 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / January 2006They invented wavefront glasses and claim supervision!
http://www.ophthonix.com/index.asp This topic has come up in other forums. Theres alot of skeptics reguarding this revolunitory glasses. They said if it worked so well it would be all over the country and youd see wavefront glasses offered as an option at your local glasses shop. One of my friends told me its a gimmic and waste of money. She said at least 5 of her friends tried that and none of them were able to notice a difference. Some of them had bad experiences with lasik and thought wavefront glasses would help with their massive aberrations but it didnt. I read that it doesnt work partially because your eyes are constantly in motion so the wavefront glasses fails to align with your aberrations. For it to work, the wavefront glasses would need a tracker to track your eyes movement and rapidly move the thousands of tiny mirrors or segments as your eyes move so it aligns with your aberrations at all times. Such technology is at least 20 years away I heard. Ive also heard of wavefront contacts but we have RGP which already do that job. RGP isnt wavefront but what it does is provides a rigid, smooth surface over your irregular, aberrated cornea and your tears fill in some of the gaps. The result is 50-75% reduction in your aberrations because they are being masked by the rigid contacts themselves. One guy had severe ghosting and 20/30 after lasik and with those RGP the ghosting was almost gone and he could now see 20/20. I find the wavefront technology exciting and as the years go by, things will keep advancing. Its amazing to imagine oneday almost everyone will be corrected to 20/10 with wavefront glasses with very high quality of vision too! Todays glasses cant correct your high order aberrations and the only thing that can help is RGP contacts and occasionally wavefront lasik for the highly aberrated. Anyone have comments on the wavefront glasses linked? Do you know anyone who tried it and did they see any improvement? Ace, What is the purpose of your postings? You want to inform the people here, you are a Readers Digest adept? Please read the answers provided to you instead of replacing the same issues over and over again. The following was placed here a few days ago, but as I mentioned before, you ask a lot but never read carefully the feedback. >> Perfect wavefront spectacles won't give 20/6 vision to just >> anyone, only those blessed with the right anatomy. >And if you ever can get such a pair of glasses, they have to glue them in >an >excact position on your face. >Futhermore, you have to keep looking straight ahead. >Meaning there are no ''wavefront'' glasses as there are no ''wavefront'' >contactlenses either. Please remember this newsgroup is called ''sci.med.vision'' Most of the people here are certainly NOT interrested in what ''they'' say.  SignatureFree to Marcus Porcius Cato: ''Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam" In conclusion, I think that the "Otis therapy" should be destroyed Jan (normally Dutch spoken) > http://www.ophthonix.com/index.asp > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Anyone have comments on the wavefront glasses linked? Do you know > anyone who tried it and did they see any improvement? > http://www.ophthonix.com/index.asp exciting and as the years go by, things > will keep advancing. Its amazing to imagine oneday almost everyone will > be corrected to 20/10 with wavefront glasses with very high quality of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Anyone have comments on the wavefront glasses linked? Do you know > anyone who tried it and did they see any improvemente I have Opthonix glasses. I had LASIK several years ago and as a result I can't drive at night. So I tried the wavefront glasses. I found that in bright sunlight they eliminate the halos that glint off of chrome or car roofs. But after sundown they don't help much. Not nearly as much as RGP lenses help. I went back to the optometrist after realizing the wavefront measurements were made in bright room light. I asked if it could be redone with my eyes dilated, as they are at night. I'd be willing to pay for more glasses, in hopes that it would work. He called the guy who developed Opthonix. The answer was that the wavefront works off a pre-set pupil distance. If the eye is too out of wack, the wavefront won't accept it. But they are working on wider pupil versions. The optometrist said he'd be willing to dilate my pupils and redo the wavefront exam at no charge, just to see if it would work. It's a three-hour drive so I haven't had a chance to get back down there yet. I'm still hopeful that the wavefront glasses could work. Anything is better than risking another surgery. >I have Opthonix glasses. I had LASIK several years ago and as a >result I can't drive at