72 here with no glaucoma or other contras and ReSTORed in July and August.  Went
through the same preliminary exercises Googling and grouping.  The best info I
found was tech documentation from the FDA site itself that helped reconcile
'discrepancies' between my experiences and anecdotal encomia.

Although not optically equivalent, both ReZoom and ReSTOR share the common
feature of distributing incoming light rays onto two image planes for distant
and near objects and letting the brain pick that in sharper focus closest to the
retina.  The ReSTOR lens has a 4.0D internal add vs. 3.5D for ReZoom, putting
the former's images a bit farther apart.

This is most evident on a computer when your desktop is a star pattern - each
bright star is surrounded by a halo ca. 10 pixels in diameter due to the out-of-
focus distance image.  White text on a black ground is quite readable down to
the smallest fonts I can generate (#4) but the haloes can be initially a bit
distracting.  With black on white, the black halo is far less distracting but,
in any case, there's a loss in contrast for near vision that is most apparent
when trying to read yellowed paperbacks in dim light or maps intermingling
multihued lines and text.

What's rarely mentioned is the total loss of accomodation with such IOLs.  The
ReSTOR lenses come in 0.5D increments (internal).  Playing with some lenses from
the junk box, an 0.25D change from optimal distance refraction makes the
dashboard odometer readable without bending forward while maintaining 20/20
driving vision.  To achieve 20/20 or better distance vision depends on some
fortuitous parameters given the best optometry.

Presently, my uncompensated refractions are 0.25/0.75 hyperopic and the useful
binocular LCD monitor reading range is 30-55cm over which the pixel grid can be
distinguished.

The concentric glare circles from oncoming headlights is often raised as a
critical issue.  When a car first appears say 200 yds distant, these circles are
larger than the car itself, but their angular dimension doesn't seem to change
as the car approachs and, by the time it's almost parallel, the circles are no
larger than the headlights themselves.  Last night, I was out on an errand on a
two-lane country road in deer country where the unwritten rule seemed to be
high-beam, high-intensity SUVs only.  No problem with eyes diverted towards the
shoulder - the pre-IOL cataracts would have diffused a blinding light over the
entire retinas forcing a pullover for dissipation.

SiG

I would stay away from multifocal IOLs.  I had bilateral IOLs installed
in Jan, 1 week apart and am loving my single vision Tecnis lenses.  I
don't have any of the glare, starbursts, blur and loss of contrast
sensitivity that you WILL get with mf iols. I'm a 61 yo optometrist and
went to one of the leading cataract surgeons in the U.S./world.

Unless you just can't stand the idea of using glasses for near, do NOT
do mf iols.

w.stacy, o.d.

[snip]

It seems to me that you have two issues to deal with here:

1.  Multifocal versus single-focus IOLs.

2.  Having the surgeries one week apart, or some other time separation.

I think the issues might be somewhat related.  I have had cataract
surgery in both eyes.  I wasn't given the option of MF IOLs, but
probably wouldn't have gone with it, based on my personality.  I was
comfortable with reading glasses, and not comfortable with new things.  
Some people don't tolerate these MF IOLs, and I wasn't willing to risk
the chance that I might be one of them.  The single vision IOLs are
tried and true.

I would think that you could simulate the MF IOLs with MF contact
lenses.  I understand that they wouldn't be the same, but I thought that
the concept of sending two images to the brain, and the brain selects
the one in focus, would be similar.  If the MF CLs don't work for you,
perhaps that means that the MF IOLs wouldn't either.

At 71, I'm guessing that you are already dealing with the problems of
seeing both near and far in focus.  What do you currently use, and are
you happy with it?  If it is working for you now, then single vision
IOLs could replicate what you are currently doing, or you could have the
surgeon set the IOLs to whatever you want.  If you decide on monovision,
I would again suggest that you simulate that with CLs and see if it
works for you.

If the MF IOLs don't work for you, after they are implanted, you have
two choices:  grin and bear it, or have the surgery redone.  If you have
both done a week apart, and the MF IOLs don't work for you, you face
having two surgeries redone.  You want to be real sure who will pay for
this.  If you space the surgeries farther apart, then you have a chance
to see how things work.  If the MF IOL just doesn't work for you, then
you just have one surgery to redo.  Of course, your vision will suffer
significantly during this time.

I would be reluctant to risk my vision by having both done a week apart,
even with the standard single vision IOLs.  Others are perfectly willing
to risk this, and it's sure a lot more convenient.

If you can easily put this off until there is more light, that might be
a plan.  If your cataracts are bad enough that they are significantly
reducing your night vision right now, the surgery might possibly be
enough benefit to counteract possible problems with glare, starbursts
and such.  I was already in the position that I had my wife or kids
drive me at night, so putting it off didn't help any.

In looking at IOL implants, I was also a bit concerned over the
driving problem and other shifts in focus during the period between
surgery on each eye and/or when wearing the "dark glasses" as well as
"safety glasses" later. A woodworkers catalog fell out of the sky
yesterday with a  selection for stick-on magnifying lenses.  A little
research  (GOOGLE  "Stick-on" "magnifying lenses" ) revealed that they
are available.  Most appear to be made by an outfit called Optx20/20.
Walgreens seems to carry them.  So, I just pass the info along in case
it might be of value to anyone