Seeking Feedback on the Clareon Monofocal

Have you found your vision has changed from spectacular to less so within 6 months or a year with the Clareon? I have seen two reports on Eyhance changing from initially fabulous to less so after several months?

I had the Clareon put in on February 23, 2022, the day before Putin invaded Ukraine. So, I am quickly coming up to one year. I have seen no change in the vision over this time. The AcrySof IQ which has been in about 2 and a half years now has had no change either.

And you have had no glistening reports with either? Have you heard of any glistening reports on Clareon?

I see no glistenings in my Clareon lens nor in my AcrySof IQ lens. I have seen no reports of glistenings in Clareon lenses. There is a good report on this issue in this article if you google it:

.

David J Apple Laboratory Glistening through the years Timur Yildirim

.

In my opinion it is a totally bogus issue with Clareon and with the AcrySof lenses produced in the last 5 years.

That is reassuring to hear!

I remember the post where you said you some information on the glistening reports being circulated which you felt were bogus.

I don't know if glistening is a real issue, but I know somone who will probably have his lens exchanged because of it. IQ.

Is that with the AcrySofIQ? Can you elaborate?

What specific lens was it, and when was it implanted?

the person is not able to see it. dont confuse it with diamond eye. which is mostly cosmetic twinkle. most people do not notice change in acuity due to glistening and it is very gradual. it would be nice to have a doctor see a clareon that has been implanted at least a year ago.

I wonder why they are making such a big deal about glistening then?

Manufacturers like to find ways to distinguish themselves from the competition.

Yeah, good point.

I do have an eye condition AMD. Why do you recommend going with Technis ZCB00 or Clareon because of that?

This wait-and-see attitude is why my surgeon told me he does not currently recommend the Clareon to patients. Alcon claimed more than once to have solved its glistening problem with the AcrySof but many ophthalmologists--Dr. Safran, for, example--continued to be contacted by people with glistenings.

Of course, my surgeon also takes a general wait-and-see approach to innovations, being neither the first nor the last to embrace them. For example, told me, although he noew generally recommends the Eyhance, and would use it himself if he needed IOLs, hebegan using it relatively recently when a former ophthalmic nurse strongly insisted that he implant them in her eyes.

you would get 100% light with those two lenses and the best possible image which you could slide using glasses to your desired focal point. best image quality is important if other eye conditions are going to affect it.

if you have been myopic your whole life go with mini monovision with those two lenses.

i think alcon has hit the refractive sweet spots with their line. panoptix is the best trifocal. they never came with diffractive edof and were able to achieve it with vivity and without rings. i am curious if their design prevents my edge reflection.

i hope they have addressed glistening with clareon. at least the lab tests seem to indicate as such. 50% glistening was observable within one year so by this time i think even the US opthalmologists should know.

in one youtube comment Safran says he will use eyhance on himself. Tecnis does not have the glistening problem with the material but refractively their products arent that good. Symfony has rings and does what Vivity does without rings. surgeons have stopped using Synergy due to distance quality that cannot be fixed refractively. eyhance is an interesting product but if it is adding only 0.3D the value of that 0.3D is when you set it for myopia. make distance bad by -1 but get -1.3 of near. that could be the sweet spot. i think -1.25 to -1.5 is very good myopis for intermediate to near and if you spoil distance by only -1 it is a good tradeoff.

Why would you not recommend Eyhance for someone with AMD?

I think you're right about the PanOptix, if one really wants a multi-focal despite the potential down-side. Vivity apparently sacrifices some contrast and has some visual artifact issues, even passing over any possible Clareon issue. This helped lead me to the Eyhance, a choice I'm glad to see Dr. Safran confirm.

But since the Eyhance's extended range of focus also is modest, reading various of Ron's posts led me to try out mini-monovision, currently implemented through wearing contact lenses with a 1.5 D difference in strength.

there is still some light stretching with eyhance with the central 1mm zone.

if i were to try ron's strategy with eyhance and since i have been lifelong myopic i would get first eyhance at -0.5. then i see how much near i get with it. month after the surgery i would use + contact lenses on this eyhance eye to see what i need for comfortable near. if it is +1 lens on the -0.5 eyhance then i would set the next eyhance eye for -1.5. i would also play with setting the natural as close up eye with + lenses to check how the two eyes play together with 1 to 1.5D difference.

First, the aim of my testing mini-monovision with contacts before surgery is to find out whether I'm comfortable with that much difference and whether I retain sufficient 3-D vision. This is my seventh day, and so far results are positive on these two issues. I see their optometrist in two weeks. If all is still going well, I intend to discuss trying a 1.75 or 2.0 D difference. My intent is not to ask my surgeon to give me the largest amount of monovision that meets my criteria. Rather, I think I want him to target a difference 0.5 D less than my tested maximum so that ther's a margin for ending up with a greater difference than targeted. My first eye is scheduled for March 14.

Second, my surgeon wants to target -0.50 D with the first eye. Having now looked at and averaged seven defocus curves, I want to talk with him some more. With the Eyhance and mini-monovision , -0.25 D might be a better target. Put otherwise, -0.50 D might not be a bad result, but there are no guarantees, and for me +0.25 D might be preferable to - 0.75 D.

what does this mean if the acrysofIQ box said +21.0 D ?

It refers to the IOL's power. Depending on the pre-surgical biometry of your eye, your surgeon, ideally with your involvement, will choose the IOL power that, all going well, will produce the targeted result, for example, plano (or 0.0 D), -0.25 D, etc.