|
Home > Archive > Vision > October 2005 > Alcon ReSTOR IOL
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Jim Kellogg 2005-08-08, 5:57 pm |
| Hello,
I've had both eyes implanted in Australia with Alcon ReSTOR lens in May
2005. I'm 47 and had presbyopia for which I used multifocal glasses. The
product is marketed here as an end to needing glasses. I see some
advertisements in the USA claim "The ReSTOR lens implant is the first and
only implant for cataract patients that offers a full range of vision (near,
intermediate and distance)" I was told the possible exception was computer
glasses as that distance may be out of focus.
After spending around $8,000 on "my new eyes" two months ago here's the
first hand facts about Alcon ReSTOR:
(1) I see the edge of the lens which reminds me of looking through a diving
mask. This side effect was not mentioned to me.
(2) I have halos and don't like driving at night. I was told this side
effect will disappear in a few months and it seems to be diminishing.
(3) I have double vision from the two focal points of the lens. This side
effect was not mentioned but I was told at post op consultation this should
disappear.
(4) I need more glasses now then prior to surgery. I use "computer glasses"
as I was told I may need. I also use a new pair of multifocal glasses to
clear up vision across the complete range of distance from near to far. Also
wearing Sunglasses at night help diminish halos.
(5) My surgeon told me prior to the procedure vision can be "tweaked" by
laser if necessary. Now he says it will bring my near vision focus distance
too close.
Previously I had excellent vision with my multifocal glasses. I can see
better with Alcon ReSTOR lens then I could without glasses prior to surgery.
However I can't see as clearly now with or without my new multifocal glasses
as I could prior to Alcon ReSTOR lens with glasses
I believe this product is a great for people with bad vision from cataracts
but for a replacement for glasses it's not good. If fact I'd say it's false
advertising. Personally I'd like my old eyes and $8,000 back.
Does anyone at Alcon follow up personally to insure everything is correct
with implants and / or explain what options are available? Alternatively is
there any IOL support group who might be able to offer some advice?
Kind regards,
Jim Kellogg
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-08-08, 5:57 pm |
| Hi Jim, I'm sorry to hear of your difficulties.
Refractive Lens Exchange (RLE) is the removal of the natural lens
inside the eye and replacement with an artificial intraocular lens
(IOL). RLE is commonly recommended for patients who are fully
presbyopic (cannot focus on items near when wearing distance
correction) and/or have high refractive error that is more difficult
to correct with laser assisted surgery such as LASIK, PRK, LASEK, or
Epi-LASIK.
The ReSTOR IOL manufactured by Alcon is designed to improve vision at
all distances when compared to a conventional single-focus IOL. ReSTOR
uses multiple concentric circles of different image power that defract
light to cause focus at different points within the eye. The
theoretical system of ReSTOR is that the rings of different focus
properties will allow you to see items near and items far without the
need for reading glasses. A convention single-focus IOL will provide
focus only at near or only at far.
Multifocal IOLs have been around for years and have, in my opinion,
never lived up to the promise. The biggest problem is that the
multi-focus defracted or refracted light is scattered light, and this
light scatter can cause halos around light sources and blur,
especially at night.
ReSTOR attempts to minimize night halos by making the IOL apodized.
Simply put; narrow multi-focal rings are in the center portion of the
IOL and a wide single focus ring is at the periphery. The theory is
that during the day or in bright light, the central concentric rings
will provide vision at all distances, and in low light environments
when the pupil is large, the single focus periphery will reduce halos.
Well, that is the theory, anyway. You are living with the reality.
Because the ReSTOR lens relies upon the pupil to help provide the
right kind of focus energy in different lighting environments, ReSTOR
is very pupil size dependant. If your pupils don't get large enough,
then you will only be looking through the multi-focal center of the
lens and will get the full night time halo effect. If your pupils are
too large, light is able to hit the edge of the IOL, causing an arc or
glare effect. My bet is that your pupil sizes in bright light, normal
light, and low light is not consistent with the mechanics of the
ReSTOR lens and this is contributing to your problems.
Another problem with the theory behind ReSTOR is that no matter how
large your pupil becomes, light passing through the center of the IOL
will be defracted. It will be defracted in daylight, at night, and at
every light level in between. Adding single focus at the edge of the
IOL is not going to stop the multi-focus in the center just because
the pupil gets big.
The science of the ReSTOR is really quite remarkable and it is
manufactured with exacting precision. Unfortunately, surgery of any
kind is rarely as exact as the manufacturing of a plastic product. If
the IOL is slightly decentered or settles at an angle, the defractive
effects can be negatively affected, and dramatically so. Even
excellent surgeons who do a good job can end up with IOLs slightly
off.
