Some people think theres something wrong with my eyes!

Discussion in 'Eye-Care' started by acemanvx, Nov 21, 2005.

  1. acemanvx

    acemanvx Guest

    Two things:

    1. Do I have presbyopia or not? My symptoms are in line with this
    condition that occurs most often at ages 35-40. I am a little younger
    than that at 23 but I have trouble seeing from near with
    glasses/contacts. I have +2.5 diopters of accomodation meaning I can
    barely see down to 16 inches with my glasses on, any closer and it
    becomes blurry. Forget seeing fine print with glasses. My nearpoint
    test is 20/40 with glasses. I guess my presbyopia would be mild
    accroding to the nearpoint snellen. However I can see much better from
    near with weaker glasses or without them. With contacts I use reading
    glasses to make things from near clear(er)

    2. People keep saying my 20/30 BCVA with -5 glasses isnt "perfect"
    vision. I was talking to a lady and she knows many others not
    correctable to 20/20 either. I told her theres many factors that
    determine one's BCVA such as astigmastims, high order abberations, how
    bad your vision is, how much your pescription glasses minify, the shape
    and optics of your eyes and retina. Some people see better than 20/20,
    does this make those 20/20 abnormal? Why is it dictated that you "must"
    have perfect vision with(out) correction or something is "wrong"
    To my knowlege, I have no pathalogies. My entire family is in glasses
    and only my brother and sister get close to 20/20 with glasses, but
    brother is only a -1 with slight astigmastim and sisters about a -3
    with slight astigmastim as well. I am much more myopic at -4.5 to -5

    3. My online friend discussed wavefront RGP contacts. I know its true
    RGP contacts provide the sharpest vision so I have a good chance of
    achieving 20/20, especially with custom wavefront RGP contacts made to
    fit my cornea perfectly. This will reduce my dependancy on glasses but
    ill still need reading glasses over them for near work. I also dont
    know how comfortable they are but she says much more than your basic
    soft contacts which are a one size fit all.
     
    acemanvx, Nov 21, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. acemanvx

    Dick Adams Guest

    Aceman, with regard to your message:
    No doubt you'll be told that presbyopia (old-age vision) at age 39 is
    not highly possible.

    It might be useful to understand that the 20|XX nomenclature basically
    describes your visual accuity in terms of what particular lines of characters
    you can read on a standard chart at some standard distance (near or far).

    It would be helpful to know what your correction for distance is. Seems
    you are saying that you need -5.0 diopters for each of your eyes. Do
    you know if you require correction for some astigmatism?
    Possibly you are in need of a second opinion from an O.D. or
    opthamologist. If your vision, at your age, or any other age for that
    matter, should not be correctable to any better than 20|40, it should
    be possible to know the reason(s?) for it.
    If, as you have mentioned, your eyes are capable of accomdating through
    a range of 2.5 diopters, you should be able, with proper eyeglasses, to
    focus your eyes down to a close distance of 1/2.5M, which comes, in
    inches to about 16, as you have mentioned. Corrected, you should have
    the same visual accuity at 16 inches as you have at virtual infinity (e.g., 20 feet).
    To bring things at reading distance into sharp focus, hopefully. Clear
    could mean other things, like less foggy, for instance.
    I don't know what BCVA means (binocular corrected visual accuity?).
    Shit, eyeglasses do not "minify".
    Before undertaking higher-order solutions, it would be wise to know for
    sure that your eyes cannot be corrected by ordinary eyeglasses, and why.
    Decent inexpensive ordinary eyeglasses for five-diopter myopes are not
    beyond possibility.
    At your age, you should be able to read with the same eyeglasses you
    use for distance vision. Using "the Plus", as Otis recommends, namely
    using reading glasses with about two diopters positive sphere added to
    you distance correction, might make your reading more comfortable,
    and might possibly forestall myopic progression, if you have a tendency
    towards that.

    I am not an eye doctor, but I am not stupid.
     
    Dick Adams, Nov 21, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. No, by definition, you do NOT have presbyopia.

    I have +2.5 diopters of accomodation meaning I can
    Something is wrong with your glasses, or you have "accommodative
    insufficiency".