night. So I tried the wavefront glasses. I [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >get back down there yet. I'm still hopeful that the wavefront glasses >could work. It sounds like the side effects that you were primarily trying to minimize are still an issue with the Ophthonix specs--more than they are with your RGP's. Do you have any impression as to how well they correct your basic visual acuity, either relative to your previous glasses or to your RGP's? In other words: I think I understand what they /didn't/ do for you. What /did/ they do for you, if anything. Two other questions: What did you pay for the Ophthonix lenses (without the frame)? What is your basic spectacle prescription, post-LASIK? With my vicious propensity toward ciliary spasm, and fairly decent astigmatism, I'm interested.... Even if you pay a lot of money for marginal benefit ... if there /is/ a marginal benefit ... it might be worth my consideration. The company is very close to me--along one of my usual bike routes, in fact! > Anything is better than risking another surgery. Amen, Brother (sister?)! TIA, Neil SignatureLive simply so that others may simply live The Opthonic glasses do what I said they do. In bright sunlight, I see glare and halos radiating off of car chrome or shiny tops. It's a minor distraction when I'm driving. The glasses get rid of these. After sundown, I see large starbursts and halos radiating off of every light: headlights, streetlights, neon sign lights. These may be slightly less with the Opthonic glasses but it's not enough to make driving safe. With RGP lenses at least 80% of the starbursts are gone or reduced significantly, enough that it's safe to drive a car. I'm mainly interested in pursuing the Opthonics becasuse I can't tolerate RGPs for more than 2 or 3 hours at a time. I have five pairs of lenses from 4 different optometrists. They all reduce the starbursts and they are all equally unwearable. I don't rememer what my original prescription was. I was nearsighted with astigmatism. Now I'm nearly 20:20 as long as the ambient light is good. I can also drive after sunset if I use dilute pilocarpine eyedrops. I think I paid around $300 for the exam and glasses. The lenses will only fit into the frames they have for sale so I couldn't order lenses and put them in and older frame that I wasn't using anymore. Kevin I'm sorry about the difficulty that you're having with the RGP's. I've been quite reluctant to go back to them myself, though I'm only a few weeks away from an evaluation for a scleral lens, made from the same material, but about the size of a quarter. I'll assume, then, that you haven't found the wavefront glasses to give you noticeably crisp vision, or greatly increased contrast sensitivity, or much better ability to discern letters on the fabled eye chart. Forgive me if I'm throwing out something wildly obvious (because you're already using the pilocarpine), but have you tried evening driving with the dome light on in your car? Some people achieve enough pupillary constriction with that alone. BTDT. I had LASIK in 1997, with instantly ruined night vision. Plenty of time to try every suggestion known to man. Dome lights don't work. Yellow-tinted glasses don't work. Vitamins and flax don't work. Alphagan didn't work. I'm lucky that I live in the desert. We rarely have cloudy days here. If asked, I'd say if there's no hope, try the Opthonix glasses anyway. They eliminate daytime glare better than my older glasses. But don't get caught outdoors after sundown. You need to post on the lasik forums with your sad story. Those guys think lasik is as safe as a haircut! I am trying to explain to them the risks of lasik but they havent heard a bad case http://groups.google.com/group/alt.lasik-eyes?lnk=li > Forgive me if I'm throwing out something wildly obvious > (because you're already using the pilocarpine), but have > you tried evening driving with the dome light on in your > car? Some people achieve enough pupillary constriction > with that alone. Ummm, in the few states I've lived in it is illegal to drive with the interior lights on. There is good reason for that. If it's necessary to have the dome light on to see while driving I don't think you should drive. -Quick >> Forgive me if I'm throwing out something wildly obvious >> (because you're already using the pilocarpine), but have [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >If it's necessary to have the dome light on to see while >driving I don't think you should drive. Hmm. Never heard of that. Quick search of the rules and regs for our (CA) DMV doesn't seem to support that either. Do you have a citation that supports that assertion? If somebody needs their pupils to shrink, why does the use of pilocarpine differ from the use of the dome light. If either makes you safe ... then you're safe, no? SignatureLive simply so that others may simply