I received this question by message and so I created a thread to answer it--
Hey Dr. Motwani. I saw your CREATE protocol's research paper. I think we can agree that it's better than the traditional T-PRK, due to taking into consideration the epithelial compensation, among others. But the research evolved beyond T-PRK long time ago. How would you compare your protocol to Laser Asymmetric Keratecomy, Decentered individualized sphero-cylindrical protocol, Cosimo Mazzotta's ray-tracing PRK and John Kanellopoulos' ray-tracing PRK. Each one claims to be the most superior, each one gives a solid logic behind it (for example, LAK claims it's the best to ablate the thicker parts for better symmetry, and letting the IOP to reshape the cornea, and it builds on Prof. Cesar Carriazo's work on Crescent Keratectomy; DISC claims it's best to ablate the cone, etc). What do you think about each one compared to the CREATE protocol? Also, how would you compare customised CXL techniques, such as PiXL, PACE CXL and the Corneal Crosslinking Pen? Best regards (you can also make a thread, explaining your protocol and others - it would be highly appreciated).