I am surprised that anybody is prepared to let someone interfere with their eyes on the basis of anecdote. Spend at least a working week (40 hours) doing structured searches of academic journals. LASEK can only be used up to 4D? In fact there is little or no difference between LASIK and PRK/LASEK at almost all levels or treatment. What you are looking for in science is a prospective and randomized trial - so taking a couple of hundred eyes with an average of -9.5 dioptres (i.e. people for whom LASIK should be the only option), and a range of -6 to -15, they gave half LASIK and half PRK. The result at thirty days? The LASIK group had slightly better best corrected visual acuity (i.e. with glasses if they needed them) but the difference was not statistically significant. The PRK group had slightly better uncorrected vision, but this was not statistically significant. Three of the LASIK group had the nightmare of flap complications. This study was a number of years ago and similar studies have been done since, but nobody seems to care because LASIK is supposedly pain-free, requires surgical skill and allows a rapid recovery. Your cornea is half the thickkness of a credit card - if someone said that he proposed to split it edgewise with a motorized razor blade and then perform a procedure, or you could omit the razor blade bit if you could tolerate the equivalent of welder's flash for two days, which would you pick? I should add that after the razor blade procedure the only thing holding on the front of your eye will be the epithelium, a twentieth of the thickness of a credit card and so weak the Prison Service will not accept anyone who has had this done. There are also new concerns that perhaps the 250 micron limit used in LASIK to calculate the portion to leave undisturbed may be nowhere near enough, and there may be a wave of ectasia cases down the line. Still feel like trading 10 days driving ability?