live >>> Forgive me if I'm throwing out something wildly obvious >>> (because you're already using the pilocarpine), but have [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > use of pilocarpine differ from the use of the dome light. > If either makes you safe ... then you're safe, no? [I have no clue how wavefront lenses work or what they are supposed to accomplish.] No, I don't think so. Unless your pupils are abnormally dilated for the ambient light conditions I don't think it's safe (in the context of driving) to constrict them with drops and even more unsafe to constrict them with light. Right now you are likely sitting in a lighted room and it's night time. If you have a window, how well can you see out of it? Turn the lights off in the room and try again. First (and possibly formost) are the reflections on the interior of the glass. Second your pupils dilate to let enough light in to see as well as possible in the ambient lighting. The important visibility is outside the car. Constricting your pupils with brighter ambient light inside the car will decrease your vision outside of the car.. Constricting them with drops isn't going to be good either but, relatively speaking, probably better than doing it with light inside the car that is brighter than the light outside the car. Do you think there is any validity to my speculation? -Quick The gold standard for miosis (constricted pupils) is Alphagan. It doesn't really constrict pupils, however. It prevents them from dilating in poor light. Pilocarpine constricts the pupils. These are both older anti-glaucoma drugs. I prefer pilocarpine. It makes the dark "darker". But when driving at night it shrinks the oncoming headlight starbursts. The constricted pupils act a bit like a pinhole camera, meaning everything near and far is equally in focus. I prefer the RGPs for driving at night. But in some conditions, such as driving at night in a snowstorm, the combination of RGPs and pilocarpine works the best. The pilocarpine is the only reason I was able to pass my drivers license test a few years ago. The gold standard for miosis (constricted pupils) is Alphagan. It doesn't really constrict pupils, however. It prevents them from dilating in poor light. Pilocarpine constricts the pupils. These are both older anti-glaucoma drugs. I prefer pilocarpine. It makes the dark "darker". But when driving at night it shrinks the oncoming headlight starbursts. The constricted pupils act a bit like a pinhole camera, meaning everything near and far is equally in focus. I prefer the RGPs for driving at night. But in some conditions, such as driving at night in a snowstorm, the combination of RGPs and pilocarpine works the best. The pilocarpine is the only reason I was able to pass my drivers license test a few years ago. I've said this before, and you know it, but RGP's can be configured to reduce or eliminate the night glare and starbursts. Of course, pilo is both easy and cheap, fairly safe in low doses, and acceptable for a presbyope. For a non-presbyope, pilo stimulates accommodation and can cause headaches from accommodative spasm. DrG [snip] >> If somebody needs their pupils to shrink, why does the >> use of pilocarpine differ from the use of the dome light. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > >Do you think there is any validity to my speculation? Hm. I think that this one's above my pay grade, but here are my preliminary thoughts: Though you might be right, in theory, Kevin may be a more valid data point, if he's using the pilocarpine + RGP method and feels safe driving at night. I know that, for weeks, I drove at night, fully dilated on Atropine, but wearing yellow tinted sunglasses to curb glare. I'm not that proud. If I didn't feel safe, I wouldn't have driven. For me, it was more the pain of the brightness than the visual aberrations that the dilation caused. Now, that's absolutely the opposite case, but it's all I have.... SignatureLive simply so that others may simply live > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > valid data point, if he's using the pilocarpine + RGP > method and feels safe driving at night. I didn't get that impression. I more or less got the impression that he has "managed" to drive. "Pilocarpine was the only reason I passed my driving test" does not inspire confidence. > I know that, for weeks, I drove at night, fully dilated > on Atropine, but wearing yellow tinted sunglasses to curb > glare. But that is different right? Your pupils were fully dilated and you were bringing the ambient light down to a more "normal" level as would(?) have been the case if you pupils had adjusted normally. In Kevin's case it sounds like light intensity is not the problem and he is constricting his pupils to reduce the starburst type of effects. In doing so I would expect him to reduce his ability to see in the dark. I would expect reducing