Lasik Eyes Surgery - Wavefront Glasses?

Author

Wavefront Glasses?

drrouter@yahoo.com

2005-03-19, 6:22 pm

Hello from Basra!

I see that a company called Ophthonix is coming out with WF glasses?
Any idea if this will be able to, as the web site suggests, deal with
post HOA's from lasik?

Simpledog

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2005-03-19, 6:22 pm

It's moments like this that I wish DrG had not been chased off this
newsgroup. He knows this stuff forward and backward. You may want to
email him directly.

I met with representatives of this group on multiple ocassions. In my
opinion, they are using wavefront aberrometry to create a
spherical/cylindrical lens. In other words, the wavefront device is
little more than a beefed up autorefractor.

I also looked closely at the wavefront contact lenses. Same thing.

Contacts are on the cornea, but do not keep the kind of stability that
is required for higher order aberration correction (except spherical
aberration). Glasses are not even on the cornea, therefor they do not
follow the eye to keep the necessary registration for any higher order
aberrations.

At this point, nothing I have seen shows that these attempts to bring
wavefront technology into the optician's hands is a significant
improvement on the subjective manifest refraction.

I see you are back in Iraq. Care to elaberate on local opinions after
the recent elections there? It was a very big part of a positive PR
spin for the State of the Union address. I know it is off-subject, but
I'm hopeful things are better (spelled s-a-f-e-r) there.

Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance

Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org

http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org

I am not a doctor.

drrouter@yahoo.com

2005-03-19, 6:22 pm

Well it is sad to see Dr. G off of the NG. I have nothing but positive
comments in regards to him as a professional. He's a good guy that
didn't need to be attacked, but sometimes being less of a target means
not engaging the idiots. It's very difficult to 'remain above it all'.
And it drives people that can contribute off of these public forums.
That's sad.

I came back for a bit, but back I went for more work. It seems as
though the Army is a bit short on engineering support lately. I don't
like being over here, but I work 12 to 16 hour days, and I'm making a
hell of a lot of money. At this rate, I'll be able to buy new bionic
eyeballs soon enough.

As far as it being dangerous, it's not all that bad where I am at. I'm
down in Basra, which is mostly a Shiite area, and it's fairly quiet
down here. Now up in Baghdad, in the Sunni area, things are much more
dicey. But one thing is for certain, it is NOT as bad as TV portrays
it to be. We have had 3 or 4 mortars fired into camp, never hitting
anything significant. I did get into a bit of a juicy situation 6
months or so ago when we were doing a site survey, and a bunch of
idiots starting taking pot shots at us with RPGs and small arms fire
while we were out in the city. A couple of Bradley's were sent out,
and got us out of there. I am a civil service employee, so we get a
bit more protection than do the private contractors.

You have to give it to most of the Iraqi's. It is amazing to see
people standing in Disneyland caliber lines, all the while hearing the
sounds of war out in the distance, just to get a chance to vote. It's
some powerful stuff.

Not to be political, as I have my own views on the why's and how come's
of the war, but the people over here are brave as all get out.

As far as lasik...well......I've come as close as it comes to trying to
fix my minor, but clearly <no pun intended> lasik induced issues, but
so far, every time I've chickened out. Thought maybe Ophthonix had/has
a solution, but you're probably correct, too good to be true.

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2005-03-19, 6:22 pm

Keep safe, and keep in touch.

doctor_my_eye@msn.com

2005-03-19, 6:22 pm

To an extent Glenn's answer is perfectly correct. The wavefront
technology of today can map the eye extremely well, but the technology
has yet to come over to the actual process of creating the final
product spectacle lens. Lenses are still ground on tools that are
either sherical or toric, with simple axes and curves. WHEN a
technology exists that is reproducable and cost effective, that would
allow a laser to create the surface of the spectacle lens to match the
shape of the eye...then the dream of wavefront-guided spectacles will
be reached.

