In their article reporting the results of a pilot study assessing the use of accelerated corneal crosslinking (CXL) concurrent with laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK), Celik et al.1 demonstrated that the addition of accelerated CXL to the LASIK procedure did not appear to affect LASIK algorithms. We have also incorporated accelerated CXL into LASIK procedures and have similarly demonstrated predictable visual and refractive outcomes with this combined method. We incorporate partial-strength accelerated CXL into the LASIK procedure for patients we consider LASIK candidates with higher than average risk for regression: those younger than 30 years, those who will have a deep ablation, and those with a family history of ectasia. It has been argued that the creation of a LASIK flap may weaken the integrity of the cornea by as much as 32%,2 and our goal in adding crosslinking to the procedure is to offset this effect without significantly affecting visual recovery. We retrospectively compared 66 myopic eyes having LASIK and accelerated CXL and 42 myopic eyes having LASIK alone. Both treatment groups had a similar mean age (27.28 years in the LASIK group and 26.55 years in the LASIK–accelerated CXL group), and all were treated by the same experienced surgeon (G.E.T). The mean preoperative manifest refraction spherical equivalents (MRSE) were −2.97 diopters (D) (LASIK–accelerated CXL) and −2.25 D (LASIK). No adjustment was made to the excimer laser treatment nomogram to account for accelerated CXL, which was performed immediately following stromal ablation. The stromal bed was coated with 0.1% riboflavin in 20% dextran (VibeX), soaked for 60 seconds, and thoroughly irrigated with balanced salt solution. Following replacement of the LASIK flap, the central 9.0 mm zone was irradiated with 365 nm ultraviolet at 30 mW/cm2 for 75 seconds using the KXL device (Avedro, Inc.). Both groups demonstrated excellent uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) 1 day (20/21 LASIK–accelerated CXL, 20/20 LASIK) and 1 month (20/18 LASIK–accelerated CXL, 20/20 LASIK) postoperatively. Although most patients in both groups returned to their referring optometrists at this stage, we have had no retreatments to date in any myopic LASIK–accelerated CXL patients. The mean MRSE was 0.17 (LASIK–accelerated CXL) and −0.73 (LASIK) at 1 week and 0.49 and 0.17, respectively, at 1 month. We have treated a small group of presbyopic patients with laser-blended LASIK–accelerated CXL and have had 1 retreatment in this group, which is not surprising as our typical retreatment rate is between 8% and 10% in presbyopic patients. While it has been suggested that concurrent LASIK and CXL may increase LASIK flap adhesion,3 the surgeon was able to successfully relift the flap and retreat this patient with LASIK 10 days after the initial treatment, with a resultant UDVA of 20/15 in the retreated eye at 1 month and 3 months after the second treatment. In conclusion, we agree that partial-strength accelerated CXL may be added to the LASIK procedure without affecting LASIK visual outcomes and may be a promising modality for preventing post-LASIK ectasia and perhaps LASIK regression.