Confused and delaying cataract surgery

Posted , 9 users are following.

This is my 1st time posting. I have been delaying cataract surgery for over a year. I am nearsighted.

My current prescription: RT -2.75 with +.75 astigmatism 112 Axis and LT -3.00 with +.75 astigmatism 164 Axis. The cataract is worse in my left eye than my right eye. I had been leaning towards the LAL IOL but now I am not sure. If someone could explain to me: if the ophthalmologist targets my current prescription using monofocal IOLs, will I see the same intermediate and distance that I do now? Or will intermediate and distance be blurrier with monofocal IOLs? I want to maintain my nearsighted eyesight. I don’t mind wearing single focus glasses to watch TV or drive. I have not adjusted to progressive lenses in the past – though I have not tried progressives for a long time. I am a bookkeeper. Right now I have my computer screen 16’’-18” away and the paperwork I read about the same distance. My calculator readout is large enough to read. I am 73 years old, and I would like to continue working.

I have read all of the post on the LAL cataract surgeries. Thank you to all who post.

0 likes, 71 replies

71 Replies

Prev
  • Posted

    You can have one lens set to a closer focus and plan on setting the other to distance. That is probably what I would do, but I am still mulling that. Distance eye is done, but not stable. Happy with progress.

    Would that make you see better or worse at computer screen distance? I would certainly hope better, but maybe your eyes have some accommodation ability still remaining, but probably not much.

    3 D of astigmatism correction is right at the border of what LAL is rated for.

    If the cataract is worse in the left, I would think starting with the left is good. You could leave time between.

    Do you know if your right or left eye is dominant? From those who express a preference, they suggest the dominant eye be tuned to distance. Yet studies that check on performance when the non-dominant eye is the one set for distance, and I think there is no significant advantage shown either way.

  • Posted

    The "Crossed versus conventional pseudophakic monovision for high myopic eyes: a prospective, randomized pilot study" says

    Conclusion: Crossed pseudophakic monovision exhibited similar visual function when compared with conventional monovision technique, which indicates that it is an effective option to improve the visual functionality and quality of life for high myopic patients who considering bilateral cataract surgery.

    In other words, in monovision, they did not see an advangage to having the dominiant eye for distance, vs the other way.

  • Posted

    If he targets to match current prescription, I expect the astigmatism will be tuned out. So I expect your near vision to improve. But you will need glasses for farther out, especially driving. But you would need glasses even for watching TV in a group setting. Watching TV by your self, you can sit 20 to 30 inches away if you like.

    I would make one of the eyes at least 1 diopter farther focus than your unaided eyes currently do. That will still let both eyes contribute to near stereo vision.

    I expect others will have a different view. Keep reading. And feel free to get one eye done first, and take your time deciding how to get the other eye tuned.

    • Posted

      trilemma, Thank you for your help. This is very overwhelming and many of you are so knowledgeable. If I target both eyes -2.0 - why would my astigmatism go away? I have had astigmatism for many years. The strangest thing happened, though. Just recently, I went to an optometrist who has a great reputation and she could not see any astigmatism. Not sure what to think. I went to her for a prescription for progressive lenses - so I could trial them. She ordered contacts ( mini monovision ) instead. My cataracts are bad enough that I could not see any better. I did not ask my prescription. Finally, for glasses she wrote -2.0 for both eyes. My refractions have not been consistent.

    • Posted

      If you get the LAL, regardless of what the focus is set to, they would normally eliminate the astigmatism. They are supposed to have a resolution of 0,25D of astigmatism.

      There are other lenses that can cancel astigmatism. The resolution is typically 0.5 D, and the doctor has to get the lens with the right orientation on it. With the RxLAL, the astigmatism is adjusted about 3 and more weeks after implant.

  • Posted

    The two leading monofocal IOLs, the Alcon Clareon and the J&J Eyhance, are acrylic

    You can read more about IOL material at

    "Eyewiki Comparison of IOL Material "

    June 2023

    • Posted

      Lynda111, I did "attempt" to read this article. I did not understand it. I am hoping someone on the forum will have an answer - specifically - will the clarity last? Also, I don't understand "pitting".

