Crystalens, Adaptation and Results

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by JimC, May 24, 2007.

  1. JimC

    JimC Guest

    One more time. - (I don't have the time or training to read through and
    evaluate a number of technical articles.) - My ophthalmologist has
    suggested the Crystalens as providing some degree of accommodation for
    my presbyoptic condition. (I'm considering cataract surgery because of
    difficulty in seeing under any degree of background glare due to
    crystallization in the lens(?) and also, highly variable eyesight. I
    also seem to be unable to read most traffic signs clearly enough to
    respond safely.) Note that I don't expect to be able to read small
    print without glasses (reading glasses are OK with me), but I would like
    to be able to see both distant and mid-distance objects (e.g., 6 - 25
    feet) clearly. I sense that some patients and practitioners don't think
    the benefits offered by the Crystalens are worth the extra cost. -
    However, I do note that they are FDA approved. According to one report:

    "In the FDA clinical trials it was found that a vast majority, but
    not all, patients implanted with a Crystalens accommodating IOL achieved
    a measurable improvement in accommodation. It was also indicated that
    the Crystalens provided vision quality equal to or better than a
    conventional IOL..."

    As understood, it takes a substantial period of time, e.g., six to eight
    months, for many patients to accomplish adaptation to the Crystalens
    lenses. Does anyone have information (readily available and
    understandable to a layman) concerning typical results for patients WHO
    HAVE GONE THROUGH SUCH AN EXTENDED ADAPTATION PERIOD? Also, what
    negative factors should I be aware of concerning such adaptive lenses?
    For example, do they limit or restrict vision at night? (I'm into
    amateur astronomy, in which the pupils may expand to 6-7 mm during night
    viewing.)

    Thanks,
    Jim
     
    JimC, May 24, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. JimC

    Jane Guest

    According to the EyeQ Report of the 2007 ASCRS Symposium, when
    cataract surgeons were asked which multifocal/accommodating lens they
    would choose in their own eyes, the Crystalens received the most votes
    (and the ReZoom the least). Sales of the Crystalens are reported to
    be on the rise, probably because of the many problems associated with
    the other multifocal options (least of which is that apparently some
    people can never neuroadapt to them).

    My knowledge about all of these IOLs is limited to what I have read in
    online articles and forums. It seems to me that the biggest
    disadvantages of the Crystalens is the rather steep out-of-pocket
    expense and the possibility that the accommodation feature won't
    work. Reportedly most surgeons incorporate a slight monovision effect
    with the Crystalens, aiming for about -.75D in the nondominant eye.
    Therefore you are very likely to end up with good distance and
    intermediate vision. (Of course, you could always get monovision with
    monofocal IOLs and save on the "premium" IOL surcharge.) Adaptation
    to the Crystalens is reported to be much shorter than adaptation to
    the multifocals. The Crystalens is probably a poor choice for someone
    with a history of retinal disease.

    Best of luck with your surgery.
     
    Jane, May 24, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. JimC

    JimC Guest

    Thanks for the helpful comments.

    Jim
     
    JimC, May 24, 2007
    #3
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.