward the original prescription over time. Nearsighted eyes tend to regress slightly, and a second treatment, often called an enhancement, may be discussed if vision remains unsatisfactory once stable. Not everyone is eligible for enhancement, because it removes further tissue.

Rarer risks include infection, persistent inflammation, ectasia and, very uncommonly, a permanent reduction in best-corrected vision. Mayo Clinic is explicit that severe vision loss is rare.

Finally, neither procedure changes the eye’s future. Presbyopia will still arrive, cataracts may still form, and a person with high nearsightedness retains the retinal risks associated with a long eye even after the cornea is reshaped. Laser correction changes how light is focused, not the underlying anatomy of the eye.

PRK or LASIK for thin corneas and active lifestyles

Two groups of patients hear the phrase “you might be a better PRK candidate” more than anyone else: people whose corneas measure on the thin side, and people whose lives involve a real chance of a blow to the eye.

Corneal thickness is measured during the pre-operative workup with pachymetry, an ultrasound or optical scan that maps thickness across the cornea. Surgeons calculate how much tissue the laser will remove for a given prescription and then insist on a safety margin of untouched stroma underneath. In LASIK, the flap is subtracted from the available tissue before that calculation starts. In PRK, only the epithelium is removed, so the same cornea has more usable depth. For a borderline cornea, that difference can be what separates a comfortable margin from an uncomfortable one.

Thin is not the same as abnormal. A thin but regular cornea may be fine for either procedure at a modest prescription. A cornea of average thickness with an irregular shape on topography, the color map of curvature that patients are shown at consultation, is a bigger concern than thinness alone, because irregularity can signal early keratoconus. Surgeons often decline both procedures in that situation regardless of thickness.

Active lifestyles bring the flap question back. Boxing, martial arts, rugby and similar sports carry a small lifetime risk of flap trauma after LASIK. The risk is low, and many athletes have LASIK without incident, but PRK removes the possibility entirely. People who work with power tools, in construction or in any environment where eye protection can fail may hear the same reasoning.

These are judgments about margins and probabilities rather than rules, which is why two surgeons can look at the same scans and reach slightly different recommendations. Asking each to explain the margin they are using is a fair request.

What people often get wrong about LASIK vs PRK

Marketing and word of mouth have layered several misunderstandings over this comparison. Clearing them tends to make the decision easier.

The first is that PRK is an older, inferior procedure kept around for people who cannot have LASIK. PRK is older, but the laser and the correction are the same, and the Cochrane review found no clear difference in outcomes at one year. Surgeons choose PRK on purpose for specific corneas.

The second is that LASIK is “bladeless” and PRK is not. The blade, when one is used, makes the LASIK flap. PRK uses no blade at all; the epithelium is loosened with a solution, brush or laser. Bladeless LASIK simply means the flap was made with a femtosecond laser.

The third is that results are permanent in the sense that vision will never change. The corneal reshaping is permanent, but the eye keeps aging. Presbyopia arrives regardless, cataracts can develop, and mild regression of the correction is well documented. Many people who had surgery in their twenties need reading glasses in their forties, as they would have anyway.

The fourth is that a longer recovery means a worse result. PRK’s slower healing reflects how the surface regrows, not how well the laser worked. Patience is the cost; the end point is comparable.

The fifth is that the decision belongs to the patient’s preference alone. Preference matters, but anatomy sets the menu. A surgeon who says one option is unavailable is usually reading the corneal map, not the marketing budget.

The last is that either procedure treats every vision problem. Neither addresses presbyopia in a lasting way, and very high prescriptions may be better served by lens-based alternatives.

Questions to ask your care team

A good consultation should leave you able to explain, in your own words, why one procedure was recommended over the other. These questions tend to draw out that reasoning.

• What did my corneal thickness and topography show, and how much untouched stroma would remain after each procedure?
• Is my prescription stable enough, and how many years of records did you use to judge that?
• Do I have any signs of dry eye now, and how would each procedure be expected to affect it?
• Which risks apply specifically to me, given my prescription, pupil size and occupation?
• What would the first two weeks look like with each option, and how much time should I plan away from driving and screens?
• Which eye drops would I use, for roughly how long, and what should I do if I cannot tolerate one of them?
• If the result is not on target, am I likely to be eligible for an enhancement, and would the same procedure be used?
• How will presbyopia affect me in the coming years, and would either procedure change that?
• Are there lens-based or non-surgical alternatives that suit my eyes better than either laser procedure?
• How many follow-up visits are expected, and who do I contact after hours if something feels wrong?

Bring your current glasses prescription and any older ones you can find. If you wear contact lenses, ask how long you must leave them out before the measurements, since lenses temporarily alter corneal shape; Mayo Clinic notes this can be several weeks for some lens types. Write the answers down, or bring someone who will. The details that seem obvious in the consultation room are the ones that blur once you are home searching for reassurance.

When to call your doctor after LASIK or PRK

Most recovery worries turn out to be ordinary healing: scratchiness, watering, light sensitivity and vision that swims in and out of focus during the first days. A few patterns are different and should prompt a same-day call to the surgical team, or urgent care if the team cannot be reached.

