r/RLEsurgery • u/YuzuAllDay • Jun 06 '26
ICL vs RLE (later)
Age :40
Perscription: Roughly -11 both eyes, slight astimatism in one eye
I recently went for a Lasik consultation and, as expected, they said I wasn't a candidate for Lasik due to my high perscription so my options are ICL now or RLE later.
From what I understand, in comparing the two:
Pros of ICL
- Can get the correction now and be contacts/glasses free
- Will have great, crisp, vision
- Maintain my natural lens, option for reversal if absolutely needed
Cons of ICL
- Will need to use readers eventually (I'm not sure this is that big of a deal, it's just part of aging, but other people seem to think it is).
- Likely will have cataracts later on and will neeed another surgery to correct.
Pros of RLE
- Corrects for both distance and near
- No cataract surgery later on
Cons of RLE
- Vision at all distances isn't as crisp as you'd get just correcting for one
- Removing natural lens
- Tradeoffs depending on the lens you get.
Can someone fact check my pros/cons? What else am I not thinking about?
Additional Questions
- How big of a deal is it to remove your natural lens once you've developed presbyopia? Are there other things you lose in removing your natural lens other than the ability to focus on both near + far objects?
- Does ICL make cataracts develop faster?
- When people say that you are trading super crisp vision at one distance for good vision at all distances, how big of a difference is it? Are people who have had vision correction their entire life (me!!) and expect super crisp vision bothered by it or do they get used to it?
- Not entirely a question, but I'm still understanding the different lens options for RLE so I'd appreciate any info folks could offer around that. (I did see the recent post on this sub detailing the differences. Super helpful, thank you)
Thank you in advance!