 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / June 2005Cataract Surgery After Effects And IOL Question
Hello all, Just had cataract surgery yesterday on right eye. Left eye was done 3 years ago with moderate success. Still some glare but I am plano in that one. Removed patch on right eye and, after 6 six hours, and saw a red glow in center of field of view. Also double image of bright objects. Did not have these "effects" after the first surgery. Any comments? On a technical note, I had a SA60AT, 16.0 IOL placed in left eye 3 years ago. Laser tests for that eye showed that using Halliday formula, an IOL(D) 15.5 would produce REF(D) of 0.01, while an IOL(D) of 16.0 would produce a REF(D) of -0.34. (The Emme. IOP: was 15.51). Surgeon chose the 16.0 instead of 15.5. Why? Surgeon's choice seems to be okay since I am plano with standard eye test. Now for the right eye done yesterday, laser tested IOL(D) 15.0 produces REF(D) -0.03 and IOL(D)15.5 produces REF(D) -0.38. (Emme. IOL: 14.96) He chose to use a SA60AT 15.0 IOL. Why? If he followed same rule as in above left eye, wouldn't he chose a IOL of 15.5 ?? Just a curious professor looking to understand the concept a little better. George Don't know about the red glow; could be a little macular edema. The surgeon want's to err a little on the side of myopia, which is a good thing, rather than leave you hyperopic. There is a margin of error to those measurements, so the approach is one that worked perfectly on the first eye, that is, if he'd chosen the emmetropic value, you'd now be hyperopic (not perfectly clear at ANY distance without glasses). w.stacy, o.d. > Hello all, > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > George "Don't know about the red glow; could be a little macular edema. The surgeon want's to err a little on the side of myopia, which is a good thing, rather than leave you hyperopic. There is a margin of error to those measurements, so the approach is one that worked perfectly on the first eye, that is, if he'd chosen the emmetropic value, you'd now be hyperopic (not perfectly clear at ANY distance without glasses). w.stacy, o.d." Hello William, I realize there is a margin of error to these measurements, but if he chose to make the left eye slightly myopic, why didn't he choose the IOL(D)15.5, Ref(D) -0.38 to also make the right eye slightly myopic? Seems like same margin of error to me as left eye. George "George wrote: Hello all, Just had cataract surgery yesterday on right eye. Left eye was done 3 years ago with moderate success. Still some glare but I am plano in that one. Removed patch on right eye and, after 6 six hours, and saw a red glow in center of field of view. Also double image of bright objects. Did not have these "effects" after the first surgery. Any comments? On a technical note, I had a SA60AT, 16.0 IOL placed in left eye 3 years ago. Laser tests for that eye showed that using Halliday formula, an IOL(D) 15.5 would produce REF(D) of 0.01, while an IOL(D) of 16.0 would produce a REF(D) of -0.34. (The Emme. IOP: was 15.51). Surgeon chose the 16.0 instead of 15.5. Why? Surgeon's choice seems to be okay since I am plano with standard eye test. Now for the right eye done yesterday, laser tested IOL(D) 15.0 produces REF(D) -0.03 and IOL(D)15.5 produces REF(D) -0.38. (Emme. IOL: 14.96) He chose to use a SA60AT 15.0 IOL. Why? If he followed same rule as in above left eye, wouldn't he chose a IOL of 15.5 ?? Just a curious professor looking to understand the concept a little better. George" You're quite right, he's shooting for zero refraction. Hopefully that's what you got. May be more to the story than you or I know. Let us know how it turned out. w.stacy, o.d. > "Don't know about the red glow; could be a little macular edema. The > surgeon want's to err a little on the side of myopia, which is a good [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > George" Talked to surgeon today, for 1 day post op exam, and asked him about this choice of IOL. He said that he has now more confidence in the eye measurements today than three years ago so decided to go for zero refraction. (Both eyes were measured 3 years ago on a laser setup). He also said that there probably wouldn't be much or any difference in my vision even with the 15.5 instead of the 15.0 IOL that was used. Standard vision test given to me by his lab assistant showed 20/20 for the new eye, so it worked out okay. I would have preferred the 15.5 lens and be slightly myopic, but its done now and I'm not changing it out at this point in life... I'm 66 years old. He said most patients could care less about this level of detail and just want it done (the surgery) and to go home seeing better. But, he said, professionals (in particular professors) generally are more picky and want to know more of whats involved and possible choices.. Regarding the red glow he said not to worry as it will disspate in a few days. George William Stacy wrote.......... "You're quite right, he's shooting for zero refraction. Hopefully that's what you got. May be more to the story than you or I know. Let us know how it turned out." w.stacy, o.d. George wrote: "Don't know about the red glow; could be a little macular edema. The surgeon want's to err a little on the side of myopia, which is a good thing, rather than leave you hyperopic. There is a margin of error to those measurements, so the approach is one that worked perfectly on the first eye, that is, if he'd chosen the emmetropic value, you'd now be hyperopic (not perfectly clear at ANY distance without glasses). w.stacy, o.d." Hello William, I realize there is a margin of error to these measurements, but if he chose to make the left eye slightly myopic, why didn't he choose the IOL(D)15.5, Ref(D) -0.38 to also make the right eye slightly myopic? Seems like same margin of error to me as left eye. George "George wrote: > Hello all, > > Just had cataract surgery yesterday on right eye. Left eye was done 3 > years ago with moderate success. Still some glare but I am plano in > that one. > > Removed