Raising Awareness

Do these patients sound familiar?

“I’ve worn glasses and contacts for years. My ophthalmologist never mentioned LASIK could be another option.”

“Ten years ago, one of my friends had LASIK and she ended up with severe dry eye. I’m not sure I’d want to take the risk.”

Precision technology enhances safety and predictability

Many people still consider elective refractive surgery to be a gamble even though LASIK technology has evolved rapidly over the last decade. In fact, today’s advanced femtosecond lasers have reduced the frequency of side effects and complications, including the incidence of flap complications, potential for dry eye, and risk of infection. The advanced technology also allows physicians to more accurately predict patient outcomes.

Modern LASIK - high patient satisfaction rates

Before 2008, the average worldwide patient satisfaction rate for LASIK surgery was 95%.1 However, the use of modern laser systems and advanced technologies provide slightly better visual outcomes and fewer side effects than earlier laser refractive surgery systems approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. As a result, average patient satisfaction rates have increased to 98.7%.2  

Knowledge is power

Download a patient handoutDon’t assume your patients will come to you with questions about laser vision correction. Today’s patients expect their primary eye care physicians to take the initiative. Talk to your patient about vision correction options beyond glasses and contact lenses. Download and print our educational handout [PDF] on laser vision correction surgery to better inform your patients. For more information, vist: MassEyeAndEar.org/laservision.

_____________________________________________________________

1 LASIK world literature review: quality of life and patient satisfaction. Solomon KD, Fernández de Castro LE, Sandoval HP, et al. Ophthalmology. 2009 Apr;116(4):691-701. 

2 Modern laser in situ keratomileusis outcomes. Sandoval HP, Donnenfeld ED, Kohnen T, et al. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2016 Aug;42(8):1224-34.