We were the third site in the United States to introduce Intralase, and completed 900 of the first 1000 Intralase cases ever performed, so there is some bias perhaps in my answer. If you look at the statistics, there is an increasing percentage of eyes that are treated with the Intralase as compared to the microkeratome, which is now over 50%.
There are many benefits to Intralase, which I believe is clearlly safer than the microkeratome, and this is coming from someone who had previously performed tens of thousands of microkeratome cases. It is the achilles heal of LASIK surgery in that most complications of the procedure are microkeratome related.
As to effectiveness, it is probably slightly better than microkeratome but the differences are less substantial than the safety aspect.
There are even newer femtosecond lasers available and we are one of the few sites, but there are others, using the new Zeiss VisuMax laser which is even better than the Intralase in my opinion. It is more accurate, uses a lower suction pressure, and cuts a more precise flap in our experience.
You should not have to pay much more for a femtosecond (this is the technology behind the Intralase and other laser cutting lasers) than for the blade, and the small extra cost is definitely worth it. We only do all laser lasik, and like other centers to not add a premium charge for this better technology which all of our patients deserve.
Rarely, there is a case such as a corneal scar where we do need to use the microkeratome, but only about once a year.