The physics of any diffractive device has limits. To accommodate those
limits, the ReSTOR lens has less focus at mid-distance than near and
far. For somebody who uses a computer screen about 18-22 inches away,
glasses may be a requirement. Laser refractive surgery can move that
range closer (say 12-17 inches) or farther (25-30 inches) but this
will be shifting all focal points closer or farther so to gain
something, you are going to be lose something else.
The first thing you need to do is…nothing. I'm serious. If you can
deal with the vision limitations, don't do anything until several
months have passed and your brain has been able to adjust to the new
images coming in from the eyes. It is really quite amazing how the
brain will "look around" some problems and vision will improve. If
after an appropriate time you find that your vision is intolerable,
your only real option is to have the ReSTOR lenses removed and a
single focus IOL put in its place.
If you do decide to have your ReSTOR IOLs explanted and a single focus
IOL implanted, I very highly recommend that you do this on your
dominant eye first with at least a month in between eyes. The ReSTOR
IOL in your nondominant eye and a conventional single focus IOL in
your dominant eye may provide you with a multifocal monovision effect
that is not only satisfactory, but superior to having both eyes with a
single focus IOL.
I am curious; did your doctor require you to wear multifocal contact
lenses before surgery so you could get an idea of the type of effects
you would encounter? Multifocal contacts use very different physics
than the ReSTOR lens, but a trial may indicate intolerance or
acceptance of multifocal vision.
Glenn Hagele
http://www.USAEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
USAEyes.org
"Consider and Choose With Confidence"
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
| William Stacy 2005-08-08, 10:57 pm |
|
Jim Kellogg wrote:
>After spending around $8,000 on "my new eyes" two months ago here's the
>first hand facts about Alcon ReSTOR:
>
>(1) I see the edge of the lens which reminds me of looking through a diving
>mask. This side effect was not mentioned to me.
>
>
Do you see it all the way around, or just a crescent? Is the edge
lighter or darker than the rest of your vision?
>(2) I have halos and don't like driving at night. I was told this side
>effect will disappear in a few months and it seems to be diminishing.
>
>
Hopefull that will go away completely, but I wouldn't guarantee it.
>(3) I have double vision from the two focal points of the lens. This side
>effect was not mentioned but I was told at post op consultation this should
>disappear.
>
>
Is this overlapping, ghosting images, or completely separate images? Is
it the same for each eye (do you get the same effect if you cover one
eye, then the other?) Are they vertically separated, horizontally, or
obliquely?
>(4) I need more glasses now then prior to surgery. I use "computer glasses"
>as I was told I may need. I also use a new pair of multifocal glasses to
>clear up vision across the complete range of distance from near to far. Also
>wearing Sunglasses at night help diminish halos.
>
>
>
I don't like the sunglass idea. You need all the light you can get at
night.
>Previously I had excellent vision with my multifocal glasses. I can see
>better with Alcon ReSTOR lens then I could without glasses prior to surgery.
>However I can't see as clearly now with or without my new multifocal glasses
>as I could prior to Alcon ReSTOR lens with glasses
>
>
>
Sounds like you were over sold.
>I believe this product is a great for people with bad vision from cataracts
>but for a replacement for glasses it's not good. If fact I'd say it's false
>advertising. Personally I'd like my old eyes and $8,000 back.
>
>
>
I don't even much like the idea for cataract patients. I mean we like
good, clear single vision without halos and rings too, you know. I got
Technis single vision lenses implanted in Jan and am very happy with the
quality of my vision. I do not recommend any of the multifocal or
focusing IOLs for my patients, period. They have a long way to go before
I'd ever suggest them.
>Does anyone at Alcon follow up personally to insure everything is correct
>with implants and / or explain what options are available? Alternatively is
>there any IOL support group who might be able to offer some advice?
>
>
>
Other than waiting, there is only explantation and reimplanting a better
lens. Not much of an option, I know, but if I were in your shoes, I'd
be exploring that possibility...
w.stacy, o.d.
| |
| William Stacy 2005-08-08, 10:57 pm |
|
Glenn - USAEyes.org wrote:
(a good description of the lens problems)
>The first thing you need to do is…nothing. I'm serious. If you can
>deal with the vision limitations, don't do anything until several
>months have passed and your brain has been able to adjust to the new
>images coming in from the eyes. It is really quite amazing how the
>brain will "look around" some problems and vision will improve. If
>after an appropriate time you find that your vision is intolerable,
>your only real option is to have the ReSTOR lenses removed and a
>single focus IOL put in its place.
>
>
One problem with waiting is the longer you wait the more difficult the
explantation becomes (due to capsular shrinkage and scarring around the
implant).
