Is it possible that no matter how good the fit, or how advanced the
material, some eyes cannot tolerate RGP lenses? I tried to switch to
RGP's, and my doctor tried many materials (Menicon Z, Fluoroperm 60,
and Optimium Extra). I was in the office many times to adjust the fit,
etc., and I do believe that my doctor was trying his best.
The reason I tried to switch to RGP's was for the superior vision and
supposed superior eye health. But regardless of what I tried, my eyes
became very bloodshot after only 4 or 5 hours of wear. In contrast,
the Proclears that I currently wear feel good all day (10-14 hours) and
my eyes never get bloodshot. However, the vision is only so-so
(Proclear disposables don't come in my exact prescription).
Should I just give up on the idea of RGP's, and just accept that my
eyes aren't "tough enough" to handle them?
Thanks -- Bill.
LarryDoc - 15 Feb 2006 19:52 GMT
> Is it possible that no matter how good the fit, or how advanced the
> material, some eyes cannot tolerate RGP lenses? I tried to switch to
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> Thanks -- Bill.
It's not that they're not "tough enough". I cringe.
But it is true that some people, no matter how perfect the lens fit and
compatible and high-tech the plastic (and I see you've been there!),
they just don't make it in terms of usability.
If Proclear material and design works for you, there you go. The lens
manufacturer is using that material for a number of different lenses now
and perhaps one of them will indeed come in your exact prescription!
Ask your doctor.
LB, O.D.
TomMonger - 15 Feb 2006 20:04 GMT
I tried wearing RGPs two years ago. I couldn't keep them in my eyes
more than 5 minutes. My optometrist had a 2nd pair made with slightly
altered dimensions and a modification to the lens edge. I encountered
the same problem. The sensation was so painful that it felt like I had
a "piece of glass" in my eye. My reflex was to "get it out!" and my
eyes watered badly. My OD said my eyes were extremely sensitive and
that I shouldn't try them again. She also said that this sometimes
happens to people who've worn soft contact lenses for a long time. As
much as I'd like to try them again, I'm pretty much sticking with my
Acuvue 2s (and very soon... Oasys).
acemanvx@yahoo.com - 15 Feb 2006 21:44 GMT
I did look into getting rgp contacts but my parents, especially mom
just laughed and said im wasting my money and time. I cant even
tolerate soft contacts. When I put them in, they feel like an eyelash
the first minute then they feel ok for half hour to two hours then my
eyes start drying out, feeling sore and achy. Also due to my
astigmastim, I see better with glasses anyway, even in spite of its
minification. Additionally, I still need reading glasses over contacts
for reading so they are only good for distance vision. I am much
happier with glasses and shall stick to them. I am not vain and I dont
lead a particulary active lifestyle. I can still use contacts for
sports, thats the one good use for them. I also looked into orthoK but
alot of people dont believe in it and they say its just hype and one
guy said he gives me three months(12 at most) before I give up and run
to the lasik clinic.
Ill just stick to my(usually undercorrected glasses) and keep working
on natural vision improvement. I have improved my vision by a diopter
and counting. I hope in a few short years I see well enough to not need
glasses much! This means seeing well bare eyed!
CatmanX - 16 Feb 2006 20:28 GMT
Shut up moron. No-one asked for your uninformed opinion and ranting.
RM - 16 Feb 2006 01:16 GMT
...
> Is it possible that no matter how good the fit, or how advanced the
> material, some eyes cannot tolerate RGP lenses?
Yes, its very common
> the Proclears that I currently wear feel good all day (10-14 hours) and
> my eyes never get bloodshot. However, the vision is only so-so
> (Proclear disposables don't come in my exact prescription).
>
> Should I just give up on the idea of RGP's,
Yes, you tried and it didn't work out. It doesn't for many patients.
There are many new types of lenses that you should ask your doctor about.
