 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / February 2005On the sidelines of eyecare
I read on a daily basis all the progress that's made in the eyecare field; all the people who shed their glasses for a clear and unobstructed world, and those struggled to see their world through the haze of milky lenses, and now see clearly thanks to little plastic lenses in their eyes. Then there are those with almost no vision at all, who make me feel lucky that I can see something in this world with thick glasses, and I feel guilty for complaining about my limitations. I am somewhere in the middle, a middle-aged aphakic who can no longer get adequate glasses due to the lack of demand for functional glasses, now that all the aphakics have IOL's, and just need a little help with reading. Once upon a time I could get a full field lens which, though not perfect, would allow me to see enough of life's periphery to feel comfortable in a crowded bar, and give me a fighting chance to make eye contact with someone interesting. Nowadays, the only option is a small peephole lenticular window on the world; a tiny glimpse of the world passing by, which dances in vague shadows around me as I twist and crane my head to see it. The technology is still there to make a decent pair of glasses, though the commercial interest and economic incentive isn't. +18, full field, maybe in a double convex lens, would make all the difference. I even found a place which sells optical equipment for the research lab, which has a glass lens which would be a perfect blank for me, but I cannot find anyone who will finish theses lenses and give me functional sight again. Sorry for the rant and rave, I just wnat to have good enough vision to feel comfortable in public places. I am sorry you have been cheated from the very beginning. >I read on a daily basis all the progress that's made in the eyecare >field; all the people who shed their glasses for a clear and [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >Sorry for the rant and rave, I just wnat to have good enough vision to >feel comfortable in public places. Steven, Have you tried contact lenses? I can get a semi-finished +18.00 base curve full field plastic lens with a 22mm round bifocal that would keep the back curve from going convex. The company is Aire-O-Lite. Hope this helps Robert Martellaro ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Optician/Owner Roberts Optical robopt@execpc.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself." - Richard Feynman > The technology is still there to make a decent pair of glasses, though > the commercial interest and economic incentive isn't. +18, full field, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > find anyone who will finish theses lenses and give me functional sight > again. What's your experience with contacts? Many aphakes wear rigid gas perms. If they aren't comfortable or your eyes are dry, consider soft lenses with ordinary bifocals for reading and correcting astigmatism. -MT, OD > > The technology is still there to make a decent pair of glasses, though > > the commercial interest and economic incentive isn't. +18, full field, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > -MT, OD Unfortunately Cl's no longer work. I can see for an hour or so, then things cloud up, the lenses get dry, and sometimes even fall out. If there is any wind or the air is warm and dry (which it frequently is where I live), then within minutes the lenses are unwearable. All I really need is a lens wide enough so that I don't bump into people and can walk around. I have used the Aire-o-Lite lens, but as I recall it is also a lenticular design as well, and just about the same diameter as the Signet Armorlite lens that I am using right now. One OD give me an under-corrected Rx, +15D I think, which I wore halfway down my nose, and this actually worked pretty well. However, I would just like a full field lens in my proper Rx. There are a couple of optical supply houses (for lab use only) which actually make suitable blank, but the back surface would have to be re-ground, and this is hard to do in glass. Anyway, thanks for the suggestions. >All I really need is a lens wide enough so that I don't bump into >people and can walk around. You will need contact lenses to achieve that type of vision. Or an implantable lens. >I have used the Aire-o-Lite lens, but as I >recall it is also a lenticular design as well, and just about the same >diameter as the Signet Armorlite lens that I am using right now. The Aire-O-Lite RD 22 +18.00 base has a 46mm field. I believe this is made like the Sola Super Modular which has a blended junction with the carrier part of the lens. I wouldn't make this in an eye size over 46mm so I would have to call this a full field lens. Robert Martellaro ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Optician/Owner Roberts Optical robopt@execpc.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself." - Richard Feynman Thanks for the replies. I talked to my optician, who said she was unable to get this particular blank, but did know about the company. In any case, I can probably get the lenses finished, then bring them into my local optician to have them edged and placed in the frame. I did this once before and it worked fine. Thanks for the help. > >All I really need is a lens wide enough so that I don't bump into > >people and can walk around. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself." > - Richard Feynman Have you been evaluated for an anterior chamber lens or a ciliary sulcus implant? DrG Many thanks for the replies. Unfortunately due to other medical problems I am not a surgical candidate. However, I have found someone helpful enough to make a bi-convex lens in this Rx. I am hopeful this will help matters, as my vision is so limited right now that just walking around my house is a problem. Steven > Have you been evaluated for an anterior chamber lens or a ciliary > sulcus implant? > > DrG >Many thanks for the replies. Unfortunately due to other medical >problems I am not a surgical candidate. However, I have found someone [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> >> DrG Steven, The vision and perspective looking away from the center of the lens will be very poor with a bi-convex design. I wouldn't recommend this, but if you want to see for yourself make sure that the dispenser will remake them into a more appropriate lens design if you are unable to wear them. Good luck Robert Martellaro ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Optician/Owner Roberts Optical robopt@execpc.