>If you do decide to have your ReSTOR IOLs explanted and a single focus
>IOL implanted, I very highly recommend that you do this on your
>dominant eye first with at least a month in between eyes. The ReSTOR
>IOL in your nondominant eye and a conventional single focus IOL in
>your dominant eye may provide you with a multifocal monovision effect
>that is not only satisfactory, but superior to having both eyes with a
>single focus IOL.
>
>
I'd go along with that idea if his unaided vision right now is about the
same in both eyes. Otherwise, just like cataract surgery, I'd have the
worst eye done first.
>I am curious; did your doctor require you to wear multifocal contact
>lenses before surgery so you could get an idea of the type of effects
>you would encounter? Multifocal contacts use very different physics
>than the ReSTOR lens, but a trial may indicate intolerance or
>acceptance of multifocal vision.
>
>
>
I doubt they would, because most multifocal contacts have garbage
optics, just like the multifocal IOLs, IMO of course.
The only reason they have any success at all with these lenses is that
the cataract patients are comparing the vision with what they had with
their cataracts, not with what they had 40 years earlier, which is what
they *should* be comparing it to...
w.stacy, o.d.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-08-08, 10:57 pm |
| >One problem with waiting is the longer you wait the more difficult the
>explantation becomes (due to capsular shrinkage and scarring around the
>implant).
You are quite right on this issue and it is a risk that needs to be
discussed with the doctor.
>The only reason they have any success at all with these lenses is that
>the cataract patients are comparing the vision with what they had with
>their cataracts, not with what they had 40 years earlier, which is what
>they *should* be comparing it to...
I concur with your opinion, and this is why multi-focal IOLs may have
a very difficult time with RLE. RLE patients have good clear corrected
vision and they want good, clear, uncorrected vision after surgery.
Light scatter, no matter how well designed, is by its very nature
going to work against that goal.
Multi-focal IOLs most certainly have their place, but they are a
trade-off. Many patients will be trading the ability to see objects at
different distances for the hassle of halos.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
USAEyes.org
"Consider and Choose With Confidence"
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
| Jim Kellogg 2005-08-08, 10:57 pm |
| Hi Glenn,
Thanks for the info. As you suggest I'll give it time to see if my brain
can adapt to the ReSTOR IOL while I research options if not. My doctor
didn't offer me multifocal contacts.
Jim
"Glenn - USAEyes.org" wrote:
> Hi Jim, I'm sorry to hear of your difficulties.
>
> Refractive Lens Exchange (RLE) is the removal of the natural lens
> inside the eye and replacement with an artificial intraocular lens
> (IOL). RLE is commonly recommended for patients who are fully
> presbyopic (cannot focus on items near when wearing distance
> correction) and/or have high refractive error that is more difficult
> to correct with laser assisted surgery such as LASIK, PRK, LASEK, or
> Epi-LASIK.
>
> The ReSTOR IOL manufactured by Alcon is designed to improve vision at
> all distances when compared to a conventional single-focus IOL. ReSTOR
> uses multiple concentric circles of different image power that defract
> light to cause focus at different points within the eye. The
> theoretical system of ReSTOR is that the rings of different focus
> properties will allow you to see items near and items far without the
> need for reading glasses. A convention single-focus IOL will provide
> focus only at near or only at far.
>
> Multifocal IOLs have been around for years and have, in my opinion,
> never lived up to the promise. The biggest problem is that the
> multi-focus defracted or refracted light is scattered light, and this
> light scatter can cause halos around light sources and blur,
> especially at night.
>
> ReSTOR attempts to minimize night halos by making the IOL apodized.
> Simply put; narrow multi-focal rings are in the center portion of the
> IOL and a wide single focus ring is at the periphery. The theory is
> that during the day or in bright light, the central concentric rings
> will provide vision at all distances, and in low light environments
> when the pupil is large, the single focus periphery will reduce halos.
>
> Well, that is the theory, anyway. You are living with the reality.
>
> Because the ReSTOR lens relies upon the pupil to help provide the
> right kind of focus energy in different lighting environments, ReSTOR
> is very pupil size dependant. If your pupils don't get large enough,
> then you will only be looking through the multi-focal center of the
> lens and will get the full night time halo effect. If your pupils are
> too large, light is able to hit the edge of the IOL, causing an arc or
> glare effect. My bet is that your pupil sizes in bright light, normal
> light, and low light is not consistent with the mechanics of the
> ReSTOR lens and this is contributing to your problems.
>
> Another problem with the theory behind ReSTOR is that no matter how
> large your pupil becomes, light passing through the center of the IOL
> will be defracted. It will be defracted in daylight, at night, and at
> every light level in between. Adding single focus at the edge of the
> IOL is not going to stop the multi-focus in the center just because
> the pupil gets big.