the starburst effects off of point light sources (bright ones) in this manor would compromise your ability to see the pedestrian, the car broken down on the shoulder, the pot hole or obstruction in the road, etc. -Quick > I'm not that proud. If I didn't feel safe, I wouldn't > have driven. For me, it was more the pain of the > brightness than the visual aberrations that the dilation > caused. Now, that's absolutely the opposite case, but > it's all I have.... I have seen a number of these posts. They do not make sense. The posts seem to be based upon the stringing together of certain buzz words. I am a mere physicist trying to understand the science, art, and business, as well as quackery of vision. To my mind, the term wave front correction corresponds to what us old time optical types call "figuring." It makes some sense for refraction correction of eye balls. By shaping the cornea, it is possible to rid the eye of on-axis aberrations if you ignore chromatic aberration. That is what lasik is about. It makes little sense to go to that trouble for ordinary spectacle lenses. Your eye swivels around in various directions and wiping out an aberration for one of these directions is likely going to add aberration for another. Bill > I have seen a number of these posts. They do not make sense. The posts seem > to be based upon the stringing together of certain buzz words. I am a mere [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Your eye swivels around in various directions and wiping out an aberration > for one of these directions is likely going to add aberration for another. Exactly. It is a lot of hype and false advertising. Unfortunately, and for similar reasons, I think some of the "newer" progressives, aspherics and atorics suffer from a similar problem, which I like to call voodoo optics. Or maybe I should call it Frankenstein optics, where you create a monster just because you can. w.stacy, o.d. Quick Jan 3, 9:00 pm show options Newsgroups: sci.med.vision From: "Quick" <quick7135-n...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> - Find messages by this author Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 21:00:42 GMT Local: Tues, Jan 3 2006 9:00 pm Subject: Re: They invented wavefront glasses and claim supervision! Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Neil Brooks wrote: > "Quick" <quick7135-n...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote: >>>> Neil Brooks wrote: > [snip] >>> If somebody needs their pupils to shrink, why does the >>> use of pilocarpine differ from the use of the dome >>> light. If either makes you safe ... then you're safe, >>> no? >> [I have no clue how wavefront lenses work or what they >> are supposed to accomplish.] >> No, I don't think so. Unless your pupils are abnormally >> dilated for the ambient light conditions I don't think >> it's safe (in the context of driving) to constrict them >> with drops and even more unsafe to constrict them with >> light. >> Right now you are likely sitting in a lighted room and >> it's night time. If you have a window, how well can you >> see >> out of it? Turn the lights off in the room and try again. >> First (and possibly formost) are the reflections on the >> interior of the glass. >> Second your pupils dilate to let enough light in to see >> as well as possible in the ambient lighting. The >> important visibility is outside the car. Constricting >> your pupils with brighter ambient light inside the car >> will decrease your >> vision outside of the car.. >> Constricting them with drops isn't going to be good >> either >> but, relatively speaking, probably better than doing it >> with light inside the car that is brighter than the >> light outside the car. >> Do you think there is any validity to my speculation? > Hm. I think that this one's above my pay grade, but here > are my preliminary thoughts: > Though you might be right, in theory, Kevin may be a more > valid data point, if he's using the pilocarpine + RGP > method and feels safe driving at night. <<<<< I didn't get that impression. I more or less got the impression that he has "managed" to drive. "Pilocarpine was the only reason I passed my driving test" does not inspire confidence. I went to renew my license and found they had a box I was supposed to look into. There were colored lights and symbols I had to be able to see clearly, as if I was driving a car at night. I mumbled something about needing the restroom and ran out to my truck where I had pilocarpine. I put the drops in and by the time I made it back to the license bureau my eyes had constricted enough that I had no problem passing the test. [snip] I don't know if they *claim* supervision, but *supervision* is something that you desperately need. SignatureLive simply so that others may simply live Everyone would like supervision and see the best they can. More than 95% of people have retinas capable of at least 20/10 vision, the problem is high order aberrations in healthy, pathalogy free eyes. 20/10 or even 20/15 would be a real marvel to "see" in the future when wavefront glasses technology matures. Todays wavefront glasses doesnt do very much and like I said, my friend has at least 5 friends who tried that with no difference. Todays wavefront glasses are a stepping stone to the exciting advances of the future! 