Many of these have come out in within the last 12 months. And there are
more coming on the market soon. Maybe one of the newer ones will work
better than "so-so".
Dr. Leukoma - 16 Feb 2006 02:14 GMT
Comfort is directly related to the size of the lens. If you make an
RGP lens the same size as a soft lens, it will have very much the same
comfort. The Macrolens is one example of such an RGP lens.
DrG
Quick - 16 Feb 2006 03:03 GMT
> Comfort is directly related to the size of the lens. If
> you make an RGP lens the same size as a soft lens, it
> will have very much the same comfort. The Macrolens is
> one example of such an RGP lens.
I was wondering about that... Why is it that RGPs are
generally smaller? I now have RGPs (Fused Kontacts).
The first set was very small (the edges were very visible).
We went larger. The manufacturer's consultant recommended
not going any larger. It's still smaller than my soft contacts
were although I can barely see the edges any more.
Is it a O2 thing? Tear film thing?
-Quick
Dr. Leukoma - 16 Feb 2006 12:20 GMT
George Butterfield, O.D. is credited with inventing the corneal lens in
1950. Prior to that, contact lenses were of the large scleral variety.
It appears as though the modern history of contact lenses has been a
movement towards delivering more oxygen to the cornea. Since the early
materials were not breathable, the smaller designs achieved oxygen
transfer via the tear exchange behind the lens. They are also far
easier to fit than scleral or semi-scleral designs. The first soft
lens wasn't available in the U.S. until 1970, and the first RGP until
1979.
Modern materials are oxygen permeable enough to permit the wearing of
much larger lenses. But, I still think that a good tear exchange is
desirable. There is a happy medium called the intralimbal or
full-corneal lens that is between 10.5 and 12.0, which I have been
fitting regularly since 1999, mainly on problem eyes. The industry
moves slowly. Most of the contact lens manufacturing companies are run
by manufacturing people and not eye doctors. When I first requested
trial lens sets in the 11.0 - 12.0 mm range, the manufacturer replied
that he had never made them that large. But, the fact is that lenses
of that size had been made several decades before, only to be abandoned
because of the limitations of materials.
DrG
http://www.coppellfamilyeyecare.com
CatmanX - 16 Feb 2006 20:35 GMT
How true. You would almost think Greg knew about fitting RGP lenses!!!
LOL Size is critical as Greg says. How large have the lenses been?
I find that there is also the issue of tear film composition, tolerance
to the edge and allergic/irritational response such as GPC. Some people
have a tear film that just keeps depositing on RGP materials, no matter
what you do. I feel it is related to the pH, tonicity, lipid and
protein balance of the tears.
Maybe another lens design such as PureVision, Oasys etc may be better
in SCL?
dr grant
Bill - 16 Feb 2006 21:05 GMT
Dr. Grant --
Maybe you've hit upon my problem; it seems like I have an allergic or
"irritational" response to RGP's. I assume that GPC means bloodshot
eyes. Maybe I can't tolerate the edge of the lens, like you say. I
assume it's not an O2 problem, since the soft lenses I wear now
probably let in less oxygen than the RGP's I tried. Maybe the lenses I
tried had bad edges (although that seems unlikely seeing as how I tried
4 or 5 pairs).
When my current stash of Proclear disposables is gone, I'll see if I
can find a brand of toric disposables that come in my exact
prescription.
Thanks to all of you for your help.
-- Bill.
Ann - 18 Feb 2006 13:18 GMT
>Dr. Grant --
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
>Thanks to all of you for your help.
GPC..
http://www.eyemdlink.com/Condition.asp?ConditionID=208
Bill - 16 Feb 2006 21:11 GMT
Dr. Grant --
I forgot to mention, I don't know exactly what sizes of RGP's I tried.
None of them was as large as my iris, or were so big that part of them
were always under my eyelids. I could often see the edges of the lens.
However, I do believe that the doctor mentioned that they were on the
large side, for stability.
-- Bill.