progressive contacts

Can someone tell me what progressive contact lenses are like? What
sort of vision can you get from them? Is it the same as glasses with
blur each side or are they pretty clear all across?

Also can they also be for astigmatism or is that asking too much?

Ann

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Anon E. Muss
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> The way I explain the sort of vision a patient would get is that it
> reduces a patient's distance vision by 20% to give them an 80%
> improvement up close.

I am using the B&L Softlens Multifocals and have pretty good distance
vision, 20/20 in my right eye and slightly less in my left eye. I am
happy with the combined distant vision which is very clear. I would say
I have 95% or more distance. Up close I can read everything, books,
newspapers, computer screen, etc. without readers. So I call that 100%.


My vision is much better with these multifocal contacts than with
bi-focal or progressive glasses, or regular glasses for distance and
readers for reading. Obviously everyones result won't be the same, some
won't get a good result. It took three or four sets of trail and error
to find the right prescription, but as they say, if I had not tried
fitting them and gone beyond the first set I would not have had the
good result from these lenes.

--
Charles

On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 17:13:02 -0400, Charles <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Anon E. Muss
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> The way I explain the sort of vision a patient would get is that it
>> reduces a patient's distance vision by 20% to give them an 80%
>> improvement up close.
>
>I am using the B&L Softlens Multifocals and have pretty good distance
>vision, 20/20 in my right eye and slightly less in my left eye. I am
>happy with the combined distant vision which is very clear. I would say
>I have 95% or more distance. Up close I can read everything, books,
>newspapers, computer screen, etc. without readers. So I call that 100%.

Clarity is a very subjective thing.

Either you aren't super critical about your vision and are very
content with functional vision, or you just had a much better than
average response to the contact lenses.

Either way, you are a happy patient which is very important.

>My vision is much better with these multifocal contacts than with
>bi-focal or progressive glasses, or regular glasses for distance and
>readers for reading. Obviously everyones result won't be the same, some
>won't get a good result. It took three or four sets of trail and error
>to find the right prescription, but as they say, if I had not tried
>fitting them and gone beyond the first set I would not have had the
>good result from these lenes.

That is a good point.

Patients need to be prepared up front (as far as time and cost) that
it might take several trial pairs to get the best combination that
works best for them.

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Anon E. Moose
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Either you aren't super critical about your vision and are very
> content with functional vision, or you just had a much better than
> average response to the contact lenses.

I am super critical about my vision. My sister is wearing the same
lenses and so is my second cousins wife. They are happy with the lenses
too. But that is a small sample. Those of you who are in the vision
practice no doubt have experience with the average response. I don't.
It does seem these lenses are more difficult to fit that the average
Optometrist might not be as up on it as they are with standard lenses.

--
Charles

Anon E. Muss wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 12:00:40 +0100, Ann <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>> Can someone tell me what progressive contact lenses are
>> like?
>
> I can tell you what it's NOT like. It doesn't give you
> the type of vision you had before you were presbyopic.
>
>> What sort of vision can you get from them?
>
> In nearly every case, I am able to give someone
> "functional" vision.
>
> Functional vision means that if somehow these contact
> lenses were permanently glued to your eyes so you
> couldn't remove them, you would be able to function. You
> would be able to see well enough to pass the driving
> test, and you would be able to read magazine type print
> in good light. You wouldn't need a white cane or a dog,
> and (with time) you would adapt and be able to perform
> most jobs.
>
> The way I explain the sort of vision a patient would get
> is that it reduces a patient's distance vision by 20% to
> give them an 80% improvement up close. IOW, if you see
> great far away, but extremely blurred up close without
> glasses, you will see not quite as clear far away with
> the contacts, but you will see much better up close.
>
> Although this vision is functional, many (if not most)
> patients are unhappy because they would rather have
> crystal clear vision with glasses versus functional
> vision with contacts. Multifocal contact lenses, like
> glasses, are a compromise and not a cure or a treatment
> that makes you see like you did when you had a ton of
> accommodation.

You should iterate the various solutions for presbyopes.
The OP did say progressive and you seem to be refering
to multifocals but I'm wearing translating trifocals and I'm
thrilled.

-Quick

In article <170620062305255820%(E-Mail Removed)>,
Charles <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Anon E. Moose
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > Either you aren't super critical about your vision and are very
> > content with functional vision, or you just had a much better than
> > average response to the contact lenses.
>
> I am super critical about my vision. My sister is wearing the same
> lenses and so is my second cousins wife. They are happy with the lenses
> too. But that is a small sample. Those of you who are in the vision
> practice no doubt have experience with the average response. I don't.
> It does seem these lenses are more difficult to fit that the average
> Optometrist might not be as up on it as they are with standard lenses.

And the "new and improved" version, Purevision Multifocal is simply
awesome. It is essentially the same design as the old Soflens
Multiifocal in the Purevision silicone material. In the few months that
they've been available, my user group, now numbering a couple of dozen
(including myself), are 100% "functionally satisfied" with the majority
achieving 20/20 or better distance vision and perfect near and
intermediate acuity.

It is indeed true that some people will not achieve the same "crystal
clear" distance vision as with single vision lenses, but the gap is
clearly (pun intended) narrowing.

Significant stigmatism can be a deal breaker for some. Multifocal,
astigmatism correcting soft lenses are manufactured by only a few
companies. I have had mixed success with those. The vast majority of
patients are functionally very happy with them and some do indeed
achieve a good 20/20 acuity. Not all. They are more difficult to fit and
more costly.

