AcuView vs. PureVision

Doctor prescribed me AcuView instead of the previous PureVision that I
used before.
I like AcuView much more since they are (or at least seem) thinner and
much softer.
Optometrist also said that he likes AcuView better.

So why would anybody still choose PureVision over AcuView?

Also do they permit oxygen to pass as easily as PureVision?

On Dec 13, 4:56 pm, Visa Inquirer <visa_desi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Doctor prescribed me AcuView instead of the previous PureVision that I
> used before.
> I like AcuView much more since they are (or at least seem) thinner and
> much softer.
> Optometrist also said that he likes AcuView better.
>
> So why would anybody still choose PureVision over AcuView?
>


Kickbacks perhaps?

On Dec 13, 4:19 pm, spammer <sereb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Kickbacks perhaps?

That's what I thought spammer.

PureVision was prescribed by LensCrafters doctor.
And AcuView was prescribed by Costco doctor. Who is more likely to be
independent I think.

On Dec 13, 7:45 pm, Visa Inquirer <visa_desi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 13, 4:19 pm, spammer <sereb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Kickbacks perhaps?
>
> That's what I thought spammer.
>
> PureVision was prescribed by LensCrafters doctor.
> And AcuView was prescribed by Costco doctor. Who is more likely to be
> independent I think.


If either is working within the confines of those respective
outlets, I doubt that they're independent.

> If either is working within the confines of those respective
> outlets, I doubt that they're independent.

I agree.

But unfortunately all independent optometrists that I could find in
Bay Area charge well over $100 for eye exam.
And the one in Costco charges only $75.

On Dec 14, 12:57 pm, Visa Inquirer <visa_desi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> I agree.
>
> But unfortunately all independent optometrists that I could find in
> Bay Area charge well over $100 for eye exam.
> And the one in Costco charges only $75.



Then you have a decision to make "Grasshopper". The extra $25 over
the long haul and the education you'll receive will be worth it.

In article
<fe9124a0-fba4-4318-8bd0-(E-Mail Removed)>,
spammer <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On Dec 13, 7:45 pm, Visa Inquirer <visa_desi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > PureVision was prescribed by LensCrafters doctor.
> > And AcuView was prescribed by Costco doctor. Who is more likely to be
> > independent I think.
>
>
> If either is working within the confines of those respective
> outlets, I doubt that they're independent.

In California, by law they are independent. In practice, they are
pretty tied to the shop.

Many grocery stores around here have bank outlets inside. I doubt that
Safeway owns Wells Fargo bank.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA
(E-Mail Removed)

On or about Thu, 13 Dec 2007 13:56:43 -0800 (PST) did Visa Inquirer
<(E-Mail Removed)> dribble thusly:

>Doctor prescribed me AcuView instead of the previous PureVision that I
>used before.
>I like AcuView much more since they are (or at least seem) thinner and
>much softer.
>Optometrist also said that he likes AcuView better.
>
>So why would anybody still choose PureVision over AcuView?
>
>Also do they permit oxygen to pass as easily as PureVision?

I'm going to agree with the other Mike and guess you mean AcuVue Oasys
(which is what I use).

It's not so much that they are thinner (I don't think they actually
are), or that they are softer (a much lower modulus than PV), but that
the edges are rounded off. The PV edges are sharp, and I could feel
them constantly, no matter how long the lenses were in. Same with
Focus N&D.

You already got the answer on oxygen throughput, so here are what I
would consider plausible reasons to choose PV over Oasys:

1) You can leave PV in for 30 days. Oasys are supposed to be taken
out every 14 days. In practice, I'm going to say even less for the
Oasys, because the material collects debris and deposits more than
that of PV. I find that I take them out almost daily during the cold
months (when the air is much drier, and my eyes become a bit parched
when tired), and typically leave them in no longer than four days
overall.

2) PV are aspheric, which purportedly help people with low
astigmatism (too low to get toric lenses for). I have 0.25 diopters
of astigmatism in each eye, but did not notice any such effect, and I
still get 20/15 vision with Oasys despite the uncorrected astigmatism.

3) PV have an optical zone of 8.9mm, while Oasys probably have 8.0mm
(probably, because that information isn't published for Oasys, but
other AcuVue lenses have 8.0mm). That means better night correction
if your dark-adapted pupils are large enough to make a difference.
Focus N&D are horrible in this respect (stars remain fuzzy blobs), and
I couldn't say with certainty that I noticed any real difference
between PV and Oasys. Both provide very good night vision with my
eyes.

4) If you replace the lenses as indicated (30 days for PV, 14 days
for Oasys), PV are cheaper per day than Oasys. I posted actual
numbers in a previous post, but all I recall now is that the
difference is something near $0.15 per day. Not a lot, really, but if
you're concerned about expenses, it adds up to paper money over time.
The more frequent removal of Oasys also translates into more lens
solution, if you really want to start counting up the pennies.

5) Oasys only comes in a base curve of 8.4, while PV comes with 8.6.
If you have flatter eyes, like me, 8.4 is right on the edge of what
can be safely worn. I probably have to take mine out more often
because of that (not much flow between the lens and my cornea), which
is why I'll be trying the new Biofinity lenses next year, which also
have a larger base curve, and on paper look very much like Oasys
otherwise.
--
- Mike

Ignore the Python in me to send e-mail.