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." - Anatole France > The vision and perspective looking away from the center of the lens will be very > poor with a bi-convex design. I wouldn't recommend this, but if you want to see > for yourself make sure that the dispenser will remake them into a more > appropriate lens design if you are unable to wear them. I'm having trouble seeing what the problem is here. I thought that *everybody* who had cataract surgery before some time needed these kind of glasses, and that there would be lots of experience and knowledge about how to make them. What am I missing? When I first found out that I had cataract, about 10 years ago, my wife mentioned it to a retired RN at church, who dug out an old information pamphlet out of her attic. It talked about the old days, when your only choice was glasses with thick lenses, which only had correction in the center of the lens. But the "new" choice was contacts, which not only moved with the eye, so not just straight ahead was in focus, but also didn't have the tremendous magnification of the glasses, with only 7% magnification. It stated that you went to the doctor's office to have the contacts inserted, and periodically you went in and they would remove them, clean them and re-insert them! At the point I read this, my sister had had contacts for decades, and I knew that she took them out every night. Fortunately, I already knew I was getting an IOL. I have had both eyes done now, and am very thankful that they have the IOL process now.  SignatureDan Abel Sonoma State University AIS dabel@sonic.net >> The vision and perspective looking away from the center of the lens will >be very [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >glasses, and that there would be lots of experience and knowledge about >how to make them. What am I missing? < snipped> Dan, This Rx is much stronger than aphakic glasses, which are typically in the +12.00 to +14.00 range. Robert > >Many thanks for the replies. Unfortunately due to other medical > >problems I am not a surgical candidate. However, I have found someone [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > "If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." > - Anatole France Hi Robert--Thanks again for the help and replies. I did finally get my new Rx in a bi-concave, ground from a 16-base with a +2 back curve, and placed in a larger frame. The perspective is a little different than my previous lenses, which were made from a +20 base, but the significant increase in peripheral vision is more than worth it. I can't say exactly how many degrees I've gained, though it seems my overall visual field is at least 50% bigger--hard to quantify, though. For the first time I can actually walk down the supermarket aisles w/o stopping every few feet to get oriented to my surroundings, or just walk down a city sidewalk reasonably secure in my ability to avoid people. This is a significant improvement over 20-base lentics, which gave me just barely usable vision. In addition, it only took a few days to get used to the different perspective of the new base curve, and now when I put on my old pair of glasses, everything looks odd, and I am *very* keenly aware of how limited my vision is with the smaller lens, and feel very insecure with them on. Now, my only problem is finding a source for this special-order design. I had to jump through a few hoops to get this pair, including ordering an obsolete blank which hasn't been produced in a while. I would hate to have to go back to the old design. Signet makes a +15 full field base, which would work with a +3 inside curve--not much more than I have now. So hopefully I will have a supply in the future, and someone willing to make them. Steven >> >Many thanks for the replies. Unfortunately due to other medical >> >problems I am not a surgical candidate. However, I have found [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > >Steven Steven, Glad to hear you are comfortable with the new lenses (in spite of my recommendations!). Did you use a different frame for the new glasses? Is it larger or does it sit closer to the eyes? By the book the lenticular lenses should perform better off-axis than a bi-convex all else being equal. I've never fit as high as +18.00 but have frequently dispensed in the +12.00 to +16.00 range, always using full field hyper aspherics. It takes special equipment to grind a plus back curve. I would like you to post your concerns at http://www.optiboard.com/forums/ in the ophthalmic optics section. You will need an e-mail address to register. There are folks there that will know who can fabricate your Rx along with a host of master opticians to offer advice. I expect that we will both benefit from their knowledge and experience. Regards Robert Martellaro ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Optician/Owner Roberts Optical robopt@execpc.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." - Anatole France Robert--thanks again for the interest. To answer your questions: I did get a different frame--a semi-rectangular metal frame which does sit fairly close to my eyes; and metal frames offer better adjustment options, such as the vertex distance. As I'm sure you know, I can't get them too close or else the Rx needs to be bumped up, and above a 20 base I can't get the add I need. (I once tried a pair of very small ovals with single vision lenses in the low 20's, made so thay they a reasonable job of approximating a pair of contact lenses in frames, which actually worked pretty well if my eyelashes were kept short. However, if I bumped the glasses the lenses would press into my eyes, and really hurt!) I think the lenticular lenses do perform a bit better off-axis in acuity. However, neither lens performs well off-axis, so to see any small details I have to be looking directly through the middle. The big difference is the ability to see *anything* that's more than 10-20 degrees off-axis; I don't care if its a bit fuzzy, I just need the ability to detect motion or an object so I can turn my head to check it out. In this respect, my new lenses are *far* better. The only major drawback is that they are much heavier, but I have gotten used to this now. Thanks for the link--I will definitely post and see where this goes. Steven > Steven, > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > "If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." > - Anatole France Thanks for the replies. I talked to my optician, who said she was unable to get this particular blank, but did know about the company. In any case, I can probably get the lenses finished, then bring them into my local optician to have them edged and placed in the frame. I did this once before and it worked fine. Thanks for the help. > >All I really need is a lens wide enough so that I don't bump into > >people and can walk around. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself." > - Richard Feynman |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.