>
> The science of the ReSTOR is really quite remarkable and it is
> manufactured with exacting precision. Unfortunately, surgery of any
> kind is rarely as exact as the manufacturing of a plastic product. If
> the IOL is slightly decentered or settles at an angle, the defractive
> effects can be negatively affected, and dramatically so. Even
> excellent surgeons who do a good job can end up with IOLs slightly
> off.
>
> The physics of any diffractive device has limits. To accommodate those
> limits, the ReSTOR lens has less focus at mid-distance than near and
> far. For somebody who uses a computer screen about 18-22 inches away,
> glasses may be a requirement. Laser refractive surgery can move that
> range closer (say 12-17 inches) or farther (25-30 inches) but this
> will be shifting all focal points closer or farther so to gain
> something, you are going to be lose something else.
>
> The first thing you need to do is…nothing. I'm serious. If you can
> deal with the vision limitations, don't do anything until several
> months have passed and your brain has been able to adjust to the new
> images coming in from the eyes. It is really quite amazing how the
> brain will "look around" some problems and vision will improve. If
> after an appropriate time you find that your vision is intolerable,
> your only real option is to have the ReSTOR lenses removed and a
> single focus IOL put in its place.
>
> If you do decide to have your ReSTOR IOLs explanted and a single focus
> IOL implanted, I very highly recommend that you do this on your
> dominant eye first with at least a month in between eyes. The ReSTOR
> IOL in your nondominant eye and a conventional single focus IOL in
> your dominant eye may provide you with a multifocal monovision effect
> that is not only satisfactory, but superior to having both eyes with a
> single focus IOL.
>
> I am curious; did your doctor require you to wear multifocal contact
> lenses before surgery so you could get an idea of the type of effects
> you would encounter? Multifocal contacts use very different physics
> than the ReSTOR lens, but a trial may indicate intolerance or
> acceptance of multifocal vision.
>
> Glenn Hagele
> http://www.USAEyes.org
>
> I am not a doctor.
>
> Glenn Hagele
> Executive Director
> USAEyes.org
>
> "Consider and Choose With Confidence"
>
> Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
>
> http://www.USAEyes.org
> http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
>
> I am not a doctor.
| |
| Jim Kellogg 2005-08-08, 10:57 pm |
| William Stacy wrote:
> Jim Kellogg wrote:
>
> Do you see it all the way around, or just a crescent? Is the edge
> lighter or darker than the rest of your vision?
JUST A CRESCENT ON THE SIDES WHEN FOCUSING ON SOMETHING CLOSE. iT'S LIKE LOOKING
THROUGH A BIG TUBE OR DIVING MASK
> Hopefull that will go away completely, but I wouldn't guarantee it.
THANKS, IT IS GETTING BETTER.
> Is this overlapping, ghosting images, or completely separate images? Is
> it the same for each eye (do you get the same effect if you cover one
> eye, then the other?) Are they vertically separated, horizontally, or
> obliquely?
AT BEST NEAR DISTANCE FOCAL LENGTH OF AROUND 400 MILLIMETRES MY LEFT EYE GIVES A
SHADOW TO THE RIGHT AND MY RIGHT EYE GIVES A SHADOW TO THE LEFT. THE SHADOW SIZE
IS LARGER THE THE SHARP IMAGE. WHEN I PUT ON MY GLASSES THE SHADOW DISAPPEARS AT
THE BEST FOCAL LENGTH BUT REAPPEARS WHEN MOVED FROM BEST FOCAL LENGTH.
> I don't like the sunglass idea. You need all the light you can get at
> night.
THE HALOS ARE BETTER NOW AND I DON'T NEED TO USE SUNGLASSES AT NIGHT ANY LONGER.
> Sounds like you were over sold.
I'M WONDERING THE SAME THING BUT TIME WILL TELL.
> I don't even much like the idea for cataract patients. I mean we like
> good, clear single vision without halos and rings too, you know. I got
> Technis single vision lenses implanted in Jan and am very happy with the
> quality of my vision. I do not recommend any of the multifocal or
> focusing IOLs for my patients, period. They have a long way to go before
> I'd ever suggest them.
I REPORT BACK WITH UPDATES IN TIME.
> Other than waiting, there is only explantation and reimplanting a better
> lens. Not much of an option, I know, but if I were in your shoes, I'd
> be exploring that possibility...
THANKS, IT'S NICE TO KNOW THERE ARE SOME OPTIONS.
JIM
| |
| Jim Kellogg 2005-08-08, 10:57 pm |
| William Stacy wrote:
> Glenn - USAEyes.org wrote:
>
> (a good description of the lens problems)
>
> One problem with waiting is the longer you wait the more difficult the
> explantation becomes (due to capsular shrinkage and scarring around the
> implant).
