Eye test chart, what am I understanding wrong?
Posted , 6 users are following.
On the day when my wife first noticed blurry vision the first time ever (4 weeks ago, wow! time flies).
Her readings at the emergency eye doctor were-
Left Eye+0.5 -0.75 137 °. (Very Dense Cataract, covering the whole rear of the lens)
Right Eye +0.5 -0.25 103 °, (Fine Cataract)
PLUS +0.5 (the first number) in both eyes means slightly far sighted, correct? (Although I always thought she reads closer better than far).
2nd Number Astigmatism
3rd Number angle of Astigmatism
Ok so just now I used Snellen test chart on her and her vision
Left Eye-20/20 at best and 20/25 at worse
Right Eye- 20/20 vision
Do those readings say anything about being near or far sighted?
0 likes, 17 replies
soks W-H
Posted
snellen chart is far sighted vision. At +0.5 would likely need glasses for near vision but its not much.
however her visual acuity is too good for a dense cataract all over the lens. it could be a dense cataract outside the line of sight or an early cataract all over the lens.
having said all that sometimes there can be blur with great visual acuity.
i got my surgery when my best corrected distance vision was 20/50-20/60. those 20/50 lines were still triple ghosting but i could read them.
Sue.An2 soks
Posted
Got my surgery too when best corrected vision was 20/50 and 20/60 as well. Could barely read big E on eye chart. For me vision didn't fluctuate at all -vision was blurry all the time. Night vision wasn't good. But I know depending where cataract is it can be different for others.
soks Sue.An2
Posted
my night vision was actually better than day vision with cataract eye.
Sue.An2 soks
Posted
Mine too despite the concentric circles. of Symfony. Contrast was awful with cataracts.
Guest W-H
Posted
Snellen eye test does not say if she is near or far sighted, only if you try different glasses can you use the test and see, if vision gets better or worse with different powers, and in that way test for near og far sightedness.
And it really does not say much about cataracts i my opinion.
In my own case, if I made a test with random lighting in the room, even though the lightning were good, I could only see 20/40 on a good day.
If I turned off all the light in the room, and lighted straight on the chart with a flashlight, so only the chart was lighted up and no light was hitting my eyes, I had 20/25 vision in that test. I know it sounds strange, but that was how my vision was with cataracts.
Cataracts takes away the contrast, and makes you sensitive to "wrong" lighting, it does not make you near or far sighted, so glasses generally does not work with cataracts, you can not add contrast with glasses.
So forget about the eye test in regards of cataracts, it is a matter of your wife is being bothered by the cataracts or not, it is how she feels that should be the deciding factor.
Even eye doctors will not be able to test how the cataracts are effecting her vision, because they also use the Snellen chart, and it really is much more complex than the Snellen chart can show.
Hudsongrl Guest
Posted
there is a "glare test" the optho can do. for me it was the glare that caused me to have poor vision in certain lighting. i could still read the eye chart at 20/25.
Guest Hudsongrl
Posted
I have never seen that type of test in Denmark, but no doubt that is a way better method for checking the influence of cataracts.
Hudsongrl W-H
Posted
she is farsighted...meaning she sees far better than close. her snellen chart numbers are very good
julielyn W-H
Posted
before cataract surgeries, i had great distance vision due to lasik surgery 17 years prior...but my reading and contrast vision was rapidly deteriorating. I have two busineses, one is detailing boats, so seeing waterspots is important, and i started missing spots all the time. my other business is canvas/upholstery work for boats, where white material with white stitching became almost inpossible to see...i had 5 overhead shop lights ( with 4 flourescent/led lights each) a small led reading light pointed at the needle and two more reafing lamps pointed at material, and still couldnt find the thread some days...and its not that small. so i agree with soks, its not about the chart on the wall, its about the quality of sight...now even with multifocal iols, light is very important. direct sunlight is the best, as my pupil will dial into precision vision, if its cloudy and grey out, things are just a bit fuzzy....so if anyone gets multifocal iols, a lot of light is very important
Guest W-H
Posted
The need for light is different in different multifocal lenses, the Lisa tri that also is available for WH's wife, is not pupil depended for reading, like some of the bifocals that are still used in US and Canada are.
But the trifocals do have more contrast loss than monofocals, and the trifocals do split the light in different images, so you will need more light than with a natural healthy eye to read with the trifocal. But not in the same way as with pupil depended bifocals.
The edof have roughly the same contrast loss as a monofocal, and do not not split the light in several focus points, the edof only have one focus point like the monofocals, so in regard of light, the edof are roughly the same as a monofocal. But you should expect reading glasses with the edof, to have real reading vision, with the trifocal most get reading vision without glasses.
Sue.An2 Guest
Posted
Really find it varies person to person. My expectation with EDOF Symfony is I can read very well at 12 inches (was not expecting or told I would have such good reading.
Guest Sue.An2
Posted
I agree, I can read with the Lara as well, I do not use reading glasses on a daily basis, but I just did not want to "sell" the edof and give false expectations 😃
Sue.An2 Guest
Posted
True enough. Better for surgeons to under promise and over deliver. My own said reading distance would be somewhere between 18 and 21. I can actually bring iphone to 6 inches and still read it. Been able to do small tasks like fix small screw that came out of sunglasses and thread needles. Was pleasantly surprised by the near vision Symfony provided and I am sure atLARA are good for that too we just don't have Zeiss lenses at all in Canada.
W-H Sue.An2
Posted
Sue, I wonder if you would have gone for AT Lara if it was available when you operated?
julielyn Guest
Posted
thanks for that information about pupil dependent lenses ...i assumed all multifocals would be the same ... guess we dont have many options in the USA
Guest julielyn
Posted
Some European manufaturers are not willing to spend the money on FDA approval, because FDA is extremely expensive, and they have already used a lot of money on the CE approval, that are accepted in the rest of the world except US and Canada, so it is true, some products never come to US and Canada for this reason.
But that said, in the end no lens is perfect, and I think it is a matter of knowing the lens we have implanted, and adjust to it, and then every lens can give really good vision compared to having cataracts.
I only wrote about this difference because worried husband and is wife is in Europe, where they also have other choices.
In fact the Lisa tri is also pupil depended, but in a different way than the bifocals, with the Lisa tri the reading vision (+3,33) stays the same no matter what lighting, but the midrange (+1,66) are being "moved" to distance vision when lights are low, the same way as your reading vision.
It is really easy to get lost in all this stuff 😃
Sue.An2 W-H
Posted
Yes most definitely. The atLARA (on paper) gives a bit more range of focus than Symfony. They are basically same design. I would have no worries about going with atLARA.For whatever reason Canada to my knowledge has never approved (even older models) of Zeiss lenses.
My surgeries were covered and I had minimal expense for Symfony. There was a 9 month wait (2 extra due to my indecision on lenses). Eyesight was very poor so the option of spending time in Europe to investigate further and added expense wasn't something I considered doing. That and if I had gone with a lens outside of what's offered here - who would I go to if something went wrong?
I am relieved that results were this good. I did have the advantaged of 2 posters here talking about the concentric circles and spiderweb effects of lights at night so wasn't completely taken by surprise. And things did improve within 6 months and more 2 years later with night vision. I live in a relatively small province so no big 6 lane highways here. Just came back from England and to my satisfaction night vision in London with all the lights there didn't bother me at all.
I will be curiously awaiting to hear how your wife's consult with Zeiss goes.