I think it's a dandy Rx for toric soft lenses. Have someone order some
trials in and go from there. Why did you think you might not be a "good
match"?
w.stacy, o.d.
Thanks! Glad to hear I am wrong. My reasons were that almost all the
examples I saw had negative sphere numbers, and my sphere numbers are
positive. Also, some people were talking about ideally wanting a 4:1
ratio of sphere to cylinder, which I don't have. But...if those things
are not important I'm glad to hear it...
rcm
> I think it's a dandy Rx for toric soft lenses. Have someone order some
> trials in and go from there. Why did you think you might not be a "good
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> >
> > rcm
William Stacy - 29 Jun 2005 15:21 GMT
The only thing that could be a slight problem is that not all toric soft
lens makers do plus, so you're a bit limited in brands. I'd probably
start with a B&L 66 toric, which is readily available in your Rx, and is
reasonably priced for a new wearer. Good luck.
w.stacy, o.d.
> Thanks! Glad to hear I am wrong. My reasons were that almost all the
> examples I saw had negative sphere numbers, and my sphere numbers are
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
>>>
>>>rcm