Anyone with experience with Tecnis Multifocal IOL?

That is an interesting presentation, but I would suggest with quite a pro Tecnis bias. What I found most interesting was how he quite clearly showed much of the theory of lenses and what they do. Some points of bias I noted:

.

1. He talks about spherical aberration but does not explain that not everyone is the same. A -0.27 correction may be more appropriate for a person of Asian descent, while a Caucasian may benefit more from the Alcon -0.20 aspheric lens. He also ignores the fact that some aberration error may increase the depth of focus.
2. He goes on about the problem of chromatic aberration at length and the refractive index of lenses, and the impact of the Abbe number. My experience over the years with high index eyeglass lenses (poor Abbe) and normal index (better Abbe) is that it makes no practical difference in real life. I notice that a high index lens is ligher and thinner, but see no impact on optical quality. He also glosses over that the blue light filtering on the AcrySof lenses reduces the chromatic aberration, and the impact it has on aberration.
3. He goes on at quite length on the light filtering and how violet filtering is better than blue light filtering. It seems obvious to me that Tecnis has added the violet filtering to try to deal with the halos. And he makes a big point of saving the blue light. What he does not show on his graph is the what the natural lens in a young healthy eye does. It does not let in nearly as much blue light as the Tecnis lens with or without the violet light filter. The natural eye is much closer to the AcrySof curve.

   .

   My thoughts are that the Synergy is a very good option especially if one wants good reading, but the weak point may be halos, starburst effects at night. The Symfony is not free of them, and it sounds like the Synergy may be worse. I think it comes down to what one is prepared to accept for issues to get good reading and distance in one lens. Suspect the Eyhance and Vivity are better options to avoid the halos and starbursts if one can accept reading glasses for finer print. He did not discuss those two at all. I guess he said up front his objective was to fully address presbyopia.

I currently have the Tecnis MF and even though I see halos and glare they do not bother me. I guess if they got a lot worse they might. What bothers me seeing in low light condition and what, If True, I liked was this lens is supposed to be much better than my current MF and according to his presentation about the same as as the Tecnis monofocal.

If I had the same halos and glare I currently get with my MF, yet could see clear at night then this lens would be a winner for me. But who knows the real truth as you pointed out many doctors are associated with the company in one way or another, which can bias ones objectivity.

How is your reading with the MF eye? If it is good, then would a possible solution be simply getting a monofocal with the power selected for distance, be a good solution. An aspheric monofocal should give the best night vision with no halos etc. I believe that is called a hybrid monovision solution, and it seems to work well for some. I suspect it is less distracting than traditional mini monovision.

.

I find my night vision with my AcrySof IQ Aspheric Monofocal to be very good. It is much better than with my other non operated eye. However it is not a real fair comparison as it has -1.25 under correction, and distant objects are not in sharp focus, and I am wearing a contact, which I think does not always give the crispest vision.

Reading depends on what I am reading. I wanted to be able to go to a store and read the label without carrying readers and I can do that. And I wanted to be able to go to a restaurant and be able to read the menu, which I can do, so that is good.

But reading a magazine or book is a bit more tricky to do, especially if not to be not straining at all. I sorta have to find the sweet spot and need plenty of light.

I can live with all aspects of MF even the occasional star burst as when I see them I am like that is cool. But when I have to drive a long distance, such as going on a trip, after 1 hour driving in the dark that is all the stress I can take and have to stop at a motel.

But honestly that might be in part due to my right eye being shot and needing an IOL.

My night driving is 2 issues.

One it is darker with a MF. But according to the propaganda Synergy is almost as good at night at a monofocal, if you believe that.

But the 2nd and even more important is I can just not judge distance to cars in front of me, unless they are right in front of me. A car can be a mile ahead of me and hit their brakes and I find myself slamming on my brakes, as I can not tell how far that car is in front of me. I am not sure if this is due to the IOL being darker due to light splitting or normal function of glare from brake lights or not being able to judge distance due to my other eye being so bad.

One thing I should add, is Dr. Chang in that presentation stated what I read and that is the more myopia the greater the Dysphotopsias, which is why I would not be interested in monovision, except micro micro monovsion.

He also showed how Halo size is related to close Add. The greater the add the bigger the Halo, which is why I went with the +2.75.

My thoughts would be that the most likely reason for lack of distance judgement would be the cataract in the unoperated eye.

.

On the monovision, yes it does make sense that if one eye is left myopic there should be more dysphotopsias from it. However, with my contact lens mini-monovision (-1.25), I really don't notice much of an issue with headlights. I don't see halos at all, and there is a very minimal amount for flare. To me lights in the distance just look a little out of focus with that eye -- softer image, but it doesn't give me a light show.

Watched the video and found it interesting. When I think back to my grandparents' cataract surgeries before IOLs with the glasses they had to wear and the many days spent in bed recovering I am amazed at how far we've come. But we still don't have The Six Million Dollar man vision available. That's what I want (without what Steve Austin had to go through to get it). LOL

Another lens that I have read about that might be worth keeping an eye out for is the SC-9. It is hard to get much information on it. It is a refractive EDOF.

I don't know how it compares to the IQ Vivity, but from what I read the SC-9 is supposed to perform similarly to the Symfony ZXROO at all ranges, yet not have Halos and Glare being it is not a diffractive lens.

Again Clinical Trials and Real World results after 1000s are implanted do not always agree.

I've been considering waiting on the 2nd eye. I can get my optometrist to fit a contact for that eye and take my time to make that decision. And of course there's always the option to wait a little longer for the 1st eye, too.

My top advice is I do almost as much research about the Ophthalmologist as I do about the various IOLs. I read some horror stories and I think some people just pick the first Ophthalmologist they find in the yellowbook (yes I know, no more yellowbooks)

I would narrow down the lens you are looking at then find an Ophthalmologist that has been involved in clinical trials for those lens. Many Ophthalmologist do not even implant premium lens. Companies want their clinical trials to be the best possible, so they pick the top Ophthalmologist to conduct them.

I want an Ophthalmologist that has implanted lots of the lens I am looking at and has first hand experience and his patients results with those lens

I rather drive 4 hours or more to see a top Ophthalmologist in his field. Before I came to this site I use to go to the med help site and just read all the stories of some of the issue people had not just with their IOL but the Ophthalmologist themselves.

Before I did my first IOL I went to several Ophthalmologist and basically interviewed them and I emailed many more.

And I second only do 1 eye and evaluate. You very much might want to mix and match depending on the results you get.