Progressive contacts, is this the best I can expect?

Here I am at 56 (female), tired of fishing out my reading glasses to read
the dinner menu, the sports program, etc. Distant vision without correction
is excellent. So, after years of wearing reading glasses and at one point
bifocals (during college), I decided to give progressive contacts a try.
Currently left eye at +1.00 and right eye at +1.50 - Focus Dailies
progressives. Close up and intermediate vision is good (With the initial
prescription which was just a trifle stronger it was excellent.) but I'm
struggling with distant vision. Using them at sporting events or driving is
a problem. I expected and have difficulty at night but was hoping for
better results in other conditions. Reading very fine print is difficult
but satisfactory for reading normal text. Intermediate vision is excellent.

I purchased a one month supply and am a little more than half way through
those. Coupled with the trial contacts provided by my optometrist, I have
worn these contacts for about one month. I've been told my eyes and brain
will adjust. I want to give this a fair chance but at what point do I
conclude it's just not working? Is this about the best I can expect? Are
there other contact alternatives that I might want to ask my optometrist
about before throwing in the towel? I really hate to go to bifocal or
progressive glasses. I've have bifocal glasses before and really hated
using them to read newspapers, play the piano, work at the computer, tasks
like painting the porch which requires close and intermediate looking up, or
when shopping and trying to view the bottom shelves. At what point do I
give it up and buy the little cord to hang my reading glasses around my
neck?

In article <ifZjf.53182$(E-Mail Removed) rio.net>,
"LAH" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Here I am at 56 (female), tired of fishing out my reading glasses to read
> the dinner menu, the sports program, etc. Distant vision without correction
> is excellent. So, after years of wearing reading glasses

Getting old is not fun.


:-(


I think it is just personal preference. I wouldn't choose these
contacts myself. I'm perfectly happy with reading glasses. My wife, on
the other hand, has given them up. She got progressives, and after a
few months, adjusted to them to where she wears nothing else. I'm 55,
and have been wearing reading glasses, first prescription and then OTC,
for many years.

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

I dont like contacts, besides them drying and irritating my eyes, I
dont see very well from near. You could try monovision but not everyone
likes it. Another option is actually make both eyes slightly myopic
then you wont need glasses except for driving. I am happy wearing
contacts that do not fully correct my myopia so I can still see reading
material and distance vision is only slightly blurry. However im much
happier just sticking to glasses, my eyes thank me plus I just lift my
glasses to read

Dan Abel wrote:
> In article
> <ifZjf.53182$(E-Mail Removed) rio.net>,
> "LAH" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Here I am at 56 (female), tired of fishing out my
>> reading glasses to read the dinner menu, the sports
>> program, etc. Distant vision without correction is
>> excellent. So, after years of wearing reading glasses
>
> Getting old is not fun.
>
>
> :-(
>
>
> I think it is just personal preference. I wouldn't
> choose these contacts myself. I'm perfectly happy with
> reading glasses. My wife, on the other hand, has given
> them up. She got progressives, and after a few months,
> adjusted to them to where she wears nothing else. I'm
> 55, and have been wearing reading glasses, first
> prescription and then OTC, for many years.

How about translating bifocal contacts? I believe someone
even makes a soft one. No compromise on vision. You will
still have the problem of having to tilt your head down to
see the bottom shelf at the store but you won't have to
put on and take off readers all the time.

-Quick

there are a few things you can do. First drop the script in your dominant
eye by 0.25D and increase the script in the non-dominant eye by 0.25D.
Second, get focus daily spheres for the dominant eye. The options here are
using these (modified monovision) either full time, which means that you
will do all the computer work with your non-dominant eye, or using the
modified monovision on weekends when you don't read as much and want good
distance vision, and the 2 multifocals during the week for work.

good luck.

dr grant

in general you should expect some compromises when you try bifocal
contacts. when you get distance clear, typically near is not strong
enough. and when you get near clear, then distance is blurry (as you
report).

see your doctor. one approach is to strengthen one eye for distance
and let the other be stronger for near. this is called modified
monovision which is what dr. grant (CatmanX) suggested. works fine for
a lot of people.

the trick is to spend a lot of time trying different options that your
doctor gives you. just go into the process realizing the combined
distance plus near vision that you get will not be as sharp as you were
getting without the bifocal contacts-- i.e. you must accept "good
enough" and not perfect.

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> in general you should expect some compromises when you
> try bifocal contacts. when you get distance clear,
> typically near is not strong enough. and when you get
> near clear, then distance is blurry (as you report).

This more applies to simultaneous vision bifocals and
not to translating bifocals right?

I didn't do well with the simultaneous vision solutions.
Apparently I don't do well at rejecting the out of focus
image(s). I then rejected the compromises of a monovision
(and modified monovision) solution. ...look left at the
intersection and it was blurry. Then there is generally the
"soft" vision inherant with soft contacts (they sure were
comfortable though).

