Update Trifocal and edof mix

i mean ND.

I don´t know, what is ND?

i meant the peripheral shadows. ND = Negative Dysphotopsia

Yes, I have them both eyes, but it doesn´t really bother me.

How is it that ND isn't bothersome? Do you experience that with both LARA and LISA?

Well, if I pay attention to the ND, like now writing about it, then I notice it, and then I guess it becomes somewhat bothersome in that moment, but I don´t really think that much about it.

I guess I have been used to worse conditions first 45 years of my life 😃

I just now experimented a little, it depends a lot on how the light comes from the side, but if I rotate back and forth so the same light hits each side of the head the same angle, I think it is close to being the same both lenses, maybe a little worse on the Lara.

The surgeon had told me I should expect those shadows, so I was mentally prepared for it. I believe that to be a factor as well, when you expect something, it doesn´t hit you that hard as when it comes unexpected.

Are they dark shadows - like pupil dilating beyond lens? Would they disappear if you shone a light to constrict pupils?

I had some flickering first few months when light came from the side (LE only) at certain angle. I assumed it was catching the edge of IOL. But as the lens was shrink wrapped with time I no longer experience that.

The dark shadows are present even now when I stand in the window at full daylight, so I don´t know exactly why they are present. But when it is dark I don´t see them, I can only see them when light is coming from the side.

But it must somehow be the iol itself I am seeing, if I roll my eye to the side where the shadow are, the shadow disappears in the "eye socket" (i have no idea what it is called in English) 😃

I have had some lens flickering as well, but only a couple of weeks each eye in normal conditions, although sometimes I still have little when I am doing workout and pulse gets high.

this is ND. pupil dilation helps ND. thats why it is better in the dark. it is not the edge of the lens like PD. pupil constriction helps PD. this is some combination of lens and retina positions to create shadows.

Yes, that sounds right.

But no matter what it is called, I have it 😃

I have pretty high diopters, both iols are 29.5, the clinic staff found it a little funny when they were doing the measurements, they don´t see these high numbers that often 😃

Maybe these numbers are not helping the outcome.

Yes, that would be interesting, but I have no more eyes for testing 😃

No doubt your result with Symfony are much better than most get.

Here in Denmark surgeons that use Symfony in most cases makes micro monovision, and still they only promise clear vision from about 18-20 inches.

The Symfony makes about 1.75 added to the far vision, and for most people this do not offer close up vision.

The Lara makes 2.0 added to far vision, so marginally more, but not a difference you would feel in real life.

A monofocal makes about 1.0 added to far vision, this is why some surgeons don´t use edof, because with two monofocals, one set for far, the other starting at 1.0 giving vision to 2.0, they will together cover same range as the edof.

The Lisa trifocal have both 1.66 and 3.33 added to far vision, and actually here the theory matches my result. If I put in +1.5 readers on the Lara eye, the Lara eye get somewhat similar vision close up as the trifocal have.

H'mmm wonder how often theory matches the results. I have no more eyes to test either. But mine were both targeted for plano. I have no difference between them. Interesting in Denmark that they use a micro monovision approach with Symfony.

I am thinking I may have gotten above average result despite lens selection.

Well, the iols are manufactured based on theory so I think in most cases the outcome are close to the theory behind it.

It is actually quite mechanical, you can calculate what curve you need on the lens, to get the image in focus on the retina, if you know the curve on the retina and the distance between the lens and the retina.

The exact same calculations have been used many years building binoculars, glasses, cameras and so on, the mechanics behind it is very well known.

And therefore it is also well known that in most cases people need 1.5 add to see at 32 inches and 3.0 add to see at 16 inches, because this is what gets the image in focus on the retina.

But then comes the human factor, and some brains can do something special, and turn an out of focus image on the retina into a usable clear vision in the mind, but it is rare, so you are one of the lucky ones 😃

I have read a combined study that made statistics from the outcome of more than 10.000 cataract surgeries, and outcomes are most of the time just as expected according to the lens being used.

But the study also showed that in rare cases the outcome was better than expected with no other explanation than extraordinarily good brain adaption, so you must have a very sharp brain 😃

LOL consider myself an ordinary person so not so sure of that sharp brain theory. Although morning after surgery I did have crisp vision so brain must of done some overnight gymnastics.

But yes get that the mechanics of curvatures and distance. In all things there is an X factor that no one banks on (or throws a curve ball - no pun intended - lol) into those well thought out equations.

If I'd know ahead of time would have saved me hours of stress and worry.