    • Posted

      I wouldn't get too lost in the weeds. The two leading monofocal IOLs are acrylic and so is the older Bausch and Lomb enVista that Ron often recommends. I think acrylic is the preferred material for IOLs

    • Edited

      julie61667,

      May I suggest a simple solution?

      Target -2.0 in both eyes with a monofocal IOL and plan to wear -1 or - 1.25 glasses most of the time.

      Result: Glasses on for daily activities. Glasses off for reading.

      Keep a pair of -2 glasses in the car and another by the TV if you want sharper far vision for those 2 activities.

      This solution will give you the best vision with least fuss.

      There is a loss of acuity and other aspects of visual quality with any kind of EDOF or monovision.

      The Eyhance gets a little bit of EDOF without measureable loss of acuity, so that's the one exception -- do that one if you like.

      Glasses are wonderfully fixable -- just get a new pair with a new prescription -- unlike fancy IOLs. A bit of residual astigmatism? No problem. Add a little cyl to the glasses. Refractive miss? No problem. Add or reduce the sphere in the glasses.

      But glasses for near are a pain -- the need for near vision is often unexpected and brief. You reach for a measuring cup and are unsure whether it is 1/3 or 1/4 and the marking is small and faint. Do you now want to have to go find your reading glasses? No! You want to be able to just peer over your glasses and call upon that wonderful -2 vision. The gift of myopia!

      Don't be swayed by emmetropia chauvinism. Near vision rocks!

      The need for far vision is predictable and tied to 2 places -- car and TV. Easy to have far-vision glasses stationed there. Plus, you don't really need better vision than -1 or -0.75 for far unless you're a sniper. That last bit of distance acuity is overrated.

      Progressive glasses add to risk of falling as you get older. So don't make them part of the plan. One study found a 40% reduction in falls among elderly who do outdoor activities just by replacing their progressives or bifocals with monofocals.

      So my suggestion is keep it simple. Go for the best vision without compromise -- monofocal IOLs with equal targets. Yes that means using glasses, but it doesn't have to mean needing glasses for near. Target near. That way you avoid the most inconvenient glasses dependence, which is glasses for near. I can't imagine choosing to need glasses for near.

    • Posted

      jimluck,

      Yes, you are correct. I just finished typing 10 more EDOF questions for my surgeon and I am tired of not understanding. I am in Kansas and if you google "extended depth of focus in the light adjustable lens" I think you will find my opthomologist. I will have a new hero - Bookwoman! I will pray my results are as good as hers because what she sees is what I see now. I wanted to target both eyes-2.0 with the LAL and try micro-monovision to see the computer but I will find some computer glasses instead. What you describe has been my visual life until cataracts. RonAKA has told me the same thing as well as Lynda111. Thank you! Please let me know what you decide to do.

      Are progressives made that are clear on the bottom so you can look at your feet and go up and down stairs?

    • Posted

      Are progressives made that are clear on the bottom so you can look at your feet and go up and down stairs?

      You can get custom progressives for not much more than some of the no-prescription progressives I have see. Maybe I was only seeing the expensive ones.

      But if you hit your target, your progressives might be prescription -2.0 with an add of 2.5 D or -2.0 D. -2 with a 2 add would be like clear glass at the bottom.. Your feet will be in that range regardless. I expect your vision with no glasses will be fine for stairs.

    • Posted

      Ok Julie. Do it Bookwoman's way.. Go for near\ intermediate vision and don't mess around with progressive glasses. You go, girl!

  • Edited

    Regarding progressive lenses, I think there is a significant differences among these glasses.. One magic word is freeform, but I expect there are significant difference among those who make that claim.

    If someone could explain to me: if the ophthalmologist targets my current prescription using monofocal IOLs, will I see the same intermediate and distance that I do now?

    You may or may not have some accommodation left, and there will be none after the IOL. On the other hand, you will not have the cataract working against you. So my non-educated guess is that aspect would be similar. But sure not sure.

Report or request deletion

Thanks for your help!

We want the community to be a useful resource for our users but it is important to remember that the community are not moderated or reviewed by doctors and so you should not rely on opinions or advice given by other users in respect of any healthcare matters. Always speak to your doctor before acting and in cases of emergency seek appropriate medical assistance immediately. Use of the community is subject to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy and steps will be taken to remove posts identified as being in breach of those terms.