 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / March 2007reading glasses
If I have had IOL's in each eye and supposedly they are almost perfect -.25 & +.25 then why are my reading glasses +1.75 and +3.25? > If I have had IOL's in each eye and supposedly they are almost perfect > -.25 & +.25 then why are my reading glasses +1.75 and +3.25? Because someone wrote down +3.25 where it should have been +2.25. -MT > <cda...@directflatscreen.tv> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > -MT Two different doctors have given these prescriptions: On 07-24-2006 For Progressive: -.25 -.50 x170 add: 2.25 +.50 -2.00 x173 add: 2.25 PD 63 For Reading: +1.75 -.50 x020 +3.00 -2.00 X166 PD 60 On 09-28-2006 For Progressives: -.25 -.50 x020 add: 2.50 +.50 -2.00 x168 add: 3.00 1/2 base up PD 64 For Reading: +2.00 -.50 x020 +3.50 -2.00 x168 1/2 base up PD 61 I knew I would wear glasses after surgery (I am 55) because of the astigmatism in my left eye and because I would like to be able to read. These glasses do not work very well for computer or reading. The only time my eyes seemed to work well together again (for distance anyway) was when one of the doctors gave me a contact lens of +1.50 for the right eye to try out. As this did not help my reading, I was not given a prescription for it. The surgeries were done in 12-2004 and 04-2005. I don't understand why. There are several discrepancies, even on the same day. It's hard to understand why someone with IOLs in each eye requires unequal adds, much less why there would be such an assortment of near prescriptions. -MT >> <cda...@directflatscreen.tv> wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > not given a prescription for it. The surgeries were done in 12-2004 > and 04-2005. > I don't understand why. > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > not given a prescription for it. The surgeries were done in 12-2004 > > and 04-2005. I could scan and post the actual prescriptions or email them to you but I don't know if that is allowed here. > > <cda...@directflatscreen.tv> wrote > > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > not given a prescription for it. The surgeries were done in 12-2004 > and 04-2005. Dear cdavis, The spherical equivalent of this pair of reading glasses is: > For Reading: > +1.75 -.50 x020 > +3.00 -2.00 X166 > PD 60 +1.75 + (-0.50/2) = +1.50 +3.00 + (-2.00/2) = +2.00 And the spherical equivalent of this pair of reading glasses is: > For Reading: > +2.00 -.50 x020 > +3.50 -2.00 x168 1/2 base up > PD 61 +2.00 + (-0.50/2) = +1.75 +3.50 + (-2.00/2) = +2.50 > then why are my reading glasses +1.75 and +3.25? So, your reading glasses are not +1.75 and +3.25 as you think they are. The spherical equivalent of the first pair is +1.50 and +2.00 while the spherical equivalent of the second pair is +1.75 and +2.50. The left and right sides of both pairs of reading glasses are closer to each other than you think. > These glasses do not work very well for computer or reading. Because the left and right sides of both pairs are still imbalanced. Best regards, Myopia Cure Promoter http://www.geocities.com/myopiacure On Mar 23, 3:56 pm, myopiac...@yahoo.com wrote: > cda...@directflatscreen.tv wrote: > > > <cda...@directflatscreen.tv> wrote [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > > Myopia Cure Promoterhttp://www.geocities.com/myopiacure actually, I think I could see the tv across the room just fine with my right eye if they took the cyl. and axis out. I very seldom have the astigmatism corrected because it is so small. > > <cda...@directflatscreen.tv> wrote > > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > not given a prescription for it. The surgeries were done in 12-2004 > and 04-2005. Sounds like something went wrong. That's why they have all those warnings on the consent forms. This isn't a criticism of the surgeon. Sometimes it just doesn't work. For my first cataract, the surgeon was reluctant to do the operation. He knew that sometimes it didn't work and that there were risks. > In article <1174665415.157635.177...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > reluctant to do the operation. He knew that sometimes it didn't work > and that there were risks. Well, actually there was only one page to the consent form. This doctor was not reluctant to do the operation although why he chose my good eye first I don't know. I could still read even very fine print although I had to hold it close. I'm pretty sure something went wrong and that's why I had to go back four times so that he could lance my eyeball and squeeze the fluid out. It kept going over 60. Then it stopped going up so high and he said that after awhile my pupil would constrict down to normal and I would get used to my new vision. What concerns me is that this is a small community and no one will tell me what went wrong or where we go from here so that I can work again. They tell me my vision is better than most 80-90 year olds and that I need to accept the fact that my eyes are aging. I know there are risks with surgery and that's the way it goes but I am afraid that if something can be done, and nothing is done, I will lose that timeframe and the opportunity will be lost forever. Dear Friend, The IOL has no power of accommodation. I assume you are over 40 years old. You have the choice of clear distant vision, but you lose your near vision. To make "good" on your near vision you will need about a +1.75 to +2 diopters (focal length 20 inches) to read print clearly. Best, Otis On Mar 22, 9:08 pm, cda...