    However I can see much better from
    Sounds like you've found a solution on your own.
    If your BCVA at FAR distance is 20/30, then something is wrong. At your
    age you should see 20/15 best corrected. Yes, any time I examine a
    young person who can only get 20/20 best corrected, I take a close look,
    because I "expect" to find 20/15, so in a sense you could say 20/20 can
    be an "abnormal" finding.


    Why is it dictated that you "must"
    It is dictated only in that the vast majority (probably over 90%) of
    young adults without ocular pathology are correctible to 20/15 vision.
    If you're in that age group and can't "get 20/15", I'd be looking for
    something. Sometimes we can't find it, but usually we can.

    RGPs may well be a good solution for you, but I'd still want to know the
    reason you aren't getting 20/20 or better. I suspect a bad refraction,
    and would recommend you discontinue contact lens wear for a week prior
    to your next eye exam in order to get the best refractive result.

    w.stacy, o.d.
     
    William Stacy, Nov 21, 2005
    #3
  4. acemanvx

    CatmanX Guest

    As discussed at alt.lasik.eyes, you need to get your eyes tested
    properly.

    Your idea of your prescription being -4.5 and -5 was based on your
    farpoint without glasses on - not remotely reliable. You may well be
    overvorrected, have accommodative insufficiency, convergence
    insufficiency, form fruste keratoconus, congenital cataract,
    Stargarde's syndrome or any of a litany of other problems ( that will
    give you something else to worry about).

    Online advice will be flawed due to lack of any real clinical findings,
    sort of like the mother of a patient I saw yesterday who mentioned she
    may have keratoconus, but probably not as it wasn't getting worse. Her
    doctor lead her to believe she would go blind if it were KC, so as she
    wasn't blind, it mustn't be??? Can't work out the logic there
    somehow!!! The thing was she had not had topography and no clear
    diagnosis had ever been made.

    Spend a little money, go see a good optometrist or ophthal who will
    assess your problem and give you a correct diagnosis and treatment.

    dr grant
     
    CatmanX, Nov 21, 2005
    #4
  5. acemanvx

    acemanvx Guest

    "No doubt you'll be told that presbyopia (old-age vision) at age 39 is
    not highly possible."

    presbyopia can come at any age, but its common starting in your late
    30s


    "It would be helpful to know what your correction for distance is.
    Seems
    you are saying that you need -5.0 diopters for each of your eyes. Do
    you know if you require correction for some astigmatism?"


    my vision fluctuates but 7 months ago my pescription was -5.5 sphere,
    -.5 cylindar in OS and -5 sphere in OD correctable to 20/30 in each
    eye. He made me guess the 20/25 line and I got some right. I mean I can
    tell the difference between an F and an O but I guessed between an F
    and a P or an O and a C for example. I did read all of the 20/30 line
    rapidly and easily and missed none.

    "Corrected, you should have
    the same visual accuity at 16 inches as you have at virtual infinity
    (e.g., 20 feet)."

    only with bifocals or two seperate pairs of glasses. I dont do bifocals
    so I have a -3.25 pair I am using now as I type this.


    "I don't know what BCVA means (binocular corrected visual accuity?).
    Shit, eyeglasses do not "minify"."


    best corrected vision accurity. Glasses DO minify at 2% each minus
    diopter, plus magnifies by 2% each plus diopter. Were talking 10%
    smaller thru my -5 glasses which is enough minification to easily make
    half a line difference. Give me contact lenses and ill be seeing most
    or even all of the 20/25 line.

    "it would be wise to know for
    sure that your eyes cannot be corrected by ordinary eyeglasses, and
    why."


    They cant. No optometrist was able to refract me better than 20/30. I
    still wonder how some people can see 20/20 I mean those letters are
    very tiny! Why? I believe its high order abberations. Do some reading
    on this

    "At your age, you should be able to read with the same eyeglasses you
    use for distance vision."


    itll make me more myopic and its much easier to read without correction
    anyway


    "No, by definition, you do NOT have presbyopia."

    the symptoms are like it.

    "If your BCVA at FAR distance is 20/30, then something is wrong. At
    your
    age you should see 20/15 best corrected. Yes, any time I examine a
    young person who can only get 20/20 best corrected, I take a close
    look,
    because I "expect" to find 20/15, so in a sense you could say 20/20 can

    be an "abnormal" finding."


    supposedly 20/20 is perfect vision. There are a number of people with
    very perfect optics capable of better than 20/20, many are emmetropes
    or low myopes/hyperopes. I would love to see 20/15 this is super, super
    clear!


