Definitely an Ey(en)hance for me!
Posted , 11 users are following.
I thought I was going blind before, wearing my glasses, and even at times with my contacts; everything was so shaded and blurry. My prescription a year ago was -13 D (left eye), and -12.5 D (right eye), with about -1.0 of astigmatism. It used to be stable for the past decade at around -11.50 D (LE) and -10.25 D (RE) until at least a year ago. I went in for my bi-yearly checkup (instead of yearly thanks to Covid and OHIP ripping off optometrists in Ontario), and my optometrist couldn't figure out why I wasn't get my usual sharp distance vision with gas permeable contact lenses -- my eyes kept fluctuating a lot just in the hour I was there, so she did more tests and discovered early stages of cataracts. Because of my high myopia, these cataracts were really messing with my vision, despite being relatively early on in terms of developing. She sent me to a cataract clinic, who started the ball rolling -- as into my deep dive into the dark recesses of the world of IOLs, lol. Choices, choices, and yet more choices... yet still somewhat of a crapshoot in the end.
.
I had the cataract replaced in my first eye (RE) yesterday (06-03-23) with an Eyhance IOL targeted to -1.25 D. Just prior to yesterday's surgery on the right eye, I discussed it again with the surgeon who was thinking of -1.25 to -1.50 for that eye (RE), but I told him that I didn't want to take the chance of going as high as -1.50, but was okay with -1.25 if he could hit that. He responded that the increments for this lens was .33 to .50 and that he would do his best, but it wasn't an exact science (actually felt good to hear him say that, lol). He wasn't sure until he opened the eye(s) and used the ORA scan whether or not he'd need to use a Toric lens, but which he did ending up using for my right eye. I'm scheduled to have the left eye done tomorrow (08-03-23) with another Eyhance lens, with a target of -0.50 D (see first comment).
.
I was given three eye drop prescriptions to fill the week before my surgery (an antibiotic, an anti-inflammatory, and a steroid), and instructed to start the first two the day before surgery and then again the morning of the surgery -- didn't start the steroid til afterward. I'm supposed to use the antibiotic for a week, and the other two for a month after the surgery. On the day of the surgery itself, I was given a combination of drugs via IV to just relax me during the surgery (not to put me out), and they put seven types of drops in my eyes prior to surgery (antibiotics and for freezing) -- all of which I was told about, and given handouts about, weeks before the surgery itself. They had also required that I fill out a detailed list of previous medical conditions, and any prescription medications I was on. After they took me into the surgery room, they applied more drops, then the surgeon draped a protective shield over my face and upper body, and then he cut an incision in the shield over my eye and inserted some other type of protective wrap around the area. He did the insertion by hand instead of using the laser system "package" (which cost another $1100 CAD which I couldn't afford). A lot of what this laser package does was already done in the pre-op tests already. The surgeons usually do the insertion of the lens by hand anyway when cataract surgery is done in a hospital in Canada, at least, since most hospitals aren't equipped with that level of technology, so my surgeon wasn't bothered by me not paying for the extra tech.
.
The surgery itself, was both weirdly cool and unnerving. They shine a bright light into the eye being operated upon (the other eye is covered by the surgical shield), and although my eye was completely frozen, I was worried that I'd be aware of the knife cutting into my eye, or the surgeon breaking up the old lens, but I wasn't aware of either. It seemed only maybe five to ten minutes before I was told to look at a red light, which was the ORA taking a scan of my opened eye, which meant the part I was worried about was already done. I'd been instructed to keep looking straight up to where the light (mostly) was, and at times I could see what looked like small shards floating above me (the broken lens??) and even after the lens must have been removed, I still had a sort of "ghost" image of the surgeon sitting beside me -- I could see his outline, but the "filler" was grey. So can we actually see something even without our eye's lens? It didn't seem to take very long before the surgeon said, "Okay, we're done, you can close your eye if you want.". I'd been told the actual surgery took about twenty minutes, and it looks like it was. When I sat up, of course I felt kinda woozy and since my pupil was huge from all of the drops they'd put in it, so the vision was blurry (completely blurry in my left eye since I wasn't wearing glasses), and they assisted me walking out to the recovery room where they went over again, what to expect, about following the rest of the eye drop schedule, what to be concerned about, and what I could and should not do for the next two weeks. I was given a pair of black sunglasses that I was told to always wear outside for the next two weeks, whether it was sunny out or not.
.
