 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / August 2006switching from a lifetime of hard lenses/rpgs to soft lenses with severe myopia
I am considering switching to softlenses after a lifetime of hard lenses/RPG. I am very myopic, although I have always been correctable to perfect enough vision with my contacts. Someone in my other (presbyobia) thread said something that got me thinking: Can someone with very strong nearsightedness be corrected with soft lenses? Is that a factor, or is that irrelevant in this day and age. Thanks. (Keep in mind I am looking for bi or multifocal lenses given time is marching on and with it, presbyopia). > Someone in my other (presbyobia) thread said something that got me > thinking: > Can someone with very strong nearsightedness be corrected with soft > lenses? > Is that a factor, or is that irrelevant in this day and age. For most companies like Acuvue, the upper limit is usually 12 diopters. Ciba Precision UV is available to -16, and Gelflex to -20. > Thanks. (Keep in mind I am looking for bi or multifocal lenses given time > is > marching on and with it, presbyopia). Acuvue bifocals stop at -9, several others up to -10, plus many custom lenses up to -20. -MT OK, I am not sure what a "diopter" is. I went to a guy I ended up not going back to cause I didn't like him. I have a piece of paper, a prescription blank that has these numbers on them. I have no idea what that means, but if you can tell and they fall within range that would allow me to at least consider soft lenses, that would be very helpful: BC 7.30 - 12.00 The next number has what looks like "Dia" or could be "Diq" over it, which could be what you are talking about (his handwriting!)... and it says 8.5. I don't know what these mean, but maybe someone else does. There is a second set of numbers that are almost the same. >> Someone in my other (presbyobia) thread said something that got me >> thinking: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >-MT > OK, I am not sure what a "diopter" is. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I don't know what these mean, but maybe someone else does. There is a second > set of numbers that are almost the same. A diopter is a unit of refractive error. BC of 7.3 is very tight. Soft contacts usually have a BC of 8.6 but range from 8 to 9. That -12 is your prescription, you were not kidding about your extremely high myopia! -12 contacts would be comparable to -15 glasses or around that depending on the eye. Multiply 1.25(contacts) to arrive at glasses. My glasses prescription is -5 and I see just as well with -4 soft contacts. Some -5 glasses eyes may only need -3.5 contacts, others may need as high as -4.75 contacts! its strange how there is a variance for that. Even different contact brands dont give the same refractive power. To compare apples to apples, glasses values are the accurate ones. 8.5 is the diameter. RGP contacts are small and guys like me with huge 9mm+ pupils would have problems in low light with RGPs. Id need a special macro lens or *gasp* a scleral lens! Those things are so big, it is scary! My eyes arent that horrible at -4.5 and -5 so I correct quite well with glasses and am getting orthoK. You might need slightly more than -12 soft contacts. There are very few brands that go past -12. But I have an idea, why not undercorrect yourself with contacts so you *dont* need reading glasses all day for the job you do and only need distance glasses for driving? You can wear a 2nd pair of full power contacts for distance like when you go out to a movie. Presbyopia neednt be a problem, a simple undercorrection takes care of that. Thanks. But what I am looking for is one set of lenses that I pop in first thing in the morning, and take out at night before I go to bed. As it is, I am popping my lenses in and out, putting on glasses (which I HATE) , all day long. Can't drive in glasses. My depth perception is drastically different in glasses, I never set foot out the door with them. Even navagating stairs is too iffy. I have been in contacts since my tteens and learned to drive in them and am used to the depth perception of the contacts. I really just want a one-step solution. Just trying to get myself educated before I chose and go in to a new optometrist. >> OK, I am not sure what a "diopter" is. >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >a movie. Presbyopia neednt be a problem, a simple undercorrection takes >care of that. > Thanks. But what I am looking for is one set of lenses that I pop in first > thing in the morning, and take out at night before I go to bed. