Getting LASIK eye surgery vs staying with glasses or contacts
Last reviewed 2026-05-10
Evidence quality 4.13/5
Eight-dimension review score against the
quality rubric
. Each dimension scored 1–5.
D1 Source verification
4/5
D2 Source authority & independence
5/5
D3 Regret-rate accuracy
2/5
D4 Source comparability
3/5
D5 Gilovich pattern
5/5
D6 Prose quality
5/5
D7 Caveat completeness
5/5
D8 Sample quality
4/5
Average4.13/5
Proxy data — no direct regret survey exists for this decision. Rates are derived from satisfaction scores and access-barrier data rather than questions that directly asked about regret. See caveats below.
Action regret
Getting LASIK
4.0%
1–4% dissatisfied with vision or surgery (PROWL studies)
The FDA-supported LASIK Quality of Life Collaboration Project (PROWL studies, n=574) found that dissatisfaction with vision after LASIK ranged from 1% to 4% across two prospective cohorts; dissatisfaction with the surgery itself was 1—2%. These are the highest-quality outcome data available, conducted under joint FDA/NIH/DoD oversight. A smaller cohort study (n=200) found 98.5% satisfied or very satisfied. Self-selected patient review data from RealSelf (446 reviews, 2007—2022) placed the “not worth it” rate at 12.6% — substantially higher, consistent with the well-documented negativity bias in voluntary online reviews. The 4% PROWL upper bound is used as the action regret estimate; 12.6% is a plausible ceiling.
On the inaction side, no published survey directly asks glasses or contact lens wearers whether they regret not having LASIK. The closest proxy is a Gallup survey (n=1,050, 2000) finding that 40% of corrective-lens wearers would consider laser eye surgery at some point — with roughly 11% expressing intent within the next year or two. A longitudinal comparison study (n=1,800 over 3 years) found that contact lens wearer strong satisfaction declined from 63% at baseline to 54% by year 3, while 88% of former contact wearers who switched to LASIK remained strongly satisfied at year 3. We use 25% as a conservative inaction proxy, adjusting down from the 40% consideration rate to reflect the gap between consideration intent and genuine retrospective regret.
The pattern is consistent with Gilovich and Medvec’s inaction-dominates finding: the people who never got LASIK — whether due to cost, fear of complications, or inertia — sustain a persistent open counterfactual, while those who proceeded overwhelmingly report the outcome as positive. The main reason the action rate stays low is rigorous candidate screening: patients with thin corneas, severe dry eye, or high prescriptions outside the safe treatment range are excluded. The failures — chronic dry eye, corneal ectasia, halos and glare — are real but relatively uncommon among properly screened candidates, and they account for most of the action regret in the data. The inaction side has no such natural screening; any corrective-lens wearer who “always meant to get it” qualifies.
Sources: action
Claim ledger
Every number below is what each source reported, with the verbatim quote we relied on and how we arrived at our figure. Click any link to verify directly.
[1]JAMA Ophthalmology — Symptoms and Satisfaction of Patients in the Patient-Reported Outcomes With Laser In Situ Keratomileusis (PROWL) Studies
Peer-reviewed
Dissatisfaction with vision 1–4%; dissatisfaction with surgery 1–2%; most participants satisfied
Excerpt
“"While most participants were satisfied, the rates of dissatisfaction with vision ranged from 1% (95% CI, 0%-4%) to 4% (95% CI, 2%-7%), and the rates of dissatisfaction with surgery ranged from 1% (95% CI, 0%-4%) to 2% (95% CI, 1%-5%)."
”
Source data from
2017-01-19
Accessed
2026-05-10
Calculation
PROWL-1 (n=262, military, single center) and PROWL-2 (n=312, civilians, 5 centers) -- prospective observational studies September 2011 to June 2014, conducted under FDA/NIH/DoD collaboration (the LASIK Quality of Life Collaboration Project). Dissatisfaction with vision in PROWL-2 reached 4% (95% CI 2--7%). We use 4% as the action-side regret rate, taking the upper end of the PROWL range as the more conservative public-health estimate. The PROWL studies are the gold-standard FDA-supported dataset; they do not use the word "regret" but measure dissatisfaction with both outcome and procedure -- the closest available proxy.
[2]Journal of Ophthalmology (PMC) — Functional Outcome and Patient Satisfaction after Laser In Situ Keratomileusis for Correction of Myopia and Myopic Astigmatism↗ 1 other entry
Peer-reviewed
98.5% of patients satisfied or very satisfied; 98.5% considered main goal achieved; n=200
Excerpt
“"A total of 98.5% of patients was satisfied or very satisfied with their surgery. 98.5% considered their main goal for surgery was achieved. 97.5% would advise friends to do the LASIK treatment."
”
Source data from
2015-01-19
Accessed
2026-05-10
Calculation
Prospective cohort study, n=200 LASIK patients for myopia and myopic astigmatism. The 1.5% dissatisfied rate corroborates the PROWL floor. Used as secondary corroboration. The 4% figure from PROWL-2 is preferred as the action-rate anchor because PROWL used a broader multi-center design and FDA oversight.