@directflatscreen.tv wrote: > If I have had IOL's in each eye and supposedly they are almost perfect > -.25 & +.25 then why are my reading glasses +1.75 and +3.25? On Mar 22, 6:55 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear Friend, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > about a +1.75 to +2 diopters (focal length 20 inches) > to read print clearly. > On Mar 22, 9:08 pm, cda...@directflatscreen.tv wrote: > > > If I have had IOL's in each eye and supposedly they are almost perfect > > -.25 & +.25 then why are my reading glasses +1.75 and +3.25? There's a 99.99% chance that Mike's right. And a 0.01% chance that Otis is. Are you a gambler? > There's a 99.99% chance that Mike's right. > > And a 0.01% chance that Otis is. > > Are you a gambler? ----------------------------------------------------------------- There is a 0% chance that Neil Brooks is right. Hahaha :) On Mar 23, 7:01 pm, myopiac...@yahoo.com wrote: > > There's a 99.99% chance that Mike's right. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > There is a 0% chance that Neil Brooks is right. Hahaha :) with regard to Neil Brooks's assessment of the relative value of the two poster's comments, he is 100% correct. no Hahaha On Mar 25, 11:26 am, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote: > On Mar 23, 7:01 pm, myopiac...@yahoo.com wrote: Since the SUGGESTION was to use a +2 diopter lens (20 inch focal length), and in fact he recieved a +2.25 diopter perscription, you must believe that this "second-opinion" wrong. Now is question is what is the RIGHT prescription. So far, you have not answered his quesion, except to say that he has a lot of inaccurate prescriptions at this point. What happened? Did your phoropter have a flat tire? Otis Two different doctors have given these prescriptions: On 07-24-2006 For Progressive: -.25 -.50 x170 add: 2.25 +.50 -2.00 x173 add: 2.25 PD 63 > > > There's a 99.99% chance that Mike's right. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > two poster's comments, he is 100% correct. > no Hahaha I question your numbers. I think there's a 90% chance Mike's right, a 100% chance that Otis is wrong, and a 10% chance somone's trying to give him both computer and near vision with one pair of single vision lenses, a sort of near monovision Rx. w.stacy, o.d. >There's a 99.99% chance that Mike's right. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > I question your numbers. I think there's a 90% chance Mike's right, a > 100% chance that Otis is wrong, and a 10% chance somone's trying to give [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > >Are you a gambler? My reading glasses are single vision lenses. I specifically asked for reading glasses only since the progressive lenses were useless for computer or reading. If they were trying to achieve near monovision they should have asked me first because I use my right eye for reading (I actually use both eyes but if for some reason I had to make a choice, I would normally use my right) and my left for distance. This is how I use them since I was born. I do have binocular vision and fusion although since the surgery I have vertical diplopia of 1.5 D. On Mar 22, 8:08 pm, cda...@directflatscreen.tv wrote: > If I have had IOL's in each eye and supposedly they are almost perfect > -.25 & +.25 then why are my reading glasses +1.75 and +3.25? Sounds like your surgeon did a great job! Congratulations. Now head on down to your favorite Walgreens or CVS and scoop up a magazine with small print in it. Then, head over to the reading glasses section and go nuts! Try on as many pair of SVR (single vision reading) glasses that you want and just see what works/feels best. Cheers! > Then, head over to the reading glasses section and go nuts! Try on as > many pair of SVR (single vision reading) glasses that you want and > just see what works/feels best. See what works/feels best AT THE DISTANCE YOU WANT TO WORK. -MT > > Then, head over to the reading glasses section and go nuts! Try on as > > many pair of SVR (single vision reading) glasses that you want and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > -MT So after IOL implants I should forget about the four different pairs of prescription glasses I have been given in the past year and a half (and hundreds of