LASIK isn't the only type of laser eye surgery. I think this article should not be the receiver of laser eye surgery.

Instead, the reader should be referred to a more general article on the topic, such as eye surgery. Some of the other laser assisted eye surgery methods are PRK and LASEK. Presenting this topic as the sole method for laser eye surgery is biased and misleading. At the very least, a disambiguation page should be created.

It should list the eye surgery article for general information and under it there should be the others. If anyone know show to remove the redirect from laser eye surgery to LASIK and create a disambiguation page linking to it instead, please do so or explain to me how. --Exigentsky 04:52, May 26, 2004 (UTC)

A copyright issue from LASIK site FAQ:

Q: Can I use information from the FDA LASIK website?

A: Yes. Information on this website can be used freely by the public. Any use on other websites or in publications should be properly cited. Mikkalai 04:35, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate for an editor to add a link to their own blog (or other site of their own) unless that site has a significant amount of content that can't be found elsewhere. Since the content on this one was "I've read a lot of reports stating X" and "I saw a good comparison on a reputable website", this is obviously not the case here. Better to link to the original reports.

Also, "a lot of reports stating that when LASIK (Laser-Assisted In Situ Keratomileusis) centers offer laser eye surgery for $499 to $999 per eye, they are usually cutting corners"? While that sounds like a very reasonable conclusion, it also sounds like an unusually specific thing to be stated in 'a lot of' different reports. Offering this claim without citations doesn't strike me as a very high-value source. --Calair 23:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't belong in the article because it's original research, and I'm inclined to think whoever added it was spamming (judging by his other contributions) →Raul654 23:57, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

I was surprised at the article's general lack of discussion of any adverse events inherent in LASIK. I'm no expert on the matter, but considering the plethora of anecdotal accounts describing an impaired ability to detect light and color contrast; seeing halos around light sources in dark environments; and, in extreme cases, a seriously-impaired ability to see distinctly in dim light, I was hoping for some analyses—or even an acknowledgement—of such events.

Fundamentally, does LASIK improve visual acuity at the expense of contrast perception? If this is unfounded anecdotalism, then let's see it debunked, but surely these topics deserve some treatment. — Ringbang 15:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The halo effect is extremely common. Beyond that, I've never heard of people losing contrast (and none of the 150 pages of literature on the subject they had me read before my operation mentioned anything of the sort). In discussions with my optholmologist (who literally wrote the book on this sort of things), he said that for people who follow the instructions correctly, a slipped flap is the most common complication (about 1 in 200 patients), followed by mechanical difficulties with the equipment (about 1 in 500), infection (about 1 in 5000), 'etc. So I wouldn't call these common problems. →Raul654 17:30, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

I removed the following information from the article. Weathers had RK, not LASIK: Also, as discovered by former patient and Mount Everest climber Beck Weathers in 1996, eyesight corrected by LASIK has a strong tendency to become blurry to the point of uselessness at high altitude (above 20,000 feet), due to the minute pits made on the eyeball by the laser, which fill with low-oxygen air to blur vision. No study has been done on this, due to the risks associated with high altitude mountaineering. Edwardian 16:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]