    "It is dictated only in that the vast majority (probably over 90%) of
    young adults without ocular pathology are correctible to 20/15 vision.
    If you're in that age group and can't "get 20/15", I'd be looking for
    something. Sometimes we can't find it, but usually we can."

    then by definition most people have some sort of occular pathology,
    most likley high order abberations. Most eyes arent perfect. Please
    read this link:


    http://www.grendahl.com/wavefront/wavefront_system.html

    Some people have more of those, others have less. I have more than
    average because at night I can see a "glow" around lights and lots of
    small starbursts around the lights and several large starbursts that
    point for long distances. Its not as bad as some who got lasik. No
    surgury has been performed, I have virgin corneas, just more HOAs than
    some.


    "RGPs may well be a good solution for you"

    they are famous for providing exceptionally crisp vision. Some
    optometrists said they can give me plano RGPs than perform a refraction
    over me and see if my BCVA improves. If so, this will rule the fact I
    have a bunch of HOAs.
     
    acemanvx, Nov 21, 2005
    #5
  6. acemanvx

    Dick Adams Guest

    Yeah, I was never happy with bifocals. Well, it seems to me your
    eyes are different enough so your reading glasses could have different
    prescriptions for the two lenses.
    That's sure news to me. My eyes have been as much as 5D apart, but
    I have never noticed that my eyeglasses have made things 10% smaller
    on one side. It seems to me that the effect might depend on how well
    the eyeglasses are fitted. There should be an optimum distance between
    the cornea and the inner surface of the lens. But it is doubtful if that fact,
    if true, is respected by eyeglass fitters in general.
    You have given a reference to a very fancy machine, namely
    http://www.grendahl.com/wavefront/wavefront_system.html
    No doubt high order aberrations are measurable in most eyes, but
    I will bet that they are usually not serious enough so that 20|20
    acuity, or even 20|15, can be achieved in most cases with the usual
    corrections (sphere and cylinder).
    With myopic error of 5 or 6 D, you'll be reading pretty close. It
    is beginning to sound like you may have idiot-prescribed eyeglasses.

    Yes, I believe that it is a good idea not to try to read through the
    same eyeglasses as one uses for distance vision. Otis believes that
    too, I guess, assuming I understand what he is talking about. Sooner
    or later you will not be able to do it even if you want to.
    Through my lifetime experience, I have come to believe that many,
    if not most, have imperfect eye doctors. For years, I have needed to
    contest approximately every other refraction, frequently having to pay
    for new lenses. Errors were typically a half-diopter. I had one idiot
    Dr. for several years who used to always say something like "with
    your eyes, I can only correct you to 20|30. In that office, the refractions
    were done by Dr.-trained technicians. One lady there could show
    me the 20|15 line through the phoropter. But she did not last.

    It is actually a much longer story than that. I have kept a log of my experience
    with eyeglasses for over 50 years.
    Well, either you are looking through naked quite myopic eyes or through
    ~ -5D eyeglasses. Either way, you will see some weird effects.

    Possibly you have some pathology that is not refractive.
    That is a good way to keep it.
    This HOA thing may simply be a sales ploy from some guy who
    has an expensive gadget that most eye guys can not afford.
    Well, I guess that an RGP is some kind of fancy contact lens. It
    certainly would seem that contact lenses would tell you if your problems
    have to do with the shape of your corneas. But, if that is all you want
    to find out, you do not need fancy ones. But, while you are at it, why
    not get some that correct your spherical refractive error as well as your
    astigmatism (and other possible signficant corneal irregularity)?
     
    Dick Adams, Nov 22, 2005
    #6
  7. acemanvx

    acemanvx Guest

    "That's sure news to me. My eyes have been as much as 5D apart, but
    I have never noticed that my eyeglasses have made things 10% smaller
    on one side. It seems to me that the effect might depend on how well
    the eyeglasses are fitted. There should be an optimum distance between

    the cornea and the inner surface of the lens. But it is doubtful if
    that fact,
    if true, is respected by eyeglass fitters in general."


    you probably have special lenses or the lenses are different indexes or
    vertex distances to reduce anisometropia. Look at something large, like
    a tree without glasses then put them on. The tree is now clear and
    appears smaller in size. To me, its 10% smaller but high myopes have it
    much worse.

