 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / November 2007Contacts Making me Farsighted
I'm having some trouble with my contact lenses, vision performance wise. Got my eye exam, said I have astigmatism. Prescription was: OD (Right) : Sphere:-1.25 // Cylinder:-0.75 // Axis 115 OS (Left) : Sphere:-1.00 // Cylinder:-1.00 // Axis 157 The contacts I bought were B&L Purevision Toric (after my optometrist erroneously told me they weren't available in Canada for another year). I find with my right eye, I'm having trouble seeing things close up. My focus gets blurry as I read things closely. My left eye - I kind of did a stupid thing here - they didn't have cylinder 1.00 so I got -0.75, turns out to be too low (Spherical equiv. 1.38 vs. 1.50). Again though, my near vision is worse. Is this just the way things go? Maybe I should get a second opinion. I have coverage so it's not a problem from a financial perspective to try other things out. > Got my eye exam, said I have astigmatism. Prescription was: > OD (Right) : Sphere:-1.25 // Cylinder:-0.75 // Axis 115 > OS (Left) : Sphere:-1.00 // Cylinder:-1.00 // Axis 157 It's important to know whether this prescription is stronger than you've worn before. Temporary near complaints are common when adapting to a new, stronger prescription. > I find with my right eye, I'm having trouble seeing things close up. > My focus gets blurry as I read things closely. It's important to know your age. Problems like this are more common in the late 30s, and almost universal after 40. > My left eye - I kind of did a stupid thing here - they didn't have > cylinder 1.00 so I got -0.75, turns out to be too low (Spherical > equiv. 1.38 vs. 1.50). Again though, my near vision is worse. That compromise is pretty conventional. Most doctors would round the cylinder down, and most people wouldn't notice much difference. Toric contact lenses are always an approximation. "Rounding down" should help your near vision. > Is this just the way things go? Maybe I should get a second opinion. I > have coverage so it's not a problem from a financial perspective to > try other things out. Vision plans are not like medical insurance. Most vision plans cover only one examination every one or two years. They will not usually cover a "second opinion." Did you have glasses made from the new prescription? -MT, OD > > Got my eye exam, said I have astigmatism. Prescription was: > > OD (Right) : Sphere:-1.25 // Cylinder:-0.75 // Axis 115 [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > It's important to know your age. Problems like this are more common in the > late 30s, and almost universal after 40. 22. It's fine otherwise. Kind of hard to quantify, but I'd guess I've lost about an inch of near focus (ie. I could hold things an inch closer before, say about 4.5-5" away). > > My left eye - I kind of did a stupid thing here - they didn't have > > cylinder 1.00 so I got -0.75, turns out to be too low (Spherical [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > contact lenses are always an approximation. "Rounding down" should help your > near vision. Oh oh, you're encouraging me. I tend to already ask a lot of questions and logic out things in my own way. I think this is the big one though. According to this eye chart: http://www.keratoconus-group.org.uk/snellens/Snellen_3m_A4.pdf (E measure 45mm, I stood ~ 3m away). my left eye is 20/50. my right eye is 20/15 (possibly better, but it was getting blurry). Down being -0.75, or because the quantities are negative, -1.25? :P The optometrist said it'd be okay to wear spherical. I thought I could do better by having two torics instead of some sort of "mixture" but didn't realize that my compromise was off until I plugged the numbers in to optometric toolbox (http://www.thomson-software-solutions.com/ html/optometric_toolbox.html). > > Is this just the way things go? Maybe I should get a second opinion. I > > have coverage so it's not a problem from a financial perspective to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > one examination every one or two years. They will not usually cover a > "second opinion." That's okay, I'm fast learning how to do this myself. Now if I can just find an old spam mail for one of those diploma mills... :P Heck, those lens swapping machines look like they only cost around 40 grand and I've still got a soul to sell. > Did you have glasses made from the new prescription? > > -MT, OD I'm wearing glasses from a year old 'script, apparently not much changed. I see much better with them. Thanks for the insight! I think I've convinced myself to just order another pair for my left eye @ 1.50. I'll check my Alberta Blue Cross plan to see if I'll have any trouble but I think I'll be okay; I've got an annual "spending account" for things like eyeglasses and orthodontics that's always gone unused. That was the setup with my trial pair (1.50 left, toric right) and it worked great (still not as good as my glasses though), but I always try to get better results ;0 > 22. It's fine otherwise. Kind of hard to quantify, but I'd guess I've > lost about an inch of near focus (ie. I could hold things an inch > closer before, say about 4.5-5" away). At 22 it's unusual for near problems to persist. Unless you actually work at 4.5-5". > my left eye is 20/50. > my right eye is 20/15 (possibly better, but it was getting blurry). Wearing what? 20/50 puzzles me. Even with a spherical -150 in the left eye, I'd expect vision of at least 20/30, not 20/50. > Down being -0.75, or because the quantities are negative, -1.25? "Down" being *less correction* (-0.75) rather than more (-1.25). > The optometrist said it'd be okay to wear spherical. I thought I could > do better by having two torics instead of some sort of "mixture" but > didn't realize that my compromise was off until I plugged the numbers > in to optometric toolbox (http://www.thomson-software-solutions.com/ > html/optometric_toolbox.html). That eighth of a diopter should be negligible. >> Did you have glasses made from the new prescription? > I'm wearing glasses from a year old 'script, apparently not much > changed. I see much better with them. Than with contacts? > I think I've convinced myself to just order another pair for my left > eye @ 1.50. -150 spherical? > gone unused. That was the setup with my trial pair (1.50 left, toric > right) and it worked great (still not as good as my glasses though), > but I always try to get better results ;0 Your spec rx says the left eye needs a toric more than the right. -MT > Down being -0.75, or because the quantities are negative, -1.25? :P > The optometrist said it'd be okay to wear spherical. I thought I could > do better by having two torics instead of some sort of "mixture" but > didn't realize that my compromise was off until I plugged the numbers > in to optometric toolbox (http://www.thomson-software-solutions.com/ > html/optometric_toolbox.html). Are you just ordering contacts without a fitting a a doctor's prescription for contacts? That is a problem. Torics can rotate, sometimes with the stiffer materials like PureVision there are tear lens consideration. You need your contact lens fitter to fit the lens and specify the powers. Dr Judy
|
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.