HOW LONG SHOULD I GIVE IT ???
> I'd go along with that idea if his unaided vision right now is about the
> same in both eyes. Otherwise, just like cataract surgery, I'd have the
> worst eye done first.
MY DOMINATE EYE IS LEFT AND THE DOCTOR USED THE EXACT SAME LENS IN BOTH
EYES. MY VISION WAS NOT AS GOOD IN MY RIGHT EYE AND MY GLASSES WERE +0.5
MORE FOR THE RIGHT BEFORE IOL. JUST LIKE BEFORE MY NEW GLASSES ARE +0.5 MORE
FOR THE RIGHT.
> I doubt they would, because most multifocal contacts have garbage
> optics, just like the multifocal IOLs, IMO of course.
> The only reason they have any success at all with these lenses is that
> the cataract patients are comparing the vision with what they had with
> their cataracts, not with what they had 40 years earlier, which is what
> they *should* be comparing it to...
NO, I WASN'T TOLD ABOUT MULTIFOCAL CONTACTS.
- JIM
| |
| Jim Kellogg 2005-08-08, 10:57 pm |
| Absolutely, I had excellent vision with multifocal glasses and that's
exactly what I expected with Alcon ReSTOR IOL unaided.
- Jim
"Glenn - USAEyes.org" wrote:
>
> I concur with your opinion, and this is why multi-focal IOLs may have
> a very difficult time with RLE. RLE patients have good clear corrected
> vision and they want good, clear, uncorrected vision after surgery.
>
| |
| William Stacy 2005-08-09, 9:04 am |
| Jim Kellogg wrote:
> JUST A CRESCENT ON THE SIDES WHEN FOCUSING ON SOMETHING CLOSE. iT'S LIKE LOOKING
> THROUGH A BIG TUBE OR DIVING MASK
>
This is called positive dysphotopsia, apparently a fairly common
pseudophakic phenomenon that is not well understood, and doesn't seem to
be necessarily related to the IOL type, but may have something to do the
the sharpness of the IOL edge. Hopefully it too will become less
distressing if not less noticeable with time.
w.stacy, o.d.
| |
|
| Jim, Seems that refractive surgeons don't tell you everything you need to
know
to make an informed decision until it's too late. It is my very strong
feeling that
any patient fully informed about refractive surgery would decline. One
exception
is cataract surgery after the cataracts are bad enough to obscure vision.
There is
an eye surgery that may offer a reasonable trade-off.
Fixing myopia, hyperopia and presbyopia... well that's a joke. The surgeons
know
that they reduce visual quality and in the process do permanent damage to
the eye
but they keep doing it for CASH.
Jim, pay close attention to your eye health from this point forward. Turns
out IOL
implants have been associated with loss of endothelial cells. Nobody knows
what
this does long term. I'm sure your surgeon didn't mention it to you although
he must
know. This is a breach of informed consent, and constitutes malpractice.
"Jim Kellogg" <jim@aquakleen.com.au> wrote in message
news:42F7CC4C.146D8D0B@aquakleen.com.au...
> Hello,
>
> I've had both eyes implanted in Australia with Alcon ReSTOR lens in May
> 2005. I'm 47 and had presbyopia for which I used multifocal glasses. The
> product is marketed here as an end to needing glasses. I see some
> advertisements in the USA claim "The ReSTOR lens implant is the first and
> only implant for cataract patients that offers a full range of vision
> (near,
> intermediate and distance)" I was told the possible exception was computer
> glasses as that distance may be out of focus.
>
> After spending around $8,000 on "my new eyes" two months ago here's the
> first hand facts about Alcon ReSTOR:
>
> (1) I see the edge of the lens which reminds me of looking through a
> diving
> mask. This side effect was not mentioned to me.
>
> (2) I have halos and don't like driving at night. I was told this side
> effect will disappear in a few months and it seems to be diminishing.
>
> (3) I have double vision from the two focal points of the lens. This side
> effect was not mentioned but I was told at post op consultation this
> should
> disappear.
>
> (4) I need more glasses now then prior to surgery. I use "computer
> glasses"
> as I was told I may need. I also use a new pair of multifocal glasses to
> clear up vision across the complete range of distance from near to far.
> Also
> wearing Sunglasses at night help diminish halos.
>
> (5) My surgeon told me prior to the procedure vision can be "tweaked" by
> laser if necessary. Now he says it will bring my near vision focus
> distance
> too close.
>
> Previously I had excellent vision with my multifocal glasses. I can see
> better with Alcon ReSTOR lens then I could without glasses prior to
> surgery.