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I really just want a one-step solution. Just trying to get myself educated > before I chose and go in to a new optometrist. With your presbyopia, the only way that will be possible is monovision or a bifocal design. Monovision is not tolerated by most and itll ruin your depth of perception and make things blurry in one eye at all times, very annoying, ive tried it and hate it! You do not need to put on glasses, no point in glasses when contacts can do the job. I have an idea, what if you pop in your full power contacts in the morning and when you get to work, pop them out and pop in weaker contacts so you can do your editoral work all day then when you are ready to go home, pop in your full power contacts? The other alternative I see is pop in your weaker contacts and only wear a thin pair of glasses(which does not distort and minify much) for driving to work and back. Much less hassle than wearing reading glasses all day at work or swapping contacts. I know several very high myopes who did just that, they wore weaker contacts to undercorrect them so they can see without reading glasses and only need distance glasses for driving! > OK, I am not sure what a "diopter" is. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I don't know what these mean, but maybe someone else does. There is a second > set of numbers that are almost the same. Those are the specifications for your rigid lenses. You will need your glasses prescription to know if soft lenses are an option; it is not possible to tell from a rigid lens prescription if you have significant astigmatism. Soft lenses to correct both presbyopia and astigmatism are much more difficult to fit and vision is often not as good as with rigid lenses. There are multifocal rigid lenses, so you don't need to switch to soft just to get multifocal correction; although tricky to fit and expensive they will likely deliver crisper vision to you than soft multifocals. You will need to find a contact lens fitting specialist with lots of rigid multifocal fitting experience. PS: Ace is a high school student whose advice is based entirely on what he has read, not on any experience. Dr Judy marcia_jay via MedKB.com schreef: > I am considering switching to softlenses after a lifetime of hard lenses/RPG. Why the switch, what kind of improvement do you aspect? Jan (normally Dutch spoken) Well, it's not so much that I am looking for improvement. I need to do something, anyway, to take care of the presbyopia. So some sort of decision needs to be made. And it is becoming harder and harder to find solutions for the RPGs, as the softlense solutions take over the shelves. Outside of the presbyopia situation, I am happy with my lenses. Oh, the bad thing is that they are about a million years old and I probably should replace them anyway. >marcia_jay via MedKB.com schreef: >> I am considering switching to softlenses after a lifetime of hard lenses/RPG. > >Why the switch, what kind of improvement do you aspect? > >Jan (normally Dutch spoken) > >marcia_jay via MedKB.com schreef: > >> I am considering switching to softlenses after a lifetime of hard lenses/RPG. > Message posted via MedKB.com > http://www.medkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/vision/200608/1 You need to realize that many people switching from rigid to soft lenses have to get used to their vision not being quite as "crisp" and many complain about this difference in vision. So if you're an engineer or something, I would not recommend the switch. frank I'm an editor, so crisp could be important. When you say not "crisp" do you mean sort of blurry? Let me put it to you this way, I have to be 100% sure of each letter I am reading, that's what being an editor involves. Will it become crisp over time? Or is that just the deal with soft lenses? >> >marcia_jay via MedKB.com schreef: >> >> I am considering switching to softlenses after a lifetime of hard lenses/RPG. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >frank > I'm an editor, so crisp could be important. When you say not "crisp" do > you > mean sort of blurry? Yes. > Let me put it to you this way, I have to be 100% sure of each letter I am > reading, that's what being an editor involves. It doesn't bode well for the success of bifocal soft lenses. -MT nor does it bode well for the use of bifocal RGPs, at least simultaneous vision lenses. your best luck will likely come with use of readers over distance corrected contacts, or monovision. i agree that bifocal contacts will give you some degree of blurring and that might be unacceptable to you given your near requirements. BTW, disregard the remarks of Ace. he is not a trained eye doctor so his misunderstanding of RGP base curves, the interaction of lens curvature and corneal curvature, and the difference between base curves used for soft versus hard lenses renders his advise useless. he tries to help but his understanding is limited to what he has read on the internet. knowing your RGP prescription is useful only if we also knew your corneal K readings. I would assume that the doctor who fit you in 8.5mm diameter lenses might be fitting them steep to make them center well and therefore must give you a compensatory higher minus prescription. no matter, i am sure that you could be fitted in soft lenses even if your prescription really is as high -12.00 D. whether