That was my experience. I asked about the LASIK touch-up that my doctor
offered as part of the package deal, but he spoke as if I was being
greedy. "You're already seeing 20/15. What more can I do?"

"Clean up the astigmatism" would probably have been a good answer, but I
digress. I think I'm with Bill -- I get the impression that PRK and to
a lesser extent LASIK have outcomes that are based on how your cornea
heals. In other words, 'luck'. It was the relative lack of 'luck'
involved in PIOLs that attracted me to them.

Of course, that was before I knew anything about halos. Still, I don't
regret my decision, and I guess I was pretty 'lucky' with respect to
halos: I see them, but only in extreme darkness.

Bill Lenihan wrote:
> And ask the doctor about the REAL limitations of post-ICL Lasik/PRK.
> Most doctors I interviewed liked to confidently claim that ". . . .
> and if the ICL slightly under- or over-corrects, we can always do
> Lasik/PRK to tweak it . . . . "
>
> The key word being "can", which is not the same as "will". I'm
> starting to get the impression that the accuracy of the lasers and/or
> the uncertainty in the cornea's healing process contributes to a lot
> of ICL docs talking their post-ICL patients (who fall short of 20/20)
> out of Lasik/PRK.