I was able to walk out of the clinic about ninety minutes after I'd first entered the clinic, accompanied by my support person. Vision was of course still blurry, and my depth perception was wonky, but I could still see a lot better than when I walked in wearing my thick glasses early. Hours later after I'd gotten home, just out of interest, I put the lens of my glasses up to my left eye (-13.0 D) and opened the "new" right eye to look into the mirror at the same time, and immediately wished that I hadn't -- I almost threw up. So definitely no wearing of glasses with a lens removed for me. In general though, after the surgery yesterday, and today, there was very little discomfort in the surgery eye itself. It felt like there was maybe a tiny bit of something in the eye, but nothing that made me want to rub it, or feel that I needed to flush it out, etc -- pretty minimal. It took til this morning for the pupil to return to it's regular size (about 2mm), so my vision was a lot more stable today. I've been putting lubricating eye drops in my eye after I finish the prescription drops, so my eyes aren't feeling dry or itchy at all -- though from what I've read, that could change. I had bought a pair of non prescription (plain glass) glasses to wear around until I got used to the new eyes -- and to protect them from dust or anything else that might fly around, especially since I was told to be careful to not rub my eyes for at least three weeks, as I could dislodge the new lens). So earlier today, I cut out a piece of a Kleenex box to fit into the left lens of them, and I'm preferring that to the completely blurred vision from my left eye messing with the good vision in my right eye. Depth perception is better this way, as is looking at the computer screen or anything else.
.
And oh yeah, have I mentioned yet, how amazing it feels to have the pretty much sharp, clear, vibrant vision that I'm experiencing today in at least one eye!!! I am so very happy with this lens and my current results. Although my near vision isn't quite what I had hoped for (maybe 8"), as is my distance vision (seems about 20/40 right now - was hoping for 20/30), this is only the first day after the surgery, and right now, if it even stays at what it is, I'll be as happy as can be, especially with the left eye being targeted tomorrow more towards distance. Definitely a game changer for my life! Thanks to everyone here who contributed towards my final choices, whether you're aware of it or not. Sorry if this is too long, but I was trying to give a full cohesive picture.
.
My vision (right eye) first day after surgery...
.
Sharpness (print):
- I can read the letter sized page I hung on the wall containing a multi-coloured chart for my eye drops pretty clearly at 5' (print: black on white, black on medium yellow, white on medium teal, and white on medium brick red). Not sure what size the fonts are but the chart fills about 2/3 of the page vertically, and 3/4 horizontally.
.
- Reading print via my computer browser zoomed to 110% is sharp and clear from about 19" to over 40" (using a MacBook Pro laptop - screen size 15" / 1680 x 1050 resolution). Decreasing the zoom to 90% still gives me sharp print (black on pale grey) over the same distance. I just reduced the font size in my menu lists from 15pt to 13pt which is sharp and clear.
.
Overall clarity:
- Contrast quality in daylight is excellent, even in a dimly lit closet, as is image clarity. Contrast was still good inside the house as the sun started to go down (around 5:30 pm EST). Colours are true. The pictures on my walls are full of detail and the subtleties are easy to see (now from about seven feet with right eye only). I used to do desktop publishing and design as well as make my own clothing, so I'm very particular about colours. I'm always correcting people about the subtleties between shades of colours.
.
- Haven't been walking outside in the dark yet, depth perception is too off between the two eyes until I get the second eye done. HOWEVER, I'm noticing a huge drop in contrast, and vision in general, in an almost completely dark room. I'm used to walking around in near darkness in my home, but I just walked into the living room with my left eye blocked, and closed the blinds before turning on a lamp, and could hardly see anything in the room. If I hadn't already known that there was a brown coffee table sitting about a foot in front of me, I wouldn't have known with the Eyhance eye at that level of light. When I removed the block from my untouched left eye, everything might have been blurry, but the contrasts in that dark room showed up far far better. I probably would be able to navigate that room far better with just my highly myopic blurry left eye then I would with just the new Eyhance eye. Whites looked mid grey and dark objects were almost undistinguishable. Good to know before I head outside with both eyes using the Eyhance lens. Unfortunately, this probably will not improve so I will need to make sure that I carry a flashlight at night. Sure hope it doesn't affect my night driving very much.
.
- I haven't noticed any "transition" problems. The accommodation appears to be very smooth in this one eye. I'm not noticing any real delay in focus when say, looking up from the laptop screen to a picture on the wall (from 19" up to 60"), or even from the laptop screen to the light switch on the wall in the hall (from about 19" up to 10').