you believe that your hard lenses give you crisper vision as compared to the soft lenses is something that you will need to experience for yourself. It is indeed true that RGP wearers sometimes claim that their vision is clearer than they could get in soft lenses. however i have also had many RGP wearers who switched to soft lenses remark on the improved comfort of soft lenses without noting any difference in visual sharpness. its an individual thing. > > I'm an editor, so crisp could be important. When you say not "crisp" do > > you [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > -MT your best luck will likely come with use of readers over distance corrected contacts, or monovision. i agree that bifocal contacts will give you some degree of blurring and that might be unacceptable to you given your near requirements. She already mentioned that reading glasses make her dizzy and caused blurred vision after short use. You dont read what she says! The other problem I see is why should she wear glasses all day which she hates when she can just undercorrect herself with weaker contacts and be glasses free? why do you keep butting in Nancy? you don't understand presbyopia being nothing more than a kid who has a fetish with vision problems who likes to read things on the internet when they aren't eating hallucinogenic mushrooms. back to the subject, as you would also know if you had any clinical experience, and would have even read if you read deeper into the thread, is that dizziness with reading glasses when you first use them is common in presbyopes. it will pass. simply start with the weakest ones available and within a few days this common problem will go away. so no-- it didn't ignor it. i just understood it. and secondly,. are you really recommending that she wear undercorrected RGPs in both eyes that are weak enough for her to read with? of course you realize that she wouldn't see squat far away and wouldn't be able to walk around her office building, drive, etc. comfortably. doesn't that seem to you to be a rather inadequate solution? ============= > your best luck will likely come with use of readers over distance > corrected contacts, or monovision. i agree that bifocal contacts will [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > when she can just undercorrect herself with weaker contacts and be > glasses free? So is it the switching itself that is the problem. I know zillions of editors who wear contacts, some are in monovision. But all of them wear soft lenses and see just fine. >nor does it bode well for the use of bifocal RGPs, at least >simultaneous vision lenses. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >> >> -MT Actually, the prescription that I read these numbers for? I went to him for both glasses AND contacts. I found him in a mall. My lifelong family friend optometrist retired and I was left with no one (and not even enough time for a last visit, as I only found out he was retired AFTER the fact). I never actually GOT contacts from this mall guy as something happened that made him not trust me, so I didn't use his glasses prescription either. Maybe his numbers were wrong? As for my retired eyedoctor, I have no information so the prescrption may have been different. >nor does it bode well for the use of bifocal RGPs, at least >simultaneous vision lenses. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >> >> -MT I am just trying to help Marcia. Why dont we let her make her own choices instead of you telling her what to do? Presbyopia is not a problem for myopes unless they chose to be fully corrected. I am not a high school student, I already finished college and have lots of knowlege on optometry even though I never claim to be an optometrist. She is going to give multifocal contacts a try it seems. If that doesnt work, I suggest undercorrecting by about -2.5 diopters. This will let her see perfect from 16 inches which is reading distance. She can get -2.5 glasses for driving or seeing in the distance. Look here, she is an editoral and spends most of her time reading and writing! If she wants to be glasses free most_of_the_time, she needs an undercorrection for near vision. I am not saying go in a blur, she can get -2.5 glasses. If she were to correct for distance, she would_be_going_in_a_blur for anything less than 2 meters away and would need reading glasses all_the_time! She can wear distance contacts when not working on her job. Her occupation requires good near vision. "I already finished college" You have a four year degree???? My recollection is that you completed 2 years just recently.....................not four, nor do you have specific training in the eye field...yes, you have a wealth of information, and your are 'living' the Myope experience, but your application lacks substance, something that would change with specific studies in the field of optometry..... If I am wrong, let me know, I can retract my incorrectness with a quick apology. Mr feathers > I am just trying to