Panoptix or something else
Posted , 10 users are following.
Hello! I have been considering an RLE for a couple of years and was about to commit to Panoptix but I just keep worrying over it. I am a -8.50 in both eyes and have been in glasses since childhood. I am 52 years old and wear progressive glasses 100% of the time. I can see perfectly about two inches from my face and can read my phone at about 5 inches, without glasses. Beyond that everything is blurry. I spend most of my day in the near to intermediate range for work. I am a weekend warrior with lots of water sports and outdoor activities. My night vision is poor and I do not drive after dark if I can help it. I am worried about losing my close vision even though it is so narrow in range. Is this something anyone is worried about, misses, or was able to adapt to not having post surgery? I would love to have less dependence on glasses and am not happy in my progressives most of the time. Contacts are not an option. I do not want to be in a situation where I have to tuck readers in every nook and cranny, but do not mind if i need them for super fine detail on occasion. I would rather be stuck wearing glasses for distance than for near. Would appreciate all feedback.
0 likes, 23 replies
1Ellen jim96821
Edited
I called Customer Service and didn't receive much information. Alcon has study results on its consumer website. I was looking for outcomes since ClearView 3 received FDA approval in August 2022. These outcomes are available for surgeons only. There aren't any surgeons where I live who are knowledgeable. The "lens" convention is in May and Lenstec will have a booth.
RonAKA 1Ellen
Posted
I have not seen information on any multifocal lens that would suggest they are free from the optical side effects that are common with MF lenses. I suspect this ClearView lens will have the same issues. You can fool optical science. Some people that are fully prepared for the side effects seem to be more tolerant of them, while others that are sold what they think is the ultimate perfect premium lens are more likely to be disappointed with the outcome.
RonAKA 1Ellen
Edited
You can find some information on that lens at the FDA site. Try googling this to find it:
.
FDA P200020B SBL-3™ Multifocal Intraocular Lens SSED
.
This is a bifocal with a fairly high 2.5 D near add in about half the lens like a bifocal eyeglass. One thing I noticed is that the lens has poor contrast sensitivity at distance. The MTF is 0.25 or less depending on pupil size. This seems to be even lower than the Vivity which is known for poor contrast sensitivity. See Figure 3 from page 10. This is probably not the best lens if you intend to drive at night.
.
.
007Bond 1Ellen
Edited
Very interesting new lens. I did a quick Google and noticed this at the bottom of the consumer page.
"Several prospective studies have been performed on the ClearView 3 with results identifying a high level of near, intermediate and distance vision, very limited amounts of visual side effects and extremely high patient satisfaction and spectacle independence ratings."
Notice "very limited amounts of visual side effects" so as normal there are side effects as with any MFIOL.
Also from what I could find they don't use rings but straight lines to get the MF and claim this leads to the less side effects. But wow this design could open up a whole new area of side effects. I found a video of the Dr saying (who was involved in the trial) that due to the lines if this lens is not placed by an experienced Dr with this lens the patient could have an undesirable outcome.
I have the Panoptix in my left eye past 6 months and I am happy. Getting a Panoptix in the right eye next month no reservations.
RonAKA 007Bond
Posted
I skimmed the 110 page FDA report on the lens. Yes, the lens is split into a distance half and a close half. It is a true bifocal lens like you have in eyeglasses. It has poor contrast sensitivity at distance and the optical side effects like halos, glare, flare, etc were 2-3 times higher than the control monofocal. My post on it is waiting to be moderated.
neverquit RonAKA
Edited
Wow, so the "ClearView 3" has a vertically changing acuity, as in progressive glasses. The upper area for far, the lower area for near?
Makes me dizzy, just by thinking about it.
Sounds to me like reinventing the wheel, by making it square . . .
edit:
well, i guess i didn´t get that right, as the visual axis stays the same in any eye position. So it´s rather brainwork again thats required, instead of eye movement.
RonAKA neverquit
Edited
Yes it is presenting two views that your brain has to put together. It is kind of like an exaggerated case of significant astigmatism. See the following snip from the report. The bottom red half is the near add of +3.0 D, and the top green is the distance portion. It is very unnatural, but I guess the eye/brain can adapt to many difficult views of what we are looking at. I would think double vision would be a significant risk.
.