If the room was a bit short, then far distance would be blurry and you
would have ended up with a stronger prescription. however, the OD
should know the room is a bit short and be able to compensate.
> (I gather it's called a refraction)
> I got fitted for contacts.
> I wanted bi/multi focals. I've been using +2.00
> store bought readers for a couple of years now.
snip
\ He trialed
> me with acuvue bifocals. Outside distance was really
> bad. Out of focus, blurry, maybe multiple images. I
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> with the machine at least 3 more times. Once with the
> contacts in. The distance never got much better. >
snip
> Near was pretty good all the time. I got the impression
> that he was pretty much done with me (like I'd used up
> my trial shot and it was time move on
snip
> My question is this: It seemed that I could see very sharply
> when tested. Better than uncorrected maybe at distance.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> room my vision is worse at distance. Maybe past 20 or 30 feet
> to infinity.
If you had tried progressive glasses, single vision distance glasses or
single vision distance contacts, you likely would have also noted clear
distance vision in the real world. Multifocal contact lenses do cause some
"ghosting" of distance vision that about 10% to 15% of people can't
tolerate. If you are determined, you could try another fitter who has more
than one brand of multifocal to offer and who has lots of experience. And
you might give monovision (correcting one eye only for near) a try.
In a case like yours, I would have considered trying the B&L multifocal to
see if it gave a better result. Or would have tried a modified monovision
fit, using something like +0.50/ +1.50 add or pl/ +2.00 add in the right eye
and +1.00/+200 add or +0.50/+2.50 add in the left.
It does take some fiddling to get multifocals to work. I find that fitting
people who are used to just readers with no distance correction are among
the most challenging. And some people's brains just won't accept any
multifocal contact.
Dr Judy
Quick - 28 Jul 2005 20:20 GMT
>> (I gather it's called a refraction)
>> I got fitted for contacts.
[quoted text clipped - 44 lines]
> challenging. And some people's brains just won't accept
> any multifocal contact.
Thanks for the response.
It's sounding a bit depressing as I was really looking
forward to the best case -- 6 million dollar man eyes
and no need to carry the readers... I am determined
to keep plugging and throwing money at it for a while.
I already have an appointment with the next doc. He
said he doesn't fit (many?) Acuvues or CIba because
he has too many failures with them. At least we'll be
into other brands. I'm pretty determined to try RGPs
to at least see what they're like.
I guess if multifocals just don't work for me the next
choice would be translating bifocals? I really don't
want to do monovision as I don't want to sacrifice
depth perception.
How much of the flare off of lights is attributable to
multifocals as opposed to single vision?
If I went from multifocal soft lenses to translating
RGPs would I expect to see a noticeable reduction
in the flare and halo effect? (and the distance problems
I'm currently experiencing)?
thanks,
-Quick
doctor_my_eye@msn.com - 28 Jul 2005 21:55 GMT
Yes. The quality of vision in gas perm multifocals is vastly superior
to soft lenses. They are never even close to each other in quality of
vision. I have 30 happy gas perm bifocal wearewrs for each "happy"
soft bifocal wearer.