help Marcia. Why dont we let her make her own > choices instead of you telling her what to do? Presbyopia is not a [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > need reading glasses all_the_time! She can wear distance contacts when > not working on her job. Her occupation requires good near vision. Dear Folks out there, Can you please refrain from this sort of exchange on my thread? It's making me very uncomfortable. Thanks. Not to worry, I am not just going to take any one person's advice "blindly" (pun intended)...I just need to hear what sorts of experiences are out there. I am happy to hear from professionals, I am happy to hear from fellow contact lens wearers. I have no idea nor care what diapoters are, nor do I need to know the credentials of whoever is giving me advice. I just want some background info before I earnestly start a search for an optometrist. I want to know what options there are so I can even begin a dialog, and I want to know what folks out there have experienced. Thanks for all the help and advice, but again, please do not address each other adversely within my thread. PEACE for cryinoutloud!! > you are 'living' the Myope experience, but your > application lacks substance, something that would > change with specific > studies in the field of optometry..... Or statistics, or physics, any hard science where bullshit gets you flunked. -MT Here's something else I should add which may make a difference. I have had the same prescription glasses for over twenty years (again, only use them for backup--except now, when I have had to use them to read.) In other words, the presbyopia is not so bad as to render my regular glasses useless. I can read the clock across the room, I can read my type sizes of book, newspaper, or manuscript. If something is a little hard to read, I slide the glasses down my nose just a quarter of an inch and it's fine. It is only with the contacts that reading is a strain. I should also add that when my now-retired eyedoctor fitted these contacts I found them hard to read, I remember telling him that I had some kind of eye strain, I think I said "It's like I see too well." I know he responded to that by making one side weaker. So in a way, I think these are a less strong version of monovision as it is. But now 12 years or so later, the presbyopia has advanced so that it is no longer enough. I wonder if the way to go would be to simply adjust the monovision a bit. I mean, if my glasses prescription still works, isn't it possible the change to make my contacts "work" would not be all that great? Thoughts? > But now 12 years or so later, the presbyopia has advanced so that it is no > longer enough. I wonder if the way to go would be to simply adjust the > monovision a bit. I mean, if my glasses prescription still works, isn't > it > possible the change to make my contacts "work" would not be all that > great? It's the first thing I'd try. The chances are good that your nearsightedness has decreased a little too, so it's possible that both lenses are stronger than necessary for distance vision, and every step of excess takes away from the near vision. Normally, I'd fine-tune the dominant eye (if you have one) to the minimum correction necessary for distance vision, and the other eye to clearest vision about 1 meter away. That would free things up enough that you might be OK at a monitor without reading glasses, and small details up close would require +1.00 or +1.50 readers over the contacts. -MT Yes, but I do not want readers. My whole point posting here is to find a solution where I can always be wearing contacts. If I was going to use readers, than why change my contacts at all, except to get newer ones? I don't know if I have a dominant eye, I only know that given my current correction, I apparently read with the left side, because I look like an owl when I read!!! By the way, given they change me to a slightly differnt monovision, will that render my present regular glasses (which work perfectly, plus cost over $400) no longer usable? >> But now 12 years or so later, the presbyopia has advanced so that it is no >> longer enough. I wonder if the way to go would be to simply adjust the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >-MT > Yes, but I do not want readers. My whole point posting here is to find a > solution where I can always be wearing contacts. If I was going to use > readers, than why change my contacts at all, except to get newer ones? First and foremost, it's unlikely you will find any bifocal contacts that match the performance of reading glasses over GPs. As an editor, it's unlikely you'll be very tolerant of compromise (blur). Second, your current contacts are possibly too strong and causing more blur up close than necessary. Third, you will find that a little bit more monovision solves a lot of problems, but "full" monovision (eg 18" vision in the near eye) might be intolerable. > I don't know if I have a dominant eye, I only know that given my current > correction, I apparently read with the left side, because I look like an > owl > when I read!!! Some people don't have a dominant eye but it's something your doctor should test before proceeding. "Dominant eye" is less important than your tolerance for blur. There's some blur in every contact lens option, except perhaps "translating gas perm" designs that are very tough to get right and only work in down-gaze. > By the way, given they change me to a slightly differnt monovision, will > that > render my present regular glasses (which work perfectly, plus cost over > $400) > no longer usable? Monovision is a contact lens option. It has nothing to do with your glasses unless you wear your glasses over contacts. I've prescribed a few pairs of monovision glasses over the years but progressive bifocals work much better. For reading over contacts, I usually recommend drugstore-type single-vision glasses. Even tho they're the same left-and-right, they still work well as "boosters." You could customize a pair of single-vision prescription readers to your contacts, so that each eye is tuned precisely for the same working distance, but it isn't usually necessary. -MT She is right, she doesnt want anyone arguing and just to try to help her. We already know that she hates glasses, including reading glasses. She needs a solution with contacts and monovision or multifocals are the two best options. Another option as ive already mentioned is having two pairs of contacts and swapping them for near or distance. Glasses are more forgiving because they minify and make things appear further away and that sliding the glasses down the nose trick works, ive done it before and things clear up! Of course I usually just take my glasses off as im -4.5 so I can read without correction without having to press my nose into the book. Ace, why don't you point her to your info page on using halucinogenic mushrooms? She might be considering that and benefit from your trip recounts. At least you're qualified there. -Quick > She is right, she doesnt want anyone arguing and just to > try to help her. We already know that she hates glasses, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > take my glasses off as im -4.5 so I can read without > correction without having to press my nose into the book. Hello, I was reading your comments and thought perhaps my own experience would be helpful to you. If I understand you correctly, you are perfectly comfortable with your RGP lenses, but now have a need for presbyopic correction. I wore rigid and RGP lenses for over over 40 years, primarily to correct myopia and astigmatism. As I grew older I could no longer read without near correction so I tried monovision with RGP lenses. My brain is not wired that way and it was a complete failure, thus convincing me that any form of surgical correction that relied upon monovision would also fail. I ended up going to the my local school of optometry seeking a bifocal rigid lens, as many private practitioners have limited experience in this area - everyone wants soft lenses, limited demand - and don't want to fit them. At that time trifocal translating lenses were just coming in. I was fitted with a rigid translating lenses that was perfect from the first pair and I wore them happily for about 8 years. As I have grown older, my eyes are drier and the tension in my lower lid is not a tight as it once was, but then few of my other body parts are in better shape. To complicate matters, I have one oval shaped eye and one round eye. RGP lenses work better on spherical eye shapes, but with the resiliance of use, I was able compensate for a really long time. Things changed and after about 12 months of significant discomfort, I decided that I could no longer continue with RGP lenses. I found a very knowledgable optometrist, who was experienced in RGP and soft lenses and we began the transition away from RGP. It took about 3 to 4 months for my cornea to stop rebounding after I stopped wearing the hard lenses. During this time I got a different pair of multifocal soft lenses every week as my perscription changed. Early on I was optimistic that I could manage with soft multifocals, but now that my vision has stabilized, I find that this is not working for me - I am unwilling to give up the crisp vision I am used to. I am perfectly comfortable with progressive glasses and will probably wear them full time although wearing soft lenses intermittently is easy should I choose to do so - no wearing time ramp up. Having said all that, you might like to find an optometrist who has a sincere interest in fitting you with multifocal RGP lenses. I was lucky and ended up at the school of optometry because a friend was using the clinic. Teaching clinics probably do the most volume in multifocal RGP so if there is one nearby, you might start there. Usually they will fit you till they get it right for a flat fee. There are two types of RGP multifocal lenses - translating lenses, which rest on the lower lid and