Posted , 8 users are following.
how much contract and vision quality is lost with eyhance?
how does the vision quality compare between eyhance and a monofocal?
if eyhance is set to -1 how is the quality of near vision?
how are progressives post cataract surgery when you did not like them when you didnt have the cataracts?
0 likes, 35 replies
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.
Guest soks
Edited
I think the best thing to do is to read the studies. There are studies where people have gotten Eyhance in one eye and Tecnis 1 in the other. I don't think anyone here has had the combo so you'd only be getting their experience with one lens or the other.
.
That said your first 2 questions are the same question asked two different ways. And I would guess the answer is that the difference in quality and contrast between Eyhance and Monofocal is minimal. I have Eyhance in one eye and for what it's worth, distance vision and contrast are spectacular. But like any monofocal (Eyhance is technically still a monofocal), near vision is heavily reliant on good light. I am 20/20 (but with some astigmatism) and in full bright sunlight I can read J1 at 14". In dim light though, not a chance.
.
Regardinlg -1, this is going to depend on so many factors other than just the IOL. Again, consult the literature (defocus curves). Your mileage will vary. That said, I can use the computer without glasses but do get some SLIGHT ghosting at that distance, but adding a +1 makes computer vision in any light simply amazing. I can see individual pixels. And no ghosting.
.
Progressives can be made a millions different ways and some you will love, others you will hate. It's a rare person though that cannot get used to or even really like their progressives if they are made well for their use case.
RonAKA soks
Edited
If you believe the defocus curves that get published there is very little loss in the Eyhance compared to the monofocal. I think for the close eye I would target the Eyhance to the -1.0 t0 -1.25 range. I would expect you to see J1 in good light. My progressives work as well as they ever have, and give me the sharpest vision, but I seldom wear them.
soks RonAKA
Posted
i think in another thread you said progressives function differently for iol (better) than natural eye. can you elaborate on it please?
also 16D gives me -0.25, 16.5D gives -0.6, 17D gives -0.95 and 17.5D gives -1.3D. so choose 17 or 17.5 IOL.
RonAKA soks
Posted
Can't say I recall that comment. However, if one is quite myopic, and they correct to plano with an IOL, the lens thickness at the edge of a progressive is going to be much thinner. One of my lenses corrects for 0.0 sphere and is very thin. However the one that is correcting for -1.25 is not that much thicker.
.
If that is for an Eyhance lens then the 17 or 17.5 is a tough choice. I think I would go for the 17.5 to ensure good reading. What formula are you using to calculate the lens power? When doing an under correction for monovision the Barrett Universal II and Hill RBF 3.0 are claimed to be the most accurate. I would use them both to make the calculation and it might make the decision easier.
soks RonAKA
Posted
barrett 2 on iol master 700 at wills eye.
RonAKA soks
Posted
If you get them to print off the IOL Calculation data page you should have the measurements to check the calculation at the Hill site. Just google hill-rbf calculator version 3.0 and you can run the calcs as a check.
Guest soks
Posted
We used Barrett Universal II for my Eyhance eye and hit the target pretty much bang on.
soks RonAKA
Posted
wills has only barrett. another doctor has both. there the hill rbf is:
16 gives -0.31, 16.5 gives -0.66, 17 gives -1.01.
RonAKA soks
Posted
That kind of tips the balance toward using the +17 power. The reality is that 17 or 17.5 would probably work. One is going to give slightly better distance and the other slightly better reading.
RonAKA soks
Posted
Are those sphere only predictions, or spherical equivalent?
soks RonAKA
Posted
dont understand the question.
RonAKA soks
Posted
Sphere would be the predicted post surgery sphere alone. Spherical equivalent would add 50% of the predicted post surgery cylinder to the sphere to give you a spherical equivalent estimate of the total error in sphere terms. For example a predicted sphere of -1.0 D and -0.5 D cylinder would give a spherical equivalent of -1.25 D. If there is astigmatism the total spherical equivalent will be more negative and if not already included you probably want to add that in.
Guest soks
Edited
Soks, have you had either eye done yet? And are you planning to target one of your eyes for distance? If so I'd suggest maybe doing the distance eye first and depending on how that goes, you may have a better idea of what to do for the second eye. I was very surprised at how much near vision I got with my distance Eyhance eye. It admittedly doesn't hold up well in dim light but in good light I'm surprised how well the Eyhance eye (-0.2 target) does for intermediate and near. With that in mind I may decide not "right shift" (target myopically) the second eye as much I'd originally thought.
soks RonAKA
Posted
ok. i dont have astigmatism.
soks Guest
Edited
i have a symfony and it gave me poor near. had to use -1.25 for computer and -2.5 for phone distance. the vision quality even with -2.5 for near was never great.
Guest soks
Posted
Ack. So sorry to hear that. So is this about your second eye? Or are you considering an exchange?
soks Guest
Posted
yes. 2nd eye. lens exchange option is open as i am holding off on YAG for it.
Guest soks
Posted
I personally think I'd go for the -1 target but if distance is good in the symphony eye maybe go for he -1.25?
RonAKA soks
Posted
OK, that makes it simple then. There will always be the potential issue of surgery induced astigmatism, and the IOLMaster provides a place for the surgeon to enter what they predict. The one that did my bother's surgery just left it blank.
soks RonAKA
Posted
for my left eye iol master predicted -0.2 at 16.5D. ORA said -0.19. surgery induced astigmatism was -0.25.
RonAKA soks
Posted
Yep, that is fortunate and negligible.
soks RonAKA
Posted
-0.25 glasses still do sharpen distance vision acuity.
soks Guest
Posted
symfony struggles in dimlight too. the diffractive rings can create ghosting. what power do you need for computer and watchin video on phone in HD quality?