> However I can't see as clearly now with or without my new multifocal
> glasses
> as I could prior to Alcon ReSTOR lens with glasses
>
> I believe this product is a great for people with bad vision from
> cataracts
> but for a replacement for glasses it's not good. If fact I'd say it's
> false
> advertising. Personally I'd like my old eyes and $8,000 back.
>
> Does anyone at Alcon follow up personally to insure everything is correct
> with implants and / or explain what options are available? Alternatively
> is
> there any IOL support group who might be able to offer some advice?
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
> Jim Kellogg
>
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-08-11, 10:55 pm |
| It appears that accurate information is being applied inaccurately.
The original poster is requesting information about the Alcon ReSTOR
aphakic intraocular lens. This is a lens that is placed "in the bag"
after the nucleus of the natural lens has been removed. The ReSTOR is
NOT a phakic intraocular lens which may be placed anterior to the iris
and near the endothelium. An aphakic IOL is not known for substantive
endothelial loss after implantation, however some phakic IOLs are.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
USAEyes.org
"Consider and Choose With Confidence"
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
| serebel 2005-08-11, 10:55 pm |
|
Mark wrote:
> Jim, Seems that refractive surgeons don't tell you everything you need to
> know
> to make an informed decision until it's too late. It is my very strong
> feeling that
> any patient fully informed about refractive surgery would decline. One
> exception
> is cataract surgery after the cataracts are bad enough to obscure vision.
> There is
> an eye surgery that may offer a reasonable trade-off.
>
> Fixing myopia, hyperopia and presbyopia... well that's a joke. The surgeons
> know
> that they reduce visual quality and in the process do permanent damage to
> the eye
> but they keep doing it for CASH.
>
> Jim, pay close attention to your eye health from this point forward. Turns
> out IOL
> implants have been associated with loss of endothelial cells. Nobody knows
> what
> this does long term. I'm sure your surgeon didn't mention it to you although
> he must
> know. This is a breach of informed consent, and constitutes malpractice.
>
>
>
>
Mark here would try to turn ingrown toe surgery into malpractice. Is
there nothing you friggin' zealots can do but try to scare people?
You can't even get your facts straight. This is why I do what I do,
because asses like Mark are here.
SErebel
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-08-12, 8:57 am |
| Don't ya just hate threads cross-posted with alt.lasik-eyes.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
USAEyes.org
"Consider and Choose With Confidence"
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
|
| I have a question? I am 56 y/o very near sighted with my left eye much worse than my right. in approximately 12-03 I noticed that my right eye was a little blurry when reading. I didn't think anymore about it until an accident 2 months later. After that I checked with my optometrist in March and he said I had a cataract developing but didn't think it was that bad. He gave me new glasses but I still couldn't see with them (have been using bifocals @ 2-3 years)This year I saw an ophtamologist(don't know if that's spelled right but you get the idea) and he recommended getting the lens replacement surgery. I called and they said $3,000. Didn't say anything about this other ReStor lens or anything. I was checking out Tijuana doctors(I'm in So Cal region)and came across a web site talking about this restore lens. Then I found a doctor here in So Cal that does that implant for $4,600 per eye!
I am reading your thread and am wondering if maybe it would be worth it. Also I am planning on only having the one eye done, although the opthamologist said that I was developing a cataract in the left also. I can still see in the day time with my glasses with that eye, but at night I get some glare (have anti-glare glasses, which helps, but sometimes have to wear sunglasses). I am really hoping to delay as long as possible the left surgery. So my question is - with just one eye would this restor lens work or maybe I should just stick with the monofocal there? Any comments? By the way I have a terrible time reading the computer now with my bifocals, I did get "computer clipons" from my optometrist that help a little (like looking through the bottom of a bottle, but at least I can read!) Thanks | |
| Jim Kellogg 2005-10-06, 10:41 pm |
| Hi All,
I promised to follow up on my ReSTOR IOL implants now five months later. My
surgeon has now laser "tweaked" my right eye and I no longer need glasses. Close
vision in bright light is good but double vision if low light. I need a small
light over my keyboard at night to stop double vision. To see my computer screen
clearly I must sit close or use reading glasses. Distance vision is good. I am
learning to live with side "crescents" and the halos. My optometrist says my
vision is 20 to 25 / 30. All things considered I would give this lens a 7 out of
10 overall.
I've been reading about accommodating IOL like Crystalens from eyeonics, inc.
Unlike the multifocal ReStore lens I understand it has one focal point that
moves like the natural lens does. Is this the next generation of IOL and does it
work better in practice?
Jim K.
