SMILE experience · 2025
A first-person SMILE account at 4 months described the result. Topics included dry eye, ghosting, haze. The poster described a mixed result or a recovery with meaningful tradeoffs.
- Device
- SMILE Pro
Search structured details from individual public forum accounts. These are anecdotes, not clinical evidence or estimates of how often an outcome occurs.
Only curator-approved records with a currently verified source appear here. No usernames or copied post bodies are published.
A first-person SMILE account at 4 months described the result. Topics included dry eye, ghosting, haze. The poster described a mixed result or a recovery with meaningful tradeoffs.
A first-person SMILE account at 1 week described the result. The source included baseline prescription values. The source did not state a clear overall satisfaction judgment.
A first-person SMILE account at 1 month described the result. The source included baseline prescription values. Topics included dry eye, halos, blur or fluctuating vision. The poster's overall assessment was favorable.
A first-person SMILE account at 6 years described the result. Topics included glare, ghosting. The source did not state a clear overall satisfaction judgment.
A first-person SMILE account at 5 months described the result. Topics included starbursts. The source did not state a clear overall satisfaction judgment.
A first-person SMILE account with a postoperative follow-up described the result. Reported acuity included 20/20. Topics included blur or fluctuating vision, haze, pain or discomfort. The poster described a mixed result or a recovery with meaningful tradeoffs.
A first-person SMILE account with a postoperative follow-up described the result. The source included baseline prescription values. Reported acuity included 12/10. Topics included blur or fluctuating vision. The poster's overall assessment was favorable.
A first-person SMILE account at 1 week described the result. Topics included dry eye, ghosting. The source did not state a clear overall satisfaction judgment.
A first-person SMILE account at 6 years described the result. The source included baseline prescription values. Topics included dry eye, glare, ghosting, double vision. The poster described a mixed result or a recovery with meaningful tradeoffs.
A first-person SMILE account with a postoperative follow-up described the result. The source included baseline prescription values. Topics included halos, double vision. The source did not state a clear overall satisfaction judgment.
A first-person SMILE account at 7 months described the result. The source included baseline prescription values. The source did not state a clear overall satisfaction judgment.
A first-person SMILE account at 6 months described the result. The source included baseline prescription values. Topics included dry eye, starbursts, ghosting, blur or fluctuating vision. The poster described a mixed result or a recovery with meaningful tradeoffs.
A first-person SMILE account with a postoperative follow-up described the result. Reported acuity included 20/20, 20/15. Topics included dry eye, blur or fluctuating vision, light sensitivity, pain or discomfort. The poster's overall assessment was favorable.
A first-person SMILE account with a postoperative follow-up described the result. The source included baseline prescription values. Topics included dry eye, halos, starbursts, glare. The poster described a mixed result or a recovery with meaningful tradeoffs.
A first-person SMILE account at 7 years described the result. The source included baseline prescription values. Topics included dry eye, pain or discomfort, floaters. The poster described a mixed result or a recovery with meaningful tradeoffs.
A 25-year-old reported full functional recovery by days 10–11 after SMILE. At one month both eyes measured 20/20 with no residual refractive power, with only occasional mild dryness after long naps.
A first-person SMILE account with a postoperative follow-up described the result. The source included baseline prescription values. Topics included blur or fluctuating vision. The source did not state a clear overall satisfaction judgment.
A first-person SMILE account at 2 months described the result. The source included baseline prescription values. Topics included dry eye, haze. The source did not state a clear overall satisfaction judgment.
A first-person SMILE account at 5 months described the result. The source included baseline prescription values. Topics included dry eye, halos, starbursts, glare. The poster's overall assessment was favorable.
A first-person SMILE account at 30 days described the result. Topics included glare, ghosting, haze. The poster described a mixed result or a recovery with meaningful tradeoffs.
Ten days after SMILE, a London patient with treated blepharitis reported nearly perfect vision and strong satisfaction. Morning dryness, slight starbursts and screen fatigue remained but were manageable.
A first-person SMILE account with a postoperative follow-up described the result. The source included baseline prescription values. Topics included ghosting, double vision, blur or fluctuating vision, pain or discomfort. The poster's overall assessment was favorable.
A first-person SMILE account with a postoperative follow-up described the result. The source included baseline prescription values. Topics included halos, glare, blur or fluctuating vision. The poster's overall assessment was favorable.
A first-person SMILE account at 1 year described the result. Topics included dry eye, starbursts, light sensitivity. The poster's overall assessment was favorable.
A first-person SMILE account with a postoperative follow-up described the result. Reported acuity included 20/20. Topics included starbursts, blur or fluctuating vision, light sensitivity. The poster's overall assessment was favorable.