    "I will bet that they are usually not serious enough so that 20|20
    acuity, or even 20|15, can be achieved in most cases with the usual
    corrections (sphere and cylinder)."


    With all the talk how much HOAs affect vision, especially at night,
    those do matter! Point in proof, I made a tiny pinhole in a piece of
    paper and placed it in front of my glasses and I could see all of the
    20/25 line without very much trouble. The contrast improved quite a
    bit, something HOAs are famous for....reduced contrast. The letters
    became really black thru a pinhole. The minification my -5 glasses do
    make the 20/20 line too small unless I step closer so im 16/20 which is
    basically 20/25. Tilting my glasses does nothing so its not any
    undercorrection.


    "With myopic error of 5 or 6 D, you'll be reading pretty close. It
    is beginning to sound like you may have idiot-prescribed eyeglasses."


    8 inches focal point at -5d


    "Errors were typically a half-diopter. I had one idiot
    Dr. for several years who used to always say something like "with
    your eyes, I can only correct you to 20|30. In that office, the
    refractions
    were done by Dr.-trained technicians. One lady there could show
    me the 20|15 line through the phoropter. But she did not last."


    wow whats your pescription? If he could only get you to 20/30 hes
    undercorrecting you by as much as -1 diopters! You should find an
    optometrist that says "which is better, one or two" not one who chooses
    himself, you need to choose. All my optometrists kept flipping lenses
    and the best one gave me 20/30. He kept trying to correct me better but
    HOAs arent correctable.


    "This HOA thing may simply be a sales ploy from some guy who
    has an expensive gadget that most eye guys can not afford."

    HOAs are a true thing and many people have about 10% HOAs. I probably
    have 20% or more. Did you know the human retina is capable of vision
    anywhere from 20/10 to better than 20/5? Theoratically, its possible to
    achieve 20/5 vision in some humans if you do away with all low and high
    order abberations and they have perfect retinas, corneas, lens, perfect
    optics. This is what a hawk sees! All humans with healthy retinas,
    corneas, eyes are capable of better than 20/15 vision.

    Heres some quotes I found from the internet:


    20/12 vision approaches the theoretical limit that the human eye is
    capable of seeing. We rarely attain 20/12, or even 20/15 vision with
    glasses or contacts!


    Realizing that 20/20 does not represent perfect vision is important
    because many young healthy adults have visual acuities of 20/15 to
    20/12. If optical aberrations in the eye could be eliminated, the
    theoretical limit of foveal acuity would be 20/12 for a small pupil and
    up to 20/5 for a dilated pupil.


    The theoretical limit of visual acuity is about 20/5. But current
    technology, including laser surgery, cannot correct for all of the
    eye's aberrations. Until recently, it was difficult to detect many of
    these flaws. With the emergence of new computer modeling approaches and
    optical technologies, however, researchers speculate that laser surgery
    will soon be refined to yield 20/10 in most patients. To succeed will
    require a unique melding of biology and engineering.


    There! Even a 20/20 eye has HOAs holding him back from 20/10 or better.
    I just have more HOAs than you.


    I have told my dad about getting custom wavefront RGP contacts but he
    does not believe in them and thinks its an expensive gimmic. I said I
    have a high likehood of achieving perfect 20/20 with them, a full 2
    lines better than with my best glasses and 3-4 lines more than my other
    glasses.
     
    acemanvx, Nov 22, 2005
    #7
  8. acemanvx

    Dan Abel Guest


    That's interesting. Are you just blind in one eye, or both?


    :-(

    I'm an old guy, too. I didn't used to be, though. I used to be able to
    do a lot of stuff that I can't anymore.


    They're all quacks. Don't go to them. They'll be a lot happier if you
    don't. I'm pretty easy to get along with. Sometimes a doctor doesn't
    work out. I change doctors. I don't continue to see them for "years".

    You do an awful lot of "seeming". I'm not sure that you and Otis are
    very qualified to give medical advice. I post a lot here. I post about
    my own experiences as a patient. I don't tell people what to do. I'm
    not qualified. I tell them to see an eye doctor.
     