.
Near & Intermediate Vision: Can read my cellphone (6" screen) clearly at about 12". However, I can clearly see the small print on a small hand cream bottle (about 3.5" tall) from around 12" to 22". And interestingly enough, the instructions on the side of a large bottle of Tylenol are sharp and clear at 2'. Am needing cheap readers of about +1.75 for some closer things though.
.
Distance Vision: According to a printed Snellen Chart at 10', I'm about 20/40 for distance right now, although I can see some of the 20/30 line. My hallway is medium lit, and it's a little sharper when I turn the light on. My bird feeders are about 35' from where I sit on the deck, and they are pretty clear, not completely sharp, but I can determine what small bird is eating on them (couldn't do that with my glasses, which were only giving me barely 20/50 in the right eye -- left eye was blurry even at 20/100). I can even see the bird feeder at the back of the yard (approx 110') -- it's a little fuzzy, but I can see if something is sitting on a perch attached to it. The windows are pretty sharp on the two-story brick house behind me that's about 200' behind me. And I could read the street sign earlier this afternoon clearly at approx 35'.
.
Visual Distortions:
- Mild floaters started day after surgery:, which I expected as I had them before. They were only really noticeable before if I had been straining my eyes and not getting enough sleep. They got quite strong today after putting in the required trio of drops (see above), but then eased off considerably about two hours later to a mild occasional state again.
.
- Noticing a small flickering to the outside bottom left of the right eye from time to time, mainly when in bright light (inside house), but it's not constant at all.
.
- Light sensitivity increased, though I always have been sensitive and it was a lot better the next day, after my pupil had gone back to it's regular size (around 2mm). Needed to put on a pair of light tinted sunglasses to wear inside this morning when I first opened the blinds and curtains, but that eased off a couple of hours later. No distortions when looking at a bare led or fluorescent bulb.
1 like, 62 replies
Spring1951 karbonbee
Edited
Glad things are going well! Have been interested in reading your detailed accounts. Question: Would you pick those exact focal targets again or would you change? I am aware that the results are slightly different than original targets. Also, I asked somewhere here before if you had given mini -monovision a trial first? I am thinking of similar targets to what you have but I have been unable to try mini-mono as I couldn't get contact lenses in for some reason.
Interesting comment about the blue light filter. I guess the world looks slightly blue without it! I wear amber sunglasses a lot which really changes that.
karbonbee Spring1951
Posted
Thanks. Yes, I would completely choose the same targets! And the same IOL. My results have been close to the targets, for my surgeries at least, and were in the ranges I thought they might end up at, so I am very happy with my eyes right now. I know they will still probably fluctuate, but here's hoping that they stay close at least to what they are now. I just answered your question re mini monovision trial. But no, I didn't do a trial. When I was eighteen and allowed to wear hard contact lenses (more discomfort than a soft lens, but I had astigmatism so the only choice for me), I made myself learn to let myself stick my finger into my eye, because I was determined to get the little buggers in there, and keep them there. My vision with glasses was very restricted -- I never would have been able to learn to drive, or play sports, etc, if I'd hadn't been able to make myself learn to wear the contacts, because the difference in depth perception between my glasses and the "real" size of things was huge. But if you haven't already done the training, or had the need to learn to do this, it's not something that you can just choose to do out of the blue, or quickly. It takes time. You not being able to just do it after only a couple of tries makes complete sense.
Don't forget that targets chosen for the Eyhance would be different than what I would have chosen for a monofocal lens as they have different capabilities, so the results will be different. For example, instead of choosing -1.25 D for my non dominant eye (near eye), I would have chosen something like Ron did at -1.50 D, and maybe -0.25 D instead of -0.50 D for the distance eye. I think if you don't choose too much of a difference between the two eyes, you should be okay. I ended up with about 0.85 between mine and like I said, they are working together really well for a natural blended vision result. I neither notice them covering different distances, nor have to make a choice to make them do it. Remember, I made the decision that if I needed glasses for something, I would prefer it to be for something specific such as distance for driving, as opposed to having to potentially be taking them on and off constantly around home depending upon what I happened to choose to focus on. Which is what I've got right now, for around home at least. If my eyes stay at least close to what they are now, I most likely won't need any help for driving either, even at night. My test drive last night, going down dark side roads without any moonlight, or any white lines on the right side of the road to guide me, turned out very, very well.