Jim Kellogg wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've had both eyes implanted in Australia with Alcon ReSTOR lens in May
> 2005. I'm 47 and had presbyopia for which I used multifocal glasses. The
> product is marketed here as an end to needing glasses. I see some
> advertisements in the USA claim "The ReSTOR lens implant is the first and
> only implant for cataract patients that offers a full range of vision (near,
> intermediate and distance)" I was told the possible exception was computer
> glasses as that distance may be out of focus.
>
> After spending around $8,000 on "my new eyes" two months ago here's the
> first hand facts about Alcon ReSTOR:
>
> (1) I see the edge of the lens which reminds me of looking through a diving
> mask. This side effect was not mentioned to me.
>
> (2) I have halos and don't like driving at night. I was told this side
> effect will disappear in a few months and it seems to be diminishing.
>
> (3) I have double vision from the two focal points of the lens. This side
> effect was not mentioned but I was told at post op consultation this should
> disappear.
>
> (4) I need more glasses now then prior to surgery. I use "computer glasses"
> as I was told I may need. I also use a new pair of multifocal glasses to
> clear up vision across the complete range of distance from near to far. Also
> wearing Sunglasses at night help diminish halos.
>
> (5) My surgeon told me prior to the procedure vision can be "tweaked" by
> laser if necessary. Now he says it will bring my near vision focus distance
> too close.
>
> Previously I had excellent vision with my multifocal glasses. I can see
> better with Alcon ReSTOR lens then I could without glasses prior to surgery.
> However I can't see as clearly now with or without my new multifocal glasses
> as I could prior to Alcon ReSTOR lens with glasses
>
> I believe this product is a great for people with bad vision from cataracts
> but for a replacement for glasses it's not good. If fact I'd say it's false
> advertising. Personally I'd like my old eyes and $8,000 back.
>
> Does anyone at Alcon follow up personally to insure everything is correct
> with implants and / or explain what options are available? Alternatively is
> there any IOL support group who might be able to offer some advice?
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Jim Kellogg
| |
| William Stacy 2005-10-06, 10:41 pm |
| I'm responding to this one post (the only one out of the last 25 or so
that has nothing to do with otis et al.), before resuming my "vacation"
from s.m.v. It feels just like skipping all the spam I get on e-mail to
get to the occasional one of interest to me...
Interesting that you were lasered post iol implants. Was it lasik, prk
or what? Had you ever had laser before? I'm kind of surprised at that
approach, since your refractive error was caused by the iol, not by your
corneas. Anyway, glad to hear you are doing better. Re the crystalens,
the problem is the small amount of accommodation it gives, which at this
point is probably not worth the downsides from larger incisions,
prolonged recovery, etc. I'm still advising everyone to steer clear of
both kinds, which are unfortunately being pushed hard by the surgeons,
with the help of the industry.
w.stacy, o.d.
Jim Kellogg wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I promised to follow up on my ReSTOR IOL implants now five months later. My
> surgeon has now laser "tweaked" my right eye and I no longer need glasses. Close
> vision in bright light is good but double vision if low light. I need a small
> light over my keyboard at night to stop double vision. To see my computer screen
> clearly I must sit close or use reading glasses. Distance vision is good. I am
> learning to live with side "crescents" and the halos. My optometrist says my
> vision is 20 to 25 / 30. All things considered I would give this lens a 7 out of
> 10 overall.
>
> I've been reading about accommodating IOL like Crystalens from eyeonics, inc.
> Unlike the multifocal ReStore lens I understand it has one focal point that
> moves like the natural lens does. Is this the next generation of IOL and does it
> work better in practice?
>
>
> Jim K.
>
>
>
> Jim Kellogg wrote:
>
>
>
>
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-10-06, 10:41 pm |
| Cornea-based refractive surgery is becoming quite common after
lens-based surgery to resolve astigmatism and remaining sphere. Even
the new toric IOLs have their limitations and PRK, LASIK, et al can
usually resolve that limitation.
The Crystalens is designed to provide some actual accommodation, but
it is physically limited to about 1.5 diopters. That is better than
nothing, but you are not going to get back your vision when you were
25. See http://www.usaeyes.org/faq/subjects/crystalens.htm
In the FDA trials about 20% of patients reported glare and halo
problems with the multifocal IOLS that were enough to cause
modification of behavior.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
USAEyes.org
"Consider and Choose With Confidence"
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
| William Stacy 2005-10-06, 10:42 pm |
| If the surgeon is careful enough with his biometry and calcs, and if he
uses relaxing incisions at the time of iol implantation in cases of
significant astigmatism, and if he shoots for -.50 as the target post
op, there should be no need to subject the eye to the rigors of LASIK,
PRK, or any secondary procedure in the vast majority of cases. Any (and
it had better be slight) remaining refractive error can and should be
corrected with glasses. The toric IOLs are a nice idea but are
probably not needed since relaxing incisions are so simple and
non-damaging to the eye. I'm still waiting for my first Crystalens
recipient to walk through the door, because I'll be carefully measuring
accommodative response. I'm guessing it will be less than a diopter.