[3]Ophthalmology and Therapy (Dove Press / PMC) — Patient-Reported LASIK Outcomes on RealSelf: a Social Media Review Platform
Peer-reviewed
“"Of 446 reviews with explicit satisfaction ratings, 78.0% (348 reviews) rated LASIK as 'worth it', 12.6% (56 reviews) as 'not worth it', and 9.4% (42 reviews) as 'not sure'."
”
Source data from
2025-06-01
Accessed
2026-05-10
Calculation
Retrospective analysis of 523 LASIK reviews posted to RealSelf 2007--2022. The 12.6% "not worth it" rate substantially exceeds the PROWL clinical dissatisfaction figures, consistent with self-selection: people who had negative outcomes are more motivated to post public reviews than those who are satisfied. Not used as the primary rate; included to acknowledge the ceiling of dissatisfaction in self-selected patient-reported data. The PROWL 4% is preferred as the primary action rate because it comes from a prospectively enrolled, FDA-supervised cohort with mandatory follow-up.
Independence
RealSelf is a patient review platform with financial relationships with cosmetic procedure providers. The study analyzed reviews rather than enrolling patients; severe self-selection bias applies.
Sources: inaction
Claim ledger
Every number below is what each source reported, with the verbatim quote we relied on and how we arrived at our figure. Click any link to verify directly.
[1]Gallup — Forty Percent of Americans Who Use Glasses Would Consider Laser Eye Surgery
Reference source
40% of US glasses/contacts wearers would consider laser eye surgery; ~10-11% said within the next 1-2 years
Excerpt
“"Over four out of ten Americans who wear glasses or contacts would consider having laser eye surgery to correct their vision problems at some point in the future. About 10 percent of current glasses or contact wearers are considering it within the next year or two."
”
Source data from
2000-02-15
Accessed
2026-05-10
Calculation
Gallup survey of 1,050 US adults, February 14--15, 2000. The 40% consideration rate is used as the ceiling for the inaction proxy. "Would consider" is not the same as "regrets not having done it" -- consideration intent is a weaker signal than retrospective regret. We use 25% as the inaction rate proxy: a conservative downward adjustment from the 40% consideration figure, accounting for the gap between consideration-intent and active regret, and for the fact that many people who once considered LASIK have since reassessed eligibility or cost. This estimate is directionally supported by the longitudinal satisfaction data (see second source). This survey is from 2000; later surveys have not measured the same construct, so it is used as the best available proxy despite its age.
[2]Ophthalmology — Three-Year Longitudinal Survey Comparing Visual Satisfaction with LASIK and Contact Lenses
Peer-reviewed
Contact lens wearer strong satisfaction declined from 63% to 54% over 3 years; 88% of former contact wearers who switched to LASIK strongly satisfied at year 3
Excerpt
“"[Paraphrase from abstract -- full text paywalled] The proportion of contact lens control participants expressing strong satisfaction with their correction method decreased from 63% at baseline to 54% at year 3. Among former contact lens wearers who received LASIK, 88% were strongly satisfied at year 3."
”
Source data from
2016-07-01
Accessed
2026-05-10
Calculation
Multicenter prospective longitudinal study, n=1,800 across 20 US sites (3 groups: continued contacts, switched from contacts to LASIK, switched from glasses to LASIK). The declining satisfaction trend in the contact lens group (63% to 54%) compared to the high retained satisfaction in the LASIK group (88% at 3 years) supports the directional inference that non-surgery carries a latent dissatisfaction cost over time. This is not a regret measure -- it is a comparative satisfaction trajectory -- but it corroborates the inaction-proxy estimate.
Caveats
The action and inaction measures are methodologically mismatched. The 4% action-regret figure is drawn from the PROWL studies (FDA-supervised, n=574, prospectively enrolled), which measure dissatisfaction at 6 months -- not direct regret. Long-term outcomes (corneal ectasia, progressive dry eye, regression requiring re-treatment) may shift the action rate upward over longer follow-up; PROWL did not follow patients beyond 6 months for satisfaction measures. The RealSelf self-selected review data (12.6% "not worth it") provides a real-world upper bound but is subject to substantial negativity bias. The inaction rate (25%) is a proxy constructed from a Gallup consideration survey (2000, n=1,050) and a longitudinal satisfaction comparison study -- neither is a direct regret measure. The consideration intent (40%) is adjusted down to 25% to reflect the gap between "would consider" and "regrets not doing it." No published survey directly asks glasses or contact lens wearers whether they regret not having LASIK; absent such data, the inaction rate carries substantial uncertainty. The Gallup survey predates modern LASIK techniques (wavefront-guided, topography- guided) that have further improved outcomes -- current consideration rates among glasses/contacts wearers may differ. The inaction-dominates pattern is broadly consistent with the satisfaction literature (most who get LASIK are satisfied; many who don't continue to wear corrective lenses with declining satisfaction over time), but the 21-point estimated gap is approximate rather than empirically derived.