patch on right eye and, after 6 six hours, and saw a red glow in > center of field of view. Also double image of bright objects. Did not > have these "effects" after the first surgery. Any comments? > > On a technical note, I had a SA60AT, 16.0 IOL placed in left eye 3 years > ago. Laser tests for that eye showed that using Halliday formula, an > IOL(D) 15.5 would produce REF(D) of 0.01, while an IOL(D) of 16.0 would > produce a REF(D) of -0.34. (The Emme. IOP: was 15.51). Surgeon chose > the 16.0 instead of 15.5. Why? Surgeon's choice seems to be okay since > I am plano with standard eye test. > > Now for the right eye done yesterday, laser tested IOL(D) 15.0 produces > REF(D) -0.03 and IOL(D)15.5 produces REF(D) -0.38. (Emme. IOL: 14.96) > He chose to use a SA60AT 15.0 IOL. Why? If he followed same rule as in > above left eye, wouldn't he chose a IOL of 15.5 ?? > > Just a curious professor looking to understand the concept a little > better. > > George" > I know what you mean, but you'll do fine. I ended up 0.00 in one eye and about -.75 in the other and like it for lots of things, but still like that crisp binocularity you get with 0.00 in both eyes, so while I don't "need" them, I wear progressives most of the time, and would not have minded being 0.00 o.u. I would have been disappointed had I been left +.50 or more in either eye. w.stacy, o.d. > Talked to surgeon today, for 1 day post op exam, and asked him about this choice of > IOL. He said that he has now more confidence in the eye measurements today than [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > > George" > > Well its nice to know that someone else ended up like me with slight myopia (-0.4) in one eye and 0.0 in the other. It might turn out to be an advantage as now my left eye can see slightly better at short range and right eye is crisp at long range. My new HDTV sets's picture is excellent too. Don't see a need for glasses (except for computer), and definitely will not use progressives again as I could never get the hang of them. The frames are nice and I might change the progressive lenses out for computer/reading lenses. My only remaining problem is I have major floaters due to vitreous detachment. My surgeon goes into a tizzy when I even mention treating them with a laser; Says its too dangerous. Since I have not read about any advancements in the laser floater treatment area he is probably correct. But its fun to discuss it with him and I think he likes it too since many patients won't even bring up things like that <grin>. Regards, George ""I know what you mean, but you'll do fine. I ended up 0.00 in one eye and about -.75 in the other and like it for lots of things, but still like that crisp binocularity you get with 0.00 in both eyes, so while I don't "need" them, I wear progressives most of the time, and would not have minded being 0.00 o.u. I would have been disappointed had I been left +.50 or more in either eye. w.stacy, o.d."" George wrote: "Talked to surgeon today, for 1 day post op exam, and asked him about this choice of IOL. He said that he has now more confidence in the eye measurements today than three years ago so decided to go for zero refraction. (Both eyes were measured 3 years ago on a laser setup). He also said that there probably wouldn't be much or any difference in my vision even with the 15.5 instead of the 15.0 IOL that was used. Standard vision test given to me by his lab assistant showed 20/20 for the new eye, so it worked out okay. I would have preferred the 15.5 lens and be slightly myopic, but its done now and I'm not changing it out at this point in life... I'm 66 years old. He said most patients could care less about this level of detail and just want it done (the surgery) and to go home seeing better. But, he said, professionals (in particular professors) generally are more picky and want to know more of whats involved and possible choices.. Regarding the red glow he said not to worry as it will disspate in a few days. George" William Stacy wrote.......... "You're quite right, he's shooting for zero refraction. Hopefully that's what you got. May be more to the story than you or I know. Let us know how it turned out." w.stacy, o.d. > > George wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > > George" > > > y only remaining problem is I have major floaters due to vitreous detachment. My surgeon > goes into a tizzy when I even mention treating them with a laser; We did end up the same, as I had a VD in one eye with a small hemorrhage that has cleared up. The floaters remain, but I'm getting used to them. He's right, it would have to be a pretty bad floater to warrant a surgical fix, and I think vitrectomy would be preferable to laser at that point (I don't much like the idea of little explosions going off in my posterior chamber, thank you very much...) w.stacy, o.d. Interesting that we ended up the same <g>. Professors are noted for near-sightedness because of all the close work we do involving reading and looking at computer screens. Unfortunately, VD seems to follow along with this symptom. You are probably in same category due to your type of work. Some reasons my surgeon gave for not using lasers to smash the floaters are that it might just get fractured into many pieces and cloud the vision more. Also said, in my case, the floaters were too far in back of eye and there might be a chance of hitting the retina with laser. To me, that's a serious risk. He described the vitrectomy procedure, and while they have professors that do that procedure that at the Eye Institute, it sounded too involved and with major risk too. I would not consider it unless I had severe blockage from the floater. As it is now I can move my eyes and, most of the time find a clear spot to see through. And, as you said, you do get used to it. George > y only remaining problem is I have major floaters due to vitreous > detachment. My surgeon [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > w.stacy, o.d. |
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.