Spring1951 karbonbee
Edited
You covered some good information. Good idea to make that decision about where you will be putting on glasses...distance or close in. I think distance for glasses would be right for me. I wonder what my targets would be? Maybe the -0.27 is correct and would be similar to the -0.50? However, if I want 1.25 or similar I was hoping for a smaller mini-mono gap keeping it under .75 between the two lenses. Since I haven't tried mini-monovision, I don't want to take too much risk.
karbonbee Spring1951
Posted
From what I have read, although I can't find the sources now, it was recommended to keep the differences between the eyes for the Eyhance to around 0.75 for the best blended vision results. However, for a monofocal, it could be higher, up to around 1.25 which still gave good "natural" blended results. So that gives you a bit of leeway for the lenses you've chosen. I think Ron ended up around -1.35 D for his near eye (target was -1.50 D), and he seems to have similar near vision to mine in that eye. Yes, the -0.27 does sound like a good choice for the distance eye, comparable to my distance target in monofocal language. Though it would be rounded off to -0.25 since the lenses come in .25 increments. That would most likely keep you on the good side of plano while giving you good distance vision.
Spring1951 karbonbee
Posted
Thanks for that. I think I will send that to my doctor. If I could get a -1 gap between the two she would not have to re-order again which she is not happy about. Ron,btw, had tried mini-monvision prior from what he once told me. I don't have the details but he felt secure in getting mini-monovision having had some experience previously. Cheers and... Have a bright day!
karbonbee Spring1951
Posted
Ron had tried monovision before, and was pretty comfortable with that. He ended up with more of mini-monovision which is less of a gap than what he was trying with the contacts.
Analytica karbonbee
Edited
This is a good explanation of why the surgeon isnt recommending a 1.0 difference in the Eyhance lenses. The first lens target wasn't discussed with me so I guess Im stuck with .5 for the second lens. The office told me Eyhance doesn't come in .75, only .5 increments.
RonAKA Analytica
Edited
Eyhance and essentially all lenses come in lens plane steps of 0.5 D. At the cornea plane and commonly reported eyeglass pane they achieve about 75% of this power step or about 0.38 D. Commonly steps are discussed in 0.25 D increments as that is how they are measured with a phoropter at the optometrist office. Predicted outcomes are not likely to be in those even steps. For example if your predicted outcome is -0.90 D with a certain power lens, then the next power up up will give you -1.28, and the next power lower will give -0.52 D.
karbonbee Analytica
Posted
Well according to what my surgeon thinks he ended up, -0.36 D and -1.21 D, I ended up with more than 0.75 between my eyes, 0.85 to be specific, and my blended vision is excellent. If you could get your surgeon to tell you what he thinks he hit with your first eye, via the ORA scan results, then you'd have a better idea of where you want to go next. And I wouldn't accept that "I'm stuck with .5 for the second lens"! He's not giving you a gift, you're paying good money for a service, so I'd give him an earful and tell him WHAT you want!! What he wants is pretty much irrelevant in the greater scheme of things, since he's not the one that is going to have to live with "his" decision. Unless he can give you a valid reason as to why your second eye should be done to only -0.5 D, then he needs to shut up and start to listen. And that he always does it this way isn't an acceptable answer.
karbonbee
Edited
The implant card for my right eye says Eyhance model DIU100 / Diopter: +7.5D SE 1.00D CYL / T: 13mm & B: 6mm. The left eye says Eyhance model DIU150 / Diopter: +5.5D SE 1.50D CYL / T: 13mm & B: 6mm. And attached is the results of the Lenstar scan from the pre-op appointment.
.
RonAKA karbonbee
Posted
Looks like you got toric lenses in both eyes.
karbonbee RonAKA
Posted
Yes, I thought that I might. The surgeon was pretty sure that the left eye at least would need one.
RonAKA karbonbee
Edited
Out of curiosity I ran your numbers through the Barrett Toric calculator and got a bit different results. Basically the Barrett is calling for a 6.5 D sphere and 1.5 D cylinder compared to the DIU100 used which is 7.5 D sphere and 1.0 D cylinder. The residual refraction predicted by Barrett is -1.13 SE.
.
On the left eye, things seem closer. Barrett says 5.5 D sphere and 1.5 D cylinder which is exactly the same as what your got with the DIU150. Barrett residual refraction is predicted at -0.86 D SE.
.
Don't rush out and get your RE lens changed though! This the first time I ever used the Barrett Toric Calculator.... I would trust your surgeon first!!! Once you get your eye exam you may want to check back and see how accurate it was though,
.
