 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / October 2005RGP lens size
I was fitted with RGPs yesterday (my first contact lenses). I noticed that when I'm outdoors, I can clearly notice the edges of my RGPs. Is this normal? Or are they supposed to cover my whole field of vision?  SignatureRegards, wK >I was fitted with RGPs yesterday (my first contact lenses). > > I noticed that when I'm outdoors, I can clearly notice the edges of my > RGPs. Is this normal? Or are they supposed to cover my whole field of > vision? It can be normal in dim light, when your pupils are large. It's often more noticeable in one direction, because the lenses center high, or low, or to the outside. Many GP wearers notice it early on, then forget about it. -MT > It can be normal in dim light, when your pupils are large. > > It's often more noticeable in one direction, because the lenses center high, > or low, or to the outside. > > Many GP wearers notice it early on, then forget about it. I actually notice it more in bright light (since I see shimmer off the edges). Yes, they're noticable notably in one direction - on the outside. Thanks, I'll see how it goes before my next visit to the optometrist in two weeks time. SignatureRegards, wK >> It can be normal in dim light, when your pupils are large. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Thanks, I'll see how it goes before my next visit to the optometrist in >two weeks time. Playing off of Mike's point: depending on what you 'see,' this may be indicative of a fit issue (too much movement). I always saw the tops of mine. They were riding too low (sloppy fit for a guy with mucho astigmatism isn't a really happy thing). Change in the base curve and away ... we ... go .... Good luck! > I always saw the tops of mine. They were riding too low (sloppy fit > for a guy with mucho astigmatism isn't a really happy thing). Change > in the base curve and away ... we ... go .... When it works. :) Sometimes they decenter because the "peak" of the cornea isn't centered. -MT >> I always saw the tops of mine. They were riding too low (sloppy fit >> for a guy with mucho astigmatism isn't a really happy thing). Change [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Sometimes they decenter because the "peak" of the cornea isn't centered. The lens doesn't cover the entire cornea, and it moves around with eye movements. This allows more oxygen to reach the cornea. It's very likely that the edges of the lens are occasionally visible. >>I noticed that when I'm outdoors, I can clearly notice the edges of my >>RGPs. Is this normal? Or are they supposed to cover my whole field of >>vision? > > It can be normal in dim light, when your pupils are large. Just came back from the cinema. It's much more distracting in there; a faint halo floating about! SignatureRegards, wK > I was fitted with RGPs yesterday (my first contact > lenses). > > I noticed that when I'm outdoors, I can clearly notice > the edges of my RGPs. Is this normal? Or are they > supposed to cover my whole field of vision? Mention it to your doc when you go back. There are some standard sizes and then a lot of interacting variables. Diameter of the lens will interact with your lids differently, effect wetting, O2 to the eye, etc. I'm being fitted as well. The first set seemed a bit small to the point that (outdoors in the sunshine especially) it had the effect of looking through a "viewer" and at night I was getting some pretty significant edge effects from light sources to the sides -- right hand side mirror was particularly bad. On the second set now and the doc had them made larger. The effect is much less. So I think we've nailed the size if we haven't introduced other problems with it. I gather that with RGPs you will always be able to see the (outside) edges in your peripheral vision if you concentrate on it. I think it's much like the dozens of floaters that I don't see unless I look for them. -Quick There is no limitation to size. I regularly fit RGP's that are the size of soft lenses. With those, there is no translational movement, and the optic zones can be made quite large. DrG > There is no limitation to size. I regularly fit RGP's that are the > size of soft lenses. With those, there is no translational movement, > and the optic zones can be made quite large. What about the oxygen thing? Some people would probably find them less comfortable than smaller lenses, though I myself have had large lenses. >> There is no limitation to size. I regularly fit RGP's >> that are the size of soft lenses. With those, there is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > find them less comfortable than smaller lenses, though I > myself have had large lenses. Depends right? There is the oxygen thing (for more than just comfort). In my case the larger ones are more comfortable because with the smaller ones my upper eyelids were just above and "bumped" over the top edge on blink (thick lenses). I think that also caused the lid to "grab" the lens for a bit too much translation on blink and sort of hold on to them for a slow recovery. The slightly larger ones have the top edge sitting just under the top lid. More comfortable, less action on blink and faster recovery. We have yet to see if it has adversly effected translation on down gaze to get to the center and bottom segments. -Quick Yes, well the dk/t is something in the neighborhood of 100, and there is a fenestration (hole) in the lens. So, I'm thinking that the oxygen flux is as good or better than many of the soft lenses on the market. DrG |
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.