    Dan Abel, Nov 23, 2005
    #8
  9. acemanvx

    Dick Adams Guest

    "Dan Abel" <> in message
    said to me:
    I am qualified to say how things seem to me. Otis is on his own.
    Could you consider yourself a consumer of medical services?
    "Consumer" implies a bit gutsier stance. "Patient" is very passive
    and accepting. You might consider the role of "patient advocate".
    Deep down, it seems you are a teller, albeit admittedly unqualified.

    Could you tell them which one to see? -How to know the difference
    between a good one and a not-so-good one?

    That would be a useful post!
     
    Dick Adams, Nov 23, 2005
    #9
  10. acemanvx

    acemanvx Guest

    well this is just in. I showed a prominent doctor near me my
    topographies and he says I have irregularities. I was right, my high
    order abberations is holding me back. If my corneas were more perfect I
    would be seeing 20/25 and if they were nearly perfect, id see 20/20! He
    told me I should experience much better vision than I ever have with
    custom zwave RGP contacts. I see no reason I wont achieve 20/20(or even
    better!) with those if theres nothing wrong with my eyes or retina. I
    can be pinholed to 20/25 and thats WITH the minification glasses give
    me! Those contacts dont minify so letters wont be as tiny. There are
    people seeing 20/20 in spite of glasses minification but the higher
    their pescription, the fewer will see 20/20 due to the artificial
    limits of glasses due to minification. I know one lady whos -10 and
    shes at the point where she can no longer see 20/20 with glasses but
    with contacts 20/20 is easy to see.

    I know for a fact my eyes are capable of 20/25 with -5 glasses and a
    pinhole. Due to glasses minification, they cost me half a line. Higher
    pescriptions may cost a line, a line and a half or even more! I know
    one guy who had a very high pescription and was seeing 20/40 with
    glasses, 20/25 with RGP contacts! glasses+pinhole probably wont be as
    sharp as RGP contacts. I am guaranteed to see 100% of the 20/25 line
    easy and clear and nearly guaranteed to see 20/20 as well. Depending
    how well those RGP reduce my HOA's, I may actually see better than
    20/20!
     
    acemanvx, Nov 23, 2005
    #10
  11. acemanvx

    Dick Adams Guest

    They all say that. That is their game. Then they say "I have to believe what
    you tell me". They say that when you get the wrong prescription.
    Let me tell you this bit of personal experience. Very recently I got an IOL
    implant, on account of cataract. Several weeks after, the surgeon's tech
    checked my eye and said I'd need 0.5D, O.5D @ 75, but it was not time
    yet for new eyeglasses. With that I saw the 20|15 line.

    I need to see signs for night driving, so went to another eye doctor for a
    temporary lens. He said the best he could do for me was 20|25. When
    he was doing the "this ..., or this?" thing, I was looking at pretty much equal
    blur. He did his stuff three times, and got the following three results:

    1.) -0.50, -1.25 @ 070
    2.) -0.00, -0.75 @ 050
    3.) +0.25, -1.00 @ 060

    For some reason, he figured the last was the right one.

    I suppose he could have invoked variable HOA's but I don't think he knows
    about them. Well, anyway, nuts to him. Now I have had both eyes done,
    and eyeglasses prescribed (for reading and for night driving) by the techs in
    the surgeon's office.
    Even with my old retinas and new implants, I can do 20|15 with just a bit of
    correction. Get around mostly without glasses. Read fine with +1.25 Walgreens.
    I'd recommend going very slow on that. There is a considerable potential
    downside to laser surgery, any eye surgery.
    I am tempted to say HOAgwash!
    You might do well with contacts, particularly if you do athletics. But I
    would bet that the more expensive ones will not be much better for you than
    the run of the mill. You might find that you do not like them. They are a
    big pain in the ass, you know. Mostly they are for vain ladies.

    Well, Patient Abel does not think I should be giving advice. But I think
    that I can reasonably say that, if it were a matter in my family, I would thoroughly
    investigate the possibility of attaining 20|20 or better with ordinary eyeglasses.
    And, if that were not possible, I would like to hear a better explanation than
    HOA's.

    I guess maybe now would be a good time for some of the good eye doctors
    to step forward and throw some light on this matter of HOA's.

    Now I see your most recent post:
    It could be that you are being hustled. Even if you need contacts for your
    particular problem (assuming you do in fact have that problem), you do not
    need top-of-the line contacts to find out if they are good for you.
     