have 3 distinct fields just like lined trifocal glasses, and progressive lenses, of which there are several designs. The progressives do not depend so much on the tension in the lower lid but I could never get the vision quite right, so I wore the translating lenses as long as possible. With respect to soft multifocal lenses, my personal preference was for B&L's PureVision - they are very clean and seem to resist protein deposit - quite comfortable. I recently popped my old RGP trifocals in just to see - the vision is terrific but very painful now that I have lost my wearing time. For me, going back is not an option, but if you can wear RGP, you can most likely wear RGP multifocal and you can avoid readers. Soft multifocal has not done that for me - I will be wearing glasses. But I really miss my RGP trifocals. I hope this is helpful to you. Good luck. Best regards, JAM > Yes, but I do not want readers. My whole point posting here is to find a > solution where I can always be wearing contacts. If I was going to use [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Message posted via MedKB.com > http://www.medkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/vision/200608/1 >I am just trying to help Marcia. Why dont we let her make her own >choices instead of you telling her what to do? Presbyopia is not a >problem for myopes unless they chose to be fully corrected. I am not a >high school student, I already finished college and have lots of >knowlege on optometry even though I never claim to be an optometrist. When are you going to get a job Ace? Why don't you work? Ann > I am just trying to help Marcia. Why dont we let her make her own > choices instead of you telling her what to do? Presbyopia is not a > problem for myopes unless they chose to be fully corrected. I am not a > high school student, I already finished college and have lots of > knowlege on optometry even though I never claim to be an optometrist. We'll be the judge of your "knowledge" of optometry, and I deem it insufficient for giving advice when in the presence of optometrists. DrG > Outside of the presbyopia situation, I am happy with my lenses. Oh, the > bad > thing is that they are about a million years old and I probably should > replace them anyway. If you are completely comfortable with your RGPs, why switch to soft? The only reason to switch to soft would be for increased comfort. From what I've read and heard, RGPs can usually give better vision. There are many different designs of multifocal RGPs. Dr. Larry who writes here is an expert on them, perhaps he will chime in. You can do a search on this group (including years back) to find some info. One new design that sounds promising is the Menifocal Z. You need to be aware though, that any presbyopia solution that doesn't include reading glasses, whether multifocals or monovision, is a compromise. Neither distance or near vision will be optimal. You compromise the two in order to have something that will work for both, that you can get by with driving and reading, but not necessarily see well with near or far. The only way to have good vision both near and far is to have your contacts prescribed solely for distance, then wear reading glasses over them (you can use the cheap drugstore ones) for close work. It's nice not to have to bother with reading glasses, though, that's why many of us use these other contact-only solutions. But you have to be prepared to compromise both near and far vision, to find something that you can get by with both, although quite likely far from optimal for either. >> Outside of the presbyopia situation, I am happy with my >> lenses. Oh, the bad [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > find something that you can get by with both, although > quite likely far from optimal for either. Bzzzzzt. I'm wearing RGP translating tri-focals. No compromises for near, intermediate, or distance. Same as executive style trifocal spectacles. I couldn't deal with soft multifocals at all and RGP multifocals weren't much better. Monovision drove me nuts when looking left or right. > Bzzzzzt. I'm wearing RGP translating tri-focals. No compromises > for near, intermediate, or distance. Same as executive style > trifocal spectacles. I couldn't deal with soft multifocals at all > and RGP multifocals weren't much better. Monovision drove > me nuts when looking left or right. Well, there is a compromise, in that you have to look in a certain direction for each focal area. For instance, what if you are looking at a computer screen with small print, straight in front of you? You would want the focal area for near work, but you need to look down for that, not straight. In any case though, that is another option, the segmented bifocal or trifocal contacts. (I think mostly RGPs.) That might be a possible solution for the OP. >> Bzzzzzt. I'm wearing RGP translating tri-focals. No >> compromises for near, intermediate, or distance. Same as [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > bifocal or trifocal contacts. (I think mostly RGPs.) That > might be a possible solution for the OP. Well, I am wearing trifocals. Customized for the largest intermediate area available and carefully moved up as far as possible to not intrude on my distance. I don't look down much when using the computer. 