Way less. Hardly worth the risks.
w.stacy, o.d.
Glenn - USAEyes.org wrote:
>Cornea-based refractive surgery is becoming quite common after
>lens-based surgery to resolve astigmatism and remaining sphere. Even
>the new toric IOLs have their limitations and PRK, LASIK, et al can
>usually resolve that limitation.
>
>The Crystalens is designed to provide some actual accommodation, but
>it is physically limited to about 1.5 diopters. That is better than
>nothing, but you are not going to get back your vision when you were
>25.
>
>
| |
| The Real Bev 2005-10-06, 10:42 pm |
| William Stacy wrote:
>
> If the surgeon is careful enough with his biometry and calcs, and if he
> uses relaxing incisions at the time of iol implantation in cases of
> significant astigmatism, and if he shoots for -.50 as the target post
> op, there should be no need to subject the eye to the rigors of LASIK,
> PRK, or any secondary procedure in the vast majority of cases. Any (and
> it had better be slight) remaining refractive error can and should be
> corrected with glasses. The toric IOLs are a nice idea but are
> probably not needed since relaxing incisions are so simple and
> non-damaging to the eye.
Really? Is this significantly different from PRK and absolutely reliable? I
figure I've got a while to decide yet (10 or 20 years?), but I could almost
guarantee that toric IOLs would be placed wrong in my eyes, making everything
worse :-( Because stuff like that ALWAYS happens, that's why!
> I'm still waiting for my first Crystalens
> recipient to walk through the door, because I'll be carefully measuring
> accommodative response. I'm guessing it will be less than a diopter.
> Way less. Hardly worth the risks.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Glenn - USAEyes.org wrote:
>
--
Cheers, Bev
===========================================================
Giving out free MS security updates is like giving out free
band-aids with flesh-eating microbes in the pads.
| |
| William Stacy 2005-10-06, 10:42 pm |
| Assuming you're referring to relaxing incisions done at the same time as
iol implantation, way different from PRK. Does require an up to date and
excellent iol surgeon. Sure, he *could* get it wrong, which is why I
specified "careful". Nothing's perfect, but I went from lifetime 2.50
D.C. oblique cyls to 0.25 D.C. in one eye and 1.00 in the other. No
real downside, unlkike PRK where they cook right through your epithelium
and Boman's and into the stroma. No thanks. And as I said, the toric
iols are not really working out too well.
w.stacy, o.d.
The Real Bev wrote:
>William Stacy wrote:
>
>
>
>Really? Is this significantly different from PRK and absolutely reliable? I
>figure I've got a while to decide yet (10 or 20 years?), but I could almost
>guarantee that toric IOLs would be placed wrong in my eyes, making everything
>worse :-( Because stuff like that ALWAYS happens, that's why!
>
>
>
| |
| The Real Bev 2005-10-06, 10:42 pm |
| William Stacy wrote:
>Assuming you're referring to relaxing incisions done at the same time as iol implantation, way different from PRK. Does require an up to date and excellent iol surgeon. Sure, he *could* get it wrong, which is why I specified "careful". Nothing's perfect,
but I went from lifetime 2.50 D.C. oblique cyls to 0.25 D.C. in one eye and 1.00 in the other. No real downside, unlkike PRK where they cook right through your epithelium and Boman's and into the stroma. No thanks. And as I said, the toric iols are not
really working out too well.
Yeah, that's what I meant. Good to know just in case.
--
Cheers,
Bev
66666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
Vampireware; n, a project capable of sucking the lifeblood
out of anyone unfortunate enough to be assigned to it,
which never actually sees the light of day, but nonetheless
refuses to die. -- Trygve Lode
| |
| Jim Kellogg 2005-10-24, 2:08 am |
| I'm pretty sure it was lasik and the flap was made by InterLase brand laser not
mechanically cut. If I remember correctly my surgeon said this laser "tweaking" after
ReSTOR IOL was needed in about 10% of patents. I no longer need glasses at all if I
sit closer to my computer screen. The only downside I now have is reading in low light
without glasses. I'm now fairly happy with the ReSTORE implants.
Jim K.
William Stacy wrote:
> Interesting that you were lasered post iol implants. Was it lasik, prk
> or what? Had you ever had laser before? I'm kind of surprised at that
> approach, since your refractive error was caused by the iol, not by your
> corneas.
|
| |
|
|