Many practitioners are still unaware of the PV Multifocal as the company
has only in the last few weeks begun actively marketing them. B&L is not
the only company manufacturing excellent soft lens multifocals but
thusfar the only one in silicone hydrogel offering extended wear
capabilities. Additionally, there are RGP multifocals that for some
people can offer outstanding optics.

As to functionality, Dr. Anon, as far as I'm concerned, soft and RGP
multifocals are a considerable step up from spectacle progressive
additional lenses. My vision may not be exactly as it was 20 years ago,
but it's pretty damn close, 24/7. If more people were aware of
multifocal lenses and more practitioners actively fit them, I think you
see a booming boomer contact lens market.

LB, O.D.

On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 03:40:06 GMT, LarryDoc <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>In article <170620062305255820%(E-Mail Removed)>,
> Charles <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Anon E. Moose
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> > Either you aren't super critical about your vision and are very
>> > content with functional vision, or you just had a much better than
>> > average response to the contact lenses.
>>
>> I am super critical about my vision. My sister is wearing the same
>> lenses and so is my second cousins wife. They are happy with the lenses
>> too. But that is a small sample. Those of you who are in the vision
>> practice no doubt have experience with the average response. I don't.
>> It does seem these lenses are more difficult to fit that the average
>> Optometrist might not be as up on it as they are with standard lenses.
>
>And the "new and improved" version, Purevision Multifocal is simply
>awesome. It is essentially the same design as the old Soflens
>Multiifocal in the Purevision silicone material. In the few months that
>they've been available, my user group, now numbering a couple of dozen
>(including myself), are 100% "functionally satisfied" with the majority
>achieving 20/20 or better distance vision and perfect near and
>intermediate acuity.
>
>It is indeed true that some people will not achieve the same "crystal
>clear" distance vision as with single vision lenses, but the gap is
>clearly (pun intended) narrowing.
>
>Significant stigmatism can be a deal breaker for some. Multifocal,
>astigmatism correcting soft lenses are manufactured by only a few
>companies. I have had mixed success with those. The vast majority of
>patients are functionally very happy with them and some do indeed
>achieve a good 20/20 acuity. Not all. They are more difficult to fit and
>more costly.
>
>Many practitioners are still unaware of the PV Multifocal as the company
>has only in the last few weeks begun actively marketing them. B&L is not
>the only company manufacturing excellent soft lens multifocals but
>thusfar the only one in silicone hydrogel offering extended wear
>capabilities. Additionally, there are RGP multifocals that for some
>people can offer outstanding optics.
>
>As to functionality, Dr. Anon, as far as I'm concerned, soft and RGP
>multifocals are a considerable step up from spectacle progressive
>additional lenses. My vision may not be exactly as it was 20 years ago,
>but it's pretty damn close, 24/7. If more people were aware of
>multifocal lenses and more practitioners actively fit them, I think you
>see a booming boomer contact lens market.

Sounds promising from what most have said. I only have one eye which
is where my problems begin. I can't use progressive glasses, they
were hopeless, just not enough area of useful vision, and I can't
carry on with two pairs of glasses. It just doesn't work. I've taken
to wearing the reading glasses all the time and putting up with blur
in the distance but that is now becoming a problem. I need to do
something. I will phone round on Monday and find someone who can
help.

I have a daft problem in that I don't mind it taking time to find
something that works but I always feel like I'm a bother if I have to
go back and say they don't work or are uncomfortable. I gave up
contacts years ago because I didn't want to keep going back. I just
feel like I'm being a trouble. I suppose I shall just have to get
over that :-)

Ann

On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 03:35:09 GMT, "Quick"
<quick7135-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>You should iterate the various solutions for presbyopes.
>The OP did say progressive and you seem to be refering
>to multifocals but I'm wearing translating trifocals and I'm
>thrilled.

That would be very useful. I didn't know there were so many different
options.

Ann

In article <larrybic-(E-Mail Removed)>, LarryDoc
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> And the "new and improved" version, Purevision Multifocal is simply
> awesome. It is essentially the same design as the old Soflens
> Multiifocal in the Purevision silicone material. In the few months that
> they've been available, my user group, now numbering a couple of dozen
> (including myself), are 100% "functionally satisfied" with the majority
> achieving 20/20 or better distance vision and perfect near and
> intermediate acuity.

It is good to hear those are awesome. I am waiting to finish my last
boxes of Softlens and then will have those fitted. Are you and your
user group wearing the Purevision overnite?

--
Charles

Ann wrote:
> Can someone tell me what progressive contact lenses are like? What
> sort of vision can you get from them? Is it the same as glasses with
> blur each side or are they pretty clear all across?
>
> Also can they also be for astigmatism or is that asking too much?
>
> Ann

Most multifocal soft lenses work on the principle of concentric optics.
As such, the results are very pupil dependent. As well, early
prebyopes who require the least amount of near correction seem to do
the best. I fit lots of progressive contact lenses, and I would be
very sceptical of promises of 100% success. The fact is that some
patients will do better with monovision.

To my knowledge, I believe that there is only one company making a
toric multifocal contact lens for astigmatism. I wear contact lenses
for distance, and progressive eyeglasses for reading because I hate
compromised vision.

DrG