20degrees? I found the positional adjustment very easy to deal with and there are only rare instances where I am aware of it any more. The compromise you were describing is very different. Worse distance for perfect near, visa versa, or moderately worse in both. You don't adapt to this you tolerate it. At least I didn't. Many people have comfort issues with RGPs vs soft and I think that's the reason this alternative is often not suggested but the OP has been wearing RGPs for a long time already. I decided to try contacts due to my presbyopia and was only offered soft multifocals which weren't acceptable to me. I had to educate myself and seek out another doc to pursue RGPs and the trifocals I had read about. I'm thrilled with the results where previously the outlook was rather disappointing. So I guess it's just a sort of hot button for me. No doubt I'm in a very small minority. -Quick I've never had soft lenses. I don't know why. I think the family friend I went to only made hard lenses, I could be wrong. Every lens he gave me was a lens he invented, so I just took whatever he gave me. Frankly, I didn't like the "idea" of soft lenses because you have to go in and fish them out of your eye, YUCK, whereas with hard/rpg you just do the I Dream of Jeannie blink--no touching of the actual eye, just the corner of the outside. That I can deal with. >>> Bzzzzzt. I'm wearing RGP translating tri-focals. No >>> compromises for near, intermediate, or distance. Same as [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > >-Quick > I've never had soft lenses. I don't know why. I think the family friend I > went to only made hard lenses, I could be wrong. Every lens he gave me was [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the > outside. That I can deal with. Yes, I changed from RGPs to softs a couple years ago, and at first I had great trouble taking the soft lenses out of my eyes. I'd sometimes poke around for a long time without getting it out, my eyes would hurt and turn red, etc. I've got better at it now. RGPs are easier to put in and take out. (I wouldn't want to wear softs on a daily basis for that reason, taking them out each night, putting them in each morning. Too much trouble. RGPs are easier to insert and remove.) The reason I changed is that I tried out the N&Ds, and really liked the comfort of soft lenses, and liked not to have to take them out at night, extended wear. Those would be reasons to change to soft--comfort, and extended wear. (Although there is one RGP lens material out now, Menicon Z, also rated for 30 day extended wear. Hard to imagine that would be comfortable with an RGP. I'd like to hear from people who have done this.) Most eye docs have told me that you could get better vision with RGP multifocals, than with soft multifocals. In your case though, needing excellent close vision as an editor, any simultaneous multifocal or monovision solution might not give good enough close vision for your purposes. That's why people suggested readers over distance contacts. The other solution, is what Quick suggested, bi- or tri-focal contacts. (I think these are only available in RGP.) They apparently work well for some people, as he relates his experience. You would have to look for an OD with experience in fitting them, as I have read they are complex and difficult to fit, and are not so common. I don't know where you live, and how you would go about finding a doc experienced in them. If you live near Quick, ask him who he goes to. If you live near Santa Barbara, CA, go to our poster Larry Doc, who seems very knowledgeable and experienced in all kinds of multifocal contacts, including RGPs, including bi and trifocals. Otherwise, ask around. I don't think you could find it out by speaking to a receptionist, ask the doc to call you back. The only way to find out what works out best for you, is to try out different possibilities. Note--a couple other advantages of softs. With RGPs, I sometimes had the problem of a lens falling out, or moving off center. If the latter, sometimes hard to get back in place. If the former, sometimes hard to find. In fact, I have had a lens fall out before, not been able to find it, and had to wear glasses while waiting for replacement RGPs to be made, and of course that costs as well. I've never had a soft lens fall out or move off center. Besides, being that softs are mass-produced and disposable, bought by the box, if you lose or damage a lens, no problem, put in another one. If you run out, and have your rx with you, you can pick up another box anywhere. But, for straight comparison of quality of vision, especially if you have any astigmatism, also for multifocals, most