> the trick is to spend a lot of time trying different
> options that your doctor gives you. just go into the
> process realizing the combined distance plus near vision
> that you get will not be as sharp as you were getting
> without the bifocal contacts-- i.e. you must accept "good
> enough" and not perfect.

No. There are other options (maybe with different
compromises). I find RGPs to give me much sharper
vision. My OD and myself are in the process of fitting
RGP translating trifocals. I'm confident this will be the
best solution for me once we get the rotation, fit, and
tweak the RXs (Rx for each segment is independent
so it takes a good bit of tweaking). *lots* of adjustments
in fitting these things.

Pros: no compromise on vision
much easier to handle
less expensive if you don't lose or break them

Cons: -Some head positioning at times for translation
-Less comfort (maybe we just don't have the fit
right yet).
-more expensive if you lose or break them

-Quick

LAH wrote:

> I purchased a one month supply and am a little more than half way through
> those. Coupled with the trial contacts provided by my optometrist, I have
> worn these contacts for about one month. I've been told my eyes and brain
> will adjust. I want to give this a fair chance but at what point do I
> conclude it's just not working?

I reckon if your brain hasn't adjusted within the first few days then it
never will. To me getting used to multifocal or monovision contacts is
not so much 'adaptation' but more learning to accept the compromise. In
other words accepting in your own mind that the excellent distance
vision you're used to will have to be partially 'sacrificed' in order to
give you some near vision. This is more of a 'realisation' than a
'getting used to' issue.

I really hate to go to bifocal or
> progressive glasses. I've have bifocal glasses before and really hated
> using them to read newspapers, play the piano, work at the computer, tasks
> like painting the porch which requires close and intermediate looking up, or
> when shopping and trying to view the bottom shelves.

You shouldn't judge progressive glasses by your bad experience with
bifocal glasses. Progressive are MUCH better than bifocals for music,
computer, painting, shopping, etc. They do need to be fitted very
precisely to work properly, but if you can find someone to do this for
you they might be a great solution.

Dom

If a patient can accept RGPs from a comfort standpoint, then translating
bifocals are the best solutions. But thats a big if. In my practice the
majority of patients (estimate 80%) reject gas perms outright because they
cannot tolerate the feeling and they have no stomach to try to adapt.

The entire field of fitting multifocal/bifocal contacts is problematic for
the practitioner.

==========


"Quick" <quick7135-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
newsq6kf.29898$(E-Mail Removed). net...
> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>> in general you should expect some compromises when you
>> try bifocal contacts. when you get distance clear,
>> typically near is not strong enough. and when you get
>> near clear, then distance is blurry (as you report).
>
> This more applies to simultaneous vision bifocals and
> not to translating bifocals right?
>
> I didn't do well with the simultaneous vision solutions.
> Apparently I don't do well at rejecting the out of focus
> image(s). I then rejected the compromises of a monovision
> (and modified monovision) solution. ...look left at the
> intersection and it was blurry. Then there is generally the
> "soft" vision inherant with soft contacts (they sure were
> comfortable though).
>
>> the trick is to spend a lot of time trying different
>> options that your doctor gives you. just go into the
>> process realizing the combined distance plus near vision
>> that you get will not be as sharp as you were getting
>> without the bifocal contacts-- i.e. you must accept "good
>> enough" and not perfect.
>
> No. There are other options (maybe with different
> compromises). I find RGPs to give me much sharper
> vision. My OD and myself are in the process of fitting
> RGP translating trifocals. I'm confident this will be the
> best solution for me once we get the rotation, fit, and
> tweak the RXs (Rx for each segment is independent
> so it takes a good bit of tweaking). *lots* of adjustments
> in fitting these things.
>
> Pros: no compromise on vision
> much easier to handle
> less expensive if you don't lose or break them
>
> Cons: -Some head positioning at times for translation
> -Less comfort (maybe we just don't have the fit
> right yet).
> -more expensive if you lose or break them
>
> -Quick
>
>

"Dom" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:43916789$0$6526$(E-Mail Removed)...
> LAH wrote:
>
>> I purchased a one month supply and am a little more than half way through
>> those. Coupled with the trial contacts provided by my optometrist, I
>> have
>> worn these contacts for about one month. I've been told my eyes and
>> brain
>> will adjust. I want to give this a fair chance but at what point do I
>> conclude it's just not working?
>
> I reckon if your brain hasn't adjusted within the first few days then it
> never will. To me getting used to multifocal or monovision contacts is not
> so much 'adaptation' but more learning to accept the compromise. In other
> words accepting in your own mind that the excellent distance vision you're
> used to will have to be partially 'sacrificed' in order to give you some
> near vision. This is more of a 'realisation' than a 'getting used to'
> issue.


Exactly. Well stated IMHO. Contact companies like to phrase this as
"adaptation" as if the process is similar to accepting a prescription
change. In reality, its more "acceptance" of a visual compromise.

When I fit my patients in multifocals, we have a little talk about this up
front so as to manage their expectations. Afterwards, I think that I
successfully fit the majority of them. After all, presbyopia is all about
"acceptance" anyway.