    Dick Adams, Nov 23, 2005
    #11
  12. acemanvx

    Dick Adams Guest

    Oops...
    -0.50D, -0.50D @75
     
    Dick Adams, Nov 23, 2005
    #12
  13. acemanvx

    Dan Abel Guest


    I wore contacts for 10 years. I am not a vain lady. I resisted them
    for decades, but was finally convinced that I needed them for best
    vision, not because I looked better in them. There are different sorts
    of contacts. Some are more expensive than others because they work
    differently. RGPs may be more expensive, but they aren't just "top of
    the line" or a gimmick.

    I don't need contacts anymore. I don't wear them anymore. Contacts are
    the way to go for some people. I recommend them highly for those
    people. I'm no longer one of those people. I had cataract surgery in
    both eyes, and occasionally wear glasses.
     
    Dan Abel, Nov 23, 2005
    #13
  14. acemanvx

    acemanvx Guest

    "They all say that. That is their game. Then they say "I have to
    believe what
    you tell me". They say that when you get the wrong prescription."


    then they are incompetent and need to go back to training school if
    they cant even properly refract their patients!


    "He said the best he could do for me was 20|25. When
    he was doing the "this ..., or this?" thing, I was looking at pretty
    much equal
    blur. He did his stuff three times, and got the following three
    results:"


    hes incompentant, plain and simple. Tell him that the refractions he
    was doing was not helping to resolve your 20/25 UCVA into 20/15 BCVA.
    Ask to be refracted by autorefractor so he can get an idea of your
    minimal residual pescription for night driving.


    "Even with my old retinas and new implants, I can do 20|15 with just a
    bit of
    correction. Get around mostly without glasses. Read fine with +1.25
    Walgreens."


    your 20/25 UCVA is better than my 20/30 BCVA. I get around fine with
    20/40 vision which my -4.25 glasses give, yes they undercorrect me by
    about half a diopter but my pescribed -5.5 glasses make me dizzy and
    make things blurry from nearer. They are too strong(now) because my
    eyes have become less myopic(pseudomyopia resolving) I need to get a
    new manual(and cycoplegic) refraction then ill order glasses based on
    my cycoplegic refraction since this is my real myopia. My brother is
    only a -1 with -.5 astigmastim so he gets around fine with 20/60 UCVA.
    Glasses dont make a big difference(20/20 to 20/25) so he only wears
    them for driving.
    you have a small amount of myopia left so this is why you get by fine
    with +1.25 readers. With my contact lenses in, I find things from near
    very clear with +2.5 readers. I can read clearly with +1.25s too if I
    do a little accomodating.

    You see 20/15 because you dont have alot of HOAs in the way. Most of
    them are on the cornea itself but whatever HOAs and imperfectations
    your natural lense had is gone. Your IOLs are of highest quality so
    they give you very clean, sharp vision.


    "I'd recommend going very slow on that. There is a considerable
    potential
    downside to laser surgery, any eye surgery."

    correct. My next step is to try those custom zwave contact lenses. My
    friend(s) have told me this will provide me with better vision than
    anything else out there, including any refractive surgury. They are
    supposed to be much easier to tolerate than soft lenses and forgiving
    of dry eyes. I will wear those lenses as much as I can and if they are
    comfortable, ill wear them full time. I will need a 2nd pescription
    with less minus power for around the house and the computer. Ill wear
    the full power when I go out and if theres any reading to do, ill bring
    my reading glasses. By the time I get cateracts, technology will be so
    advanced ill be seeing perfect with IOLs in.

    "I am tempted to say HOAgwash!"


    HOAs are a fact otherwise RGP lenses wouldnt provide much better vision
    than glasses and soft contacts. I have shown my topography to several
    doctors and they agreed I have HOAs and irregular astigmastim.


    "But I
    would bet that the more expensive ones will not be much better for you
    than
    the run of the mill"


    I can not tolerate soft contacts, they dry ny eyes out. RGP contacts
    arent supposed to because they do not absorb your tears and evaporate
    them. I cant get 20/20 with soft contacts either.


    "You might find that you do not like them. They are a
    big pain in the ass, you know. Mostly they are for vain ladies."

    RGP contacts are superior to the soft kind. I got an 18 year old friend
    who wears them and he looooooooooves them and can see near the bottom
    of the snellen with those. I am not vain but for a change, I want to
    reduce my dependancy on glasses!