eye docs will tell you that RGPs are better. I'm glad the trifocals work out well for you. Yes, they are another option, that work for some people, and it's good you mentioned it, as it could be a good solution for the OP. I just meant to say that segmented viewing areas, such as in bi or trifocal eyeglasses, as well as contact lenses, is also a type of compromise. >>> Bzzzzzt. I'm wearing RGP translating tri-focals. No >>> compromises for near, intermediate, or distance. Same as [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > -Quick My regular glasses work 100% fine for near and far. But I can't stand to be in glasses, and want to go back to contacts full-time. >I'm glad the trifocals work out well for you. Yes, they are another option, >that work for some people, and it's good you mentioned it, as it could be a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> >> -Quick Can you try to get used to those bifocal glasses of yours? Also as others have said, you have several options. I have suggested some options too. What options sound appealing to you? I don't have bifocal glasses. They are just regular glasses. >Can you try to get used to those bifocal glasses of yours? Also as >others have said, you have several options. I have suggested some >options too. What options sound appealing to you? Sorry. Ace doesn't read what you write. But now that you have acknowledged him he will write a lot more. > I don't have bifocal glasses. They are just regular > glasses. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> options. I have suggested some options too. What options >> sound appealing to you? > I don't have bifocal glasses. They are just regular glasses. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Message posted via MedKB.com > http://www.medkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/vision/200608/1 The minification of your glasses must be helping you see better from near. Would you rather wear those glasses or reading glasses for near? Have you thought of undercorrecting yourself with contacts and using a thin pair of glasses to drive? And... there you have it. The blind (pun) deluge has begun. Ace, it's a rhetorical request but try reading her post again. Did you miss the part where she clearly stated she wanted to go back to contacts 100%? Or was that intentionally ignored to garner some attention? -Quick >> I don't have bifocal glasses. They are just regular >> glasses. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > undercorrecting yourself with contacts and using a thin > pair of glasses to drive? The only way this is going to be possible is monovision or multifocal or swapping different prescription power contacts for near, intermediate, distance blah, blah, blah... I guess the thread is long enough now for you to simply restate it starting from the top? Less effort than quoting randomly from the web? You haven't gotten down the to section on translating tri/bifocals? It's tough to waste cyberspace but you've manage to do it. -Quick > The only way this is going to be possible is monovision > or multifocal or swapping different prescription power > contacts for near, intermediate, distance Hey you guys, did you forget the part where the lady said stop the arguing? No need to let her thread asking for information, decline into a childish argument and flame war. > blah, blah, blah... I guess the thread is long enough now > for you to simply restate it starting from the top? Less effort [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> or multifocal or swapping different prescription power >> contacts for near, intermediate, distance >I don't have bifocal glasses. They are just regular glasses. If you get along fine with regular distance glasses at this point, why have you been asking about presbyopia correction? You shouldn't bother with presbyopia correction in contacts, until you really need it. Perhaps you are thinking to the future, wondering if you change back to contacts, what will you do in the future when you develop presbyopia? Well, from this thread you have learned what some of the alternatives are for this, and there could be more and better ones available in the future. As said, there is a trade-off with all of these, so for now stick to single vision contacts. If you are starting to develop slight presbyopia, you could ask that your prescription be undercorrected a little, so they are still adequate for distance, but less than perfect, so they'll suffice for near as well. As your presbyopia gets worse, you'll have to consider the other alternatives mentioned. Since you mentioned that you wore contacts before, and now wear glasses, but hate glasses, why did you switch to them? Did you have a problem with your contacts? > My regular glasses work 100% fine for near and far. But I can't stand to > be > in glasses, and want to go back to contacts full-time. What kind of lenses are your glasses? Bifocals? Progressive? |
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.