Pain that increases after the first day or two rather than easing is the most important sign. After PRK in particular, the second and third days are typically the worst; pain that climbs again once it had begun to settle can signal infection or a healing problem. Sudden worsening of vision after an initial improvement, especially in one eye, deserves the same urgency.

Watch for a red eye that is becoming redder, thick or colored discharge, a white or gray spot visible on the cornea, or light sensitivity so severe that you cannot open the eye in a normal room. Any of these can indicate infection, which is treatable but time-sensitive.

After LASIK, a direct blow to the eye, a fingernail scratch or vigorous rubbing followed by a sudden change in vision or a feeling that something is out of place warrants immediate assessment, because the flap may have shifted. This applies in the early weeks and, more rarely, years later.

New floaters, flashes of light or a curtain-like shadow across part of the vision are not typically caused by the laser itself but can indicate a retinal problem, which people with high nearsightedness remain at risk of. These symptoms are urgent regardless of recent surgery.

When in doubt, call. Refractive surgeons expect early questions, and an unnecessary check is a far better outcome than a delayed one. Never stop or change prescribed drops on your own; if a drop stings or seems to worsen symptoms, ask the team what to do rather than skipping it.

Frequently asked questions

What is the main difference between LASIK and PRK?

The difference is how the surgeon reaches the corneal stroma. LASIK creates a thin hinged flap that is lifted, treated beneath and laid back; PRK removes the surface epithelium entirely and lets it regrow over about a week. The laser reshaping step is the same in both, which is why long-term visual results are comparable while early recovery differs substantially.

How does PRK vs LASIK recovery time compare?

LASIK recovery is faster. Mayo Clinic describes vision commonly clearing within a day or two after LASIK, with full stabilization over roughly two to three months. After PRK, Cleveland Clinic notes the surface heals in about a week, during which vision is blurred and the eye can be sore, and sharpness continues improving over several weeks. Both timelines are typical ranges, not guarantees.

Is PRK safer than LASIK?

Neither is clearly safer overall. PRK cannot have flap complications such as displacement or cells growing beneath the flap, and it leaves more corneal tissue intact. LASIK avoids the surface haze and longer infection window that PRK carries. The Cochrane review comparing the two found no clear difference in serious complications at one year, while rating the evidence quality as low.

What disqualifies you from PRK?

The same conditions that exclude LASIK usually exclude PRK: keratoconus or other corneal thinning disorders, an unstable prescription, active eye infection, uncontrolled autoimmune or metabolic disease, pregnancy and severe dry eye. PRK additionally suits poorly anyone whose surface healing is impaired or who cannot take roughly a week away from driving and demanding visual work while the epithelium regrows.

Why don't some doctors recommend LASIK?

Usually for patient-specific reasons rather than doubts about the procedure. Significant dry eye, thin or irregular corneas, contact sports or hazardous occupations, and approaching presbyopia can all lead a surgeon to suggest PRK, a lens-based option or no surgery. Some doctors simply prefer glasses for themselves. Careful screening, not blanket avoidance, is what defines a cautious surgeon.

Does the military prefer LASIK or PRK?

US military services historically favored PRK because it leaves no flap that could be displaced by trauma or extreme conditions. Both procedures are now generally accepted, but rules vary by branch, occupation and aviation status, and some specialized roles retain specific requirements. Anyone planning to enlist should confirm current standards for their intended role before scheduling surgery.

What are the downsides of PRK surgery?

PRK involves more discomfort in the first two to three days, slower visual recovery over one to two weeks, a longer window of infection risk while the surface is open, and a small risk of corneal haze that can reduce clarity if it persists. It also typically requires a longer course of anti-inflammatory drops and strict ultraviolet protection during healing.

Which is better, PRK or LASIK for thin corneas?

PRK is often preferred when a cornea measures thinner than average, because no tissue is used to create a flap, leaving more stroma available for the correction and the safety margin beneath it. Thinness alone is not disqualifying, but an irregular corneal shape suggesting early keratoconus usually rules out both procedures. The surgeon’s pachymetry and topography scans guide this decision.

Will I still need reading glasses after LASIK or PRK?

Very likely, once presbyopia develops in your forties or beyond. Both procedures reshape the cornea to correct distance focus; neither prevents the age-related stiffening of the natural lens that makes near work harder. Some surgeons discuss correcting one eye for near vision, an approach called monovision, but that has trade-offs and is a separate conversation with the treating team.

Can PRK or LASIK results wear off over time?

The corneal reshaping is permanent, but the correction can drift slightly, a change called regression, and the eye continues to age. Mild regression is more common with higher nearsighted prescriptions. If vision remains off target once stable, a second treatment may be considered for eligible eyes. Cataract formation later in life can also change vision independently of the original surgery.

References

• MedlinePlus: LASIK eye surgery
• NHS: Laser eye surgery and lens surgery
• PubMed (Cochrane): Laser-assisted in-situ keratomileusis (LASIK) versus photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) for myopia
• NIH National Eye Institute: Refractive errors

This article is for general information only and is not a substitute for professional medical advice. Please consult a qualified doctor about your individual situation.