dollars) and go down to the drugstore and get 4 pairs of readers. Also, I should forget about the astigmatism in the left eye and the vertical diplopia? Well, I was looking for a little bit more knowlegdeable advice than that. You try switching between 4 different pairs of glasses as you are driving, talking to clients, using the computer and reading several different sizes of print all within the space of a few minutes. I seem to have had surgery in two eyes for absolutely no reason at all. >> > Then, head over to the reading glasses section and go nuts! Try on as >> > many pair of SVR (single vision reading) glasses that you want and >> > just see what works/feels best. >> Mike Tyner wrote >> See what works/feels best AT THE DISTANCE YOU WANT TO WORK. > So after IOL implants I should forget about the four different pairs > of prescription glasses I have been given in the past year and a half > (and hundreds of dollars) and go down to the drugstore and get 4 pairs > of readers. Also, I should forget about the astigmatism in the left > eye and the vertical diplopia? No, sorry I didn't realize which thread SKIL was replying to. My comment was general, pointing out the mistake that most people make in choosing non-rx readers. In your case, I think your written prescriptions are inexplicable and deserve another look by the doctor. > Well, I was looking for a little bit > more knowlegdeable advice than that. You try switching between 4 > different pairs of glasses as you are driving, talking to clients, > using the computer and reading several different sizes of print all > within the space of a few minutes. I seem to have had surgery in two > eyes for absolutely no reason at all. I hope "SKIL-online" takes your point. I also hope your doctor can explain his reasoning or correct the inaccuracies in the prescription. -MT >So after IOL implants I should forget about the four different pairs >of prescription glasses I have been given in the past year and a half >(and hundreds of dollars) > Chances are none of them will work correctly. I don't like the idea of your getting dimestore readers either. It sounds like you need careful refraction and binocularity evaluation to determine what will work best. I'm amazed to hear o.d.s recommend dimestore readers. It's a shame, when so much can be done for you optically unless you get multifocal IOLs, in which case not much can be done... w.stacy, o.d. > cda...@directflatscreen.tv wrote: > >So after IOL implants I should forget about the four different pairs [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > w.stacy, o.d. I don't really like the idea of dimestore readers either. Since I have vision in both eyes, I would like to use both eyes for the next 45 years. I don't know why the vision in one of my eyes has to be blurry every time I put prescription glasses on. I feel like the muscles in my right eye get weaker as time goes on and it has started to wander some. I don't know if anyone else sees this, though. I don't think my vision is bad, something just needs tweaking but maybe my doctors don't have the time. I don't have multifocal implants: AR40e +13.5 in the right and CLRFLXC +20.5 in the left. I don't have any problem with the left eye, my prescription is just the same as before surgery. Sometimes I feel like I am actually farsighted now in the right eye but I guess that wouldn't be true if I need such a small add for reading. Sometimes the implant bothers me so much at the end of the day, like a contact lens, that I want to reach in and take it out for the night. Is there a doctor or clinic that you can recommend in the Seattle, Portland, San Diego, or San Francisco Bay Area? Thank you for taking the time to read this. Dear CDA, If you do not like over-the-counter plus lenses, you can take your prescription for +2.25 diopters, and click on this site: http://zennioptical.com/cart/home.php They have a large selection, and I think the cost is about $20. They allow you to type in the +2.25 diopters, and if you wish, the astigmatic part of the prescription. Since your refraction is essentially plano in each eye, you should be fine with this type of lens you can order on-line. On Mar 25, 10:42 am, cda...@directflatscreen.tv wrote: > > > Then, head over to the reading glasses section and go nuts! Try on as > > > many pair of SVR (single vision reading) glasses that you want and [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > within the space of a few minutes. I seem to have had surgery in two > eyes for absolutely no reason at all. > Since your refraction is essentially plano > in each eye, you should be fine with > this type of lens you can order on-line. Which part of +.50 -2.00 x173 do you find to be "essentially plano?" -MT > <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > -MT He seems never to tire of being wrong. It's just astounding.
|
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.