20/10 BSCVA will no longer be limited to a very few elite people with nearly aberration free optics, but itll be available to the masses! Of course this could be 20+ years from now acema...@yahoo.com wrote: > Everyone would like supervision and see the best they can. More than > 95% of people have retinas capable of at least 20/10 vision, the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > free optics, but itll be available to the masses! Of course this could > be 20+ years from now shut the fu@k up. you have to be the most immature sniveling little kid i've ever seen. one minute you ask a question like the newbie that you are and the next minute you're handing out advise like a educated experienced expert. the internet police need to get your IP address and shut you down. sorry but im entitled to freedom of speech and its perfectly fine to talk about the sciences of wavefront here. You need to learn some manners. Have a nice day > sorry but im entitled to freedom of speech and its perfectly fine to > talk about the sciences of wavefront here. Sure. As long as you actually KNOW something about the science of wavefront. Otherwise, you look like and idiot. But that apparently doesn't stop you. >acema...@yahoo.com wrote: >> Everyone would like supervision and see the best they can. More than [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >experienced expert. the internet police need to get your IP address >and shut you down. IP: 68.223.203.82 Originating from: Boca Raton, Florida ISP: BellSouth.net abuse@bellsouth.net Include full headers SignatureLive simply so that others may simply live I recently attended an optometric conference that featured a number of prominent optometric leaders discussing the potential of wavefront spectacles. One of the most fascinating speakers talked about his experience using wavefront autorefractors on pilots that have 20/10 uncorrected vision. Consistently the wavefront analysis showed that many of these "perfect eyes" had considerable abberations and needed a corrective lens. BUT, when these eyes were "corrected", the pilots saw consintently worse with their "corrective lenses". This goes back to the basic fundamental fact that vision is a higher level process that involves the visual cortex and its ability to interpret the image it receives. These pilots have "20/10 brains" that can cancel the spherical abberations of their natural eye, but that same part of their visual system breaks down when it is given a "textbook perfect" wavefront guided image. Wavefront glasses will not take a 20/25 visual system and make it resolve to 20/10, anymore than wavefront spectacles can take a 20/10 eye to 20/5. I heard this too. Perhaps the wavefront wasnt aligned properly or they needed some time to get used to aberration free vision. 20/10 vision is very nearly aberration free and close to the retinal and even brain limit. However the brain is flexable and can relearn what clear vision is. I have seen myopes not get glasses till they were 20, even 30 and for the first time they see clearly. At first they dont get the concept of clear vision and many arent even overwhelmed. They physically see clearly but its still a blur in the brain. Over time the brain learns about clear vision. I read the story of one female who was like 25 and a poor immigrant and a high myope. When she got glasses she saw 20/30 but when asked the difference she said theres a small difference. This proves the brain theory point. Her eyes see 20/30 but her brain is still seeing worse than 20/200. Another example is I can take my 20/30 vision and make it 20/25 with pinholes however things actually look worse somehow even though im reading 20/25! My brain hasnt learned such sharp vision! > However the brain is flexable and can relearn what > clear vision is. Oh, OK, > I have seen myopes not get glasses till > they were 20, even 30 and for the first time they see > clearly... I can't help but wonder why the brain didn't fix things before glasses? > They physically see clearly but its still a blur in the brain. > Over time the brain learns about clear vision. You imply it didn't when they were uncorrected. Why would it do it now? > When she got glasses she saw 20/30 but when > asked the difference she said theres a small difference. > This proves the brain theory point. Oh. My bad. It was *proof*. In that case I'll retract everything I said. -Quick |
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.