RonAKA karbonbee
Edited
I ran the calculator again for the right eye and this time with a target of -1.75 D to see what the result was for higher powers of the lens. It came back with the 7.5 D power and a predicted residual refraction of -1.74 D. If you want to run the calculator just google "Barrett Toric Calculator V2.0" and you should find it. I found that it would not run properly with my default Google Chrome browser, but did run with Microsoft Edge.
.
I do not know much about this Toric calculator. It may be outdated or inaccurate. The other formula called the Barrett Universal II is well recognized and considered to be one of the best and especially when calculating targets for residual myopia. However, from what I can see the Universal II does not handle toric lenses. Neither does the Hill RBF 3.0.
.
If the Barrett Toric is correct you should have very good close vision in your right eye...
Analytica karbonbee
Edited
I didn't think to look at the implant card until i saw your post! They kind of pushed it into my daughter's hand post surgery, and she had it in her car for a week, they didn't explain the significance.
karbonbee RonAKA
Posted
Interesting. Once I see my optometrist, I will post her results here. Thanks for trying it with the calculator.
karbonbee RonAKA
Posted
Thanks. Could the different results be because of it being results from the Lenstar scan and not the IOLMaster?
karbonbee Analytica
Posted
I knew of the cards, but didn't really take in any significance to it. They told me I was to make a copy of it just in case, and keep the card in my wallet with my organ donation card, and add it to my surgical history. I wonder if this means that my eyes wouldn't be suitable for donation in the event of my death?
RonAKA karbonbee
Edited
I don't think the differences could be attributed to the Lenstar vs IOLMaster. Both are measuring the same thing. There is a significant difference in the time that the Lenstar takes to make the measurement (longer) compared to the IOLMaster. But, I have not seen anything that would suggest one is more accurate than the other.
.
The difference could be the formula used by the surgeon, most likely it is the ORA system giving a more accurate measurement during surgery.
karbonbee RonAKA
Posted
Okay. Yes, they used the Lenstar first and it took longer than the IOLMaster which they used secondly. I believe the third was the Hill scan -- that one took a while as you had to be so very still during the scan, and they ended up doing it about five times (each eye). The technician was very specific about the quality of the results she wanted to see. She'd say, "okay that was better but I think we can improve them more if we did it again...". Which made me happy that she was so insistent about getting not just good results but excellent ones. She ended up having another technician hold the ocular stick while I held onto the support bars to keep myself extremely still during the scan -- oh and they took away the stool with wheels I was on and gave me a plain chair to sit on. Two more while doing this for each eye and she was finally happy with the results.
Analytica karbonbee
Edited
it seems we are not eligible to be donors. Unless some technology in the future, would warrant using eyes with artificial lenses.
I am just shocked they didn't tell me anything especially since I was clear about an organ and tissue donation policy I had advocated for. I just don't think it's that hard to give information. If knowledge is power,...
Bookwoman Analytica
Edited
I was under the impression that it was only the corneas that are used. Here's what one website has to say (emphasis mine):
"Unlike many transplant needs, eye donors and recipient don't have to be matched by blood type. Anyone, of any age, and just about any health condition is a universal donor and can designate their eyes for donation. Exceptions include people suffering from highly communicable diseases such as HIV or hepatitis.
You can still donate even if you have bad eyesight or have had cataract or LASIK surgery. Only the cornea is transplanted, and surgeons only do one cornea at a time, so when a pair of eyes is donated, two recipients benefit."
RonAKA Bookwoman
Edited
I have a friend that has been identified as being at risk to get Fuchs' dystrophy. If it progresses the only current cure is a cornea transplant. A transplant may also be necessary for someone having an advanced case of keratoconus. The one Lasik clinic I went to specializes in cornea transplants.
karbonbee Analytica
Posted
Yes, me too, regarding organ donations. Oh well, I can understand their stand on it, but they didn't even ask me about organ donor status in the questionnaires. It wouldn't have stopped me from doing the surgery, but it is nice to know. Granted I don't know how useful my eyes would have been as donations anyways considering how myopic I am, but they'd definitely are a lot better than nothing, lol. Some dark humour, when I told my sister about the donation cards, she quipped, "oh, does that mean when you die, we can take your eyes in a get the money back?', lol (since they can't be donated).
karbonbee Bookwoman
Posted
Oh, that is much better news. Thanks for the update.
karbonbee RonAKA
Posted
The surgeon who did my cataract surgery specializes in cornea surgery also. That made me trust him more in his technical abilities.