    "I would thoroughly
    investigate the possibility of attaining 20|20 or better with ordinary
    eyeglasses.
    And, if that were not possible, I would like to hear a better
    explanation than
    HOA's."

    There is NO way im gonna see 20/20 with glasses. I cant even pinhole
    myself to 20/20! Many of my HOAs are in the center of my vision. I see
    20/30(left) 20/30 to 20/40(right) and with a pinhole I can see all of
    20/25 sharply in left and half of the 20/25 in right. Tilting my
    glasses does nothing so I am not undercorrected with those. Its a HOA
    issue which pinholes bypass some of. My mom's BCVA is equal to mine and
    my dad's is 20/25 only because his glasses magnify things. Even my
    brother cant be fully corrected to 20/20! I dont think its that easy to
    see 20/20 with or without correction. This is the pinnicle of perfect
    vision! 20/40 is sharp vision, 20/20 would be VERY, VERY sharp
    vision(sorry lasik guys, your 20/20 is different)


    "you do not
    need top-of-the line contacts to find out if they are good for you."

    soft contacts suck! I could get regular RGP but they wont fit my
    irregular cornea correctly so I need custom zwave contacts.


    "I wore contacts for 10 years. I am not a vain lady. I resisted them
    for decades, but was finally convinced that I needed them for best
    vision, not because I looked better in them."


    you probably were a high myope and hated the cokebottle glasses and how
    they make things considerabily smaller.
     
    acemanvx, Nov 23, 2005
    #14
  15. acemanvx

    Dick Adams Guest

    Looks like you have got your heart set on the custom zwave jobs.
     
    Dick Adams, Nov 23, 2005
    #15
  16. acemanvx

    Dan Abel Guest

    That was part of it. Mainly it was the five years that I was -10d in
    one eye and plano in the other. My doctor promised me that glasses
    would make me see double, and they did. Seeing double is not a good
    thing. Contacts don't have that problem.
     
    Dan Abel, Nov 23, 2005
    #16
  17. acemanvx

    acemanvx Guest

    Dad called the doctor for some questions.

    1. He says he can give me a multifocal lense for my presbyopia. He says
    I will need to hold books half meter from me to see them cleatly. Then
    whats the point of multifocal? I can see half meter with regular
    contacts and full power glasses. Multifocal contacts cost more and if I
    dont like em I lose $400! Ill just get regular contacts and take my
    reading glasses with me so I can read from 12 inches away.
    2. He says he can give me a toric RGP if I have astigmastim? I thought
    you didnt need a special RGP and that it automatically corrected my
    astigmastim? How hard is it to correct astigmastim with a RGP lense
    anyway?
    3. how exactly do you remove a rigid lense? suction cap? Any other way
    to remove?
    4. Theres some confusion about vertex distance. I told him the ratio is
    1.25 and he said thats about right. This means id need -4 contacts if
    my glasses are -5. -4.5 contacts will make things blurry.
    5. he says I should see much better with those RGP than glasses. I will
    only if I get the right pescription, not too strong and if it corrects
    my astigmastim and HOAs.
     
    acemanvx, Nov 23, 2005
    #17
  18. acemanvx

    acemanvx Guest

    http://www.racerocks.com/racerock/firstnations/gazette.jpg

    http://img305.imageshack.us/img305/6809/newspaper27vx.jpg

    The top image is what I see without correction or a low minus lense.
    The bottom image is what I see with my full pescription correction to
    make me plano. If I hold the newspaper at arms length, its clear.
    However I can hold it much closer if I reduce the minus correction. I
    can not get things close enough to see fine print with full correction.
    Therefore if I got contact lenses that fully correct me, I will still
    need reading glasses. I either have early presbyopia at age 23 or I
    have accomodative dysfunction.
     
    acemanvx, Nov 25, 2005
    #18
  19. acemanvx

    Dr. Leukoma Guest


    At 23, you are too young to have presbyopia, which means "old eyes."
    The technical term is "accommodative insufficiency."