Glenn - USAEyes.org wrote:
> It's moments like this that I wish DrG had not been chased off this
> newsgroup. He knows this stuff forward and backward. You may want
to
> email him directly.
>
> I met with representatives of this group on multiple ocassions. In my
> opinion, they are using wavefront aberrometry to create a
> spherical/cylindrical lens. In other words, the wavefront device is
> little more than a beefed up autorefractor.
>
> I also looked closely at the wavefront contact lenses. Same thing.
>
> Contacts are on the cornea, but do not keep the kind of stability
that
> is required for higher order aberration correction (except spherical
> aberration). Glasses are not even on the cornea, therefor they do
not
> follow the eye to keep the necessary registration for any higher
order
> aberrations.
>
> At this point, nothing I have seen shows that these attempts to bring
> wavefront technology into the optician's hands is a significant
> improvement on the subjective manifest refraction.
>
> I see you are back in Iraq. Care to elaberate on local opinions
after
> the recent elections there? It was a very big part of a positive PR
> spin for the State of the Union address. I know it is off-subject,
but
> I'm hopeful things are better (spelled s-a-f-e-r) there.
>
> Glenn Hagele
> Executive Director
> Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
>
>
> Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
>
>
> http://www.USAEyes.org
> http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
>
>
> I am not a doctor.

Ian Hodgson Opticians Ltd

2005-03-19, 6:22 pm

<doctor_my_eye@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1107960371.182460.294120@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> To an extent Glenn's answer is perfectly correct. The wavefront
> technology of today can map the eye extremely well, but the technology
> has yet to come over to the actual process of creating the final
> product spectacle lens. Lenses are still ground on tools that are
> either sherical or toric, with simple axes and curves. WHEN a
> technology exists that is reproducable and cost effective, that would
> allow a laser to create the surface of the spectacle lens to match the
> shape of the eye...then the dream of wavefront-guided spectacles will
> be reached.
>
This is no longer the case, modern progressives are now being
surfaced using CNC machines which finish each part of the lens
individually and can make what is in effect a completely bespoke
lens surface and this is on both surfaces.
ie Rodenstock Impression ILT or Varilux Ipseo
Lenses exist with non-spherical surfaces ie Rodenstock Cosmolit has an
aspheric
front surface, all varifocals have aspheric front surfaces, though some have
the aspheric progression
on the back surface. All these surfaces are regularly reproducable and cost
effective.

However wave-front guided spectacles may not work as if you
minimise the abberations with the head and eyes in the primary position
ie looking straight ahead then the moment a person moves their eyes within
the socket, but keeping the head in the same place then the spectacle lens
will
no longer be performing at optimum levels. It is worth while considering how
sophisticated
optical designs for camera telephoto lenses and astronomical lenses are in
order to reduce HOA
to a minimum. One problem I remember from lens theory is that as you try and
reduce one set
of abberations the other set get worse.

Regards

Ian Hodgson - Isle of Man

doctor_my_eye@msn.com

2005-03-19, 6:22 pm

I stand corrected, and thank you. Do you personally think that the
"future" of spectacle lenses in new molding technologies, or will
lathing still be the "gold standard"?

Ian Hodgson Opticians Ltd

2005-03-19, 6:22 pm

<doctor_my_eye@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1107971453.525064.225720@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> I stand corrected, and thank you. Do you personally think that the
> "future" of spectacle lenses in new molding technologies, or will
> lathing still be the "gold standard"?
>
A lot of plastic lenses are moulded any way, in fact nearly always have
been. Most lenses are moulded to produce the semi-finished lens ( usually it
is the back surface which requires working) but for instance Essilor can
produce bifocals or multifocals in finished form by moulding.

The disadvantage of moulding a lens is that the minimum diameter of the lens
is restricted by the diameter of the moulds - two highly polished accurate
pieces of glass. So if your moulds are 70mm in diameter this is going to be
the diameter of your lenses before edging which means a lot of waste if you
only require a 50mm diameter lens for the frame. This does not matter for a
minus lens where the edge is thicker than the centre, but on a plus lens
where the centre is thicker than the edge then you would have an excessively
thick lens. By surfacing (lathing) the lens you can start with a very thick
and large semi-finished and work the back surface down, till you reach the
required diameter for edging and thus a lot thinner lens.

Unless moulding technology and machinery has a large selection of mould
sizes (diameters) then surfacing is going to be the best way to produce a
cosmetically acceptable lens.

Regards

Ian Hodgson - Isle of Man