    I'm sure you can figure out why 20/20 is considered the "standard."
    It's based upon the normal distribution of visual acuity. Scientists
    who have studied these things say that the average eye is able to
    resolve a visual angle equivalent to 20/6 based upon the retinal
    mosaic. Therefore, the optics of the eye appear to be the limiting
    factor. Of course, retinal and neurological defects can also cause
    subnormal acuity. Obviously, being born with defective optics is a
    much different scenario and has different implications than an acquired
    disease of the retina of optic nerve.
    Yada, yada, yada. There is currently no such thing as a commercially
    available RGP lens based upon wavefront optics. There is something
    with a catchy name having the word "wave" in it that confuses people.
    I think you need to find a good optometrist who is proficient in RGP
    lenses and pay for a consultation. The doctor may, or may not use the
    software with the confusing name. If you are truly wanting the comfort
    of a soft lens with the advantages of an RGP, you will want to check
    out semi-scleral lenses such as Macrolenses. A trial fitting should
    convince you of this without being obligated to purchase the lenses.
    Unfortunately, with some lenses such as those created using software
    with the confusing name and produced by a lab far, far away, you will
    have to pay for the lenses before getting to try them first.

    By the way, you keep repeating that the vertex correction for -5.00 is
    1.25 diopters. It is not. It is 0.25 diopters.

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Nov 25, 2005
    #19
  20. acemanvx

    acemanvx Guest

    "At 23, you are too young to have presbyopia, which means "old eyes."
    The technical term is "accommodative insufficiency."


    either way, this means some myopia is my friend and is whats keeping me
    out of reading glasses. I want to remain myopic but less than the -5 I
    am now. -2 sounds nice right now!


    "I'm sure you can figure out why 20/20 is considered the "standard."
    It's based upon the normal distribution of visual acuity. Scientists
    who have studied these things say that the average eye is able to
    resolve a visual angle equivalent to 20/6 based upon the retinal
    mosaic. Therefore, the optics of the eye appear to be the limiting
    factor. Of course, retinal and neurological defects can also cause
    subnormal acuity. Obviously, being born with defective optics is a
    much different scenario and has different implications than an acquired

    disease of the retina of optic nerve."


    I have researched this and you are right. Its agreed most eyes are
    capable of better than 20/10 if they have no occular pathalogy. Yes
    thats true that 20/20 is the standard of "normal" vision but a good
    percentage of people dont see this well without correction and many
    even with! My mom and dad dont get 20/20 with correction. My brothers
    only a -1 and he can see half of the 20/20 line with BCVA. You got that
    right, the optics of the eye limits almost everyone from seeing their
    best that the retina is capable of. I just happen to have a little more
    optical limitations than "average"


    ". There is currently no such thing as a commercially
    available RGP lens based upon wavefront optics. There is something
    with a catchy name having the word "wave" in it that confuses people."


    zwave custom RGP comes to mind. They say its wavefront customized to
    each individual eye so you will see better than you ever did with
    glasses!


    "I think you need to find a good optometrist who is proficient in RGP
    lenses and pay for a consultation."

    Thats what I want to do. I also want a throught eye exam to find out
    the bottom of my 20/30 BCVA and my "presbyopia" and learn about my
    eyes. There probably is nothing wrong but it would be good to know.

    "A trial fitting should
    convince you of this without being obligated to purchase the lenses.
    Unfortunately, with some lenses such as those created using software
    with the confusing name and produced by a lab far, far away, you will
    have to pay for the lenses before getting to try them first."

    yea thats $300 for both lenses and if I dont like em, too bad.


    "By the way, you keep repeating that the vertex correction for -5.00 is

    1.25 diopters. It is not. It is 0.25 diopters."

    Its not 1.25 diopters, its 1.25 ratio. Multiply your contact
    pescription by 1.25 to arrive at your glasses pescription. My -3.25
    contacts multiplied by 1.25 are equal to -4 glasses(-4.06 actually) I
    own a pair of -3.25 glasses and -4.25 glasses and my -3.25 contacts
    give me very nearly the correction my -4.25 glasses do. I get MUCH more
    correction vs. my -3.25 glasses.
    I have worn -4 multifocal contacts before and they gave me equal vision
    to my -5 glasses. -4.75 contacts would be comparable to -6 glasses and
    overcorrect me by +1 diopters. I have a friend who wears -4.75 contacts
    and her glasses pescription is -6. We both took our glasses off and I
    could see several feet further than she could.
     
    acemanvx, Nov 25, 2005
    #20
    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.