They invented wavefront glasses and claim supervision!

Discussion in 'Glasses' started by acemanvx, Jan 2, 2006.

  1. acemanvx

    acemanvx Guest

    http://www.ophthonix.com/index.asp


    This topic has come up in other forums. Theres alot of skeptics
    reguarding this revolunitory glasses. They said if it worked so well it
    would be all over the country and youd see wavefront glasses offered as
    an option at your local glasses shop. One of my friends told me its a
    gimmic and waste of money. She said at least 5 of her friends tried
    that and none of them were able to notice a difference. Some of them
    had bad experiences with lasik and thought wavefront glasses would help
    with their massive aberrations but it didnt.

    I read that it doesnt work partially because your eyes are constantly
    in motion so the wavefront glasses fails to align with your
    aberrations. For it to work, the wavefront glasses would need a tracker
    to track your eyes movement and rapidly move the thousands of tiny
    mirrors or segments as your eyes move so it aligns with your
    aberrations at all times. Such technology is at least 20 years away I
    heard. Ive also heard of wavefront contacts but we have RGP which
    already do that job. RGP isnt wavefront but what it does is provides a
    rigid, smooth surface over your irregular, aberrated cornea and your
    tears fill in some of the gaps. The result is 50-75% reduction in your
    aberrations because they are being masked by the rigid contacts
    themselves. One guy had severe ghosting and 20/30 after lasik and with
    those RGP the ghosting was almost gone and he could now see 20/20.

    I find the wavefront technology exciting and as the years go by, things
    will keep advancing. Its amazing to imagine oneday almost everyone will
    be corrected to 20/10 with wavefront glasses with very high quality of
    vision too! Todays glasses cant correct your high order aberrations and
    the only thing that can help is RGP contacts and occasionally wavefront
    lasik for the highly aberrated.

    Anyone have comments on the wavefront glasses linked? Do you know
    anyone who tried it and did they see any improvement?
     
    acemanvx, Jan 2, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. acemanvx

    Guest Guest

    Ace,

    What is the purpose of your postings?
    You want to inform the people here, you are a Readers Digest adept?
    Please read the answers provided to you instead of replacing the same issues
    over and over again.
    The following was placed here a few days ago, but as I mentioned before, you
    ask a lot but never read carefully the feedback.
    Please remember this newsgroup is called ''sci.med.vision''
    Most of the people here are certainly NOT interrested in what ''they'' say.


    --
    Free to Marcus Porcius Cato: ''Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"

    In conclusion, I think that the "Otis therapy" should be destroyed

    Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
     
    Guest, Jan 2, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. acemanvx

    crvc Guest

    exciting and as the years go by, things

    I have Opthonix glasses. I had LASIK several years ago and as a
    result I can't drive at night. So I tried the wavefront glasses. I
    found that in bright sunlight they eliminate the halos that glint off
    of chrome or car roofs. But after sundown they don't help much. Not
    nearly as much as RGP lenses help. I went back to the optometrist
    after realizing the wavefront measurements were made in bright room
    light. I asked if it could be redone with my eyes dilated, as they are
    at night. I'd be willing to pay for more glasses, in hopes that it
    would work. He called the guy who developed Opthonix. The answer was
    that the wavefront works off a pre-set pupil distance. If the eye is
    too out of wack, the wavefront won't accept it. But they are working
    on wider pupil versions. The optometrist said he'd be willing to
    dilate my pupils and redo the wavefront exam at no charge, just to see
    if it would work. It's a three-hour drive so I haven't had a chance to
    get back down there yet. I'm still hopeful that the wavefront glasses
    could work. Anything is better than risking another surgery.
     
    crvc, Jan 2, 2006
    #3
  4. acemanvx

    Neil Brooks Guest

    It sounds like the side effects that you were primarily trying to
    minimize are still an issue with the Ophthonix specs--more than they
    are with your RGP's.

    Do you have any impression as to how well they correct your basic
    visual acuity, either relative to your previous glasses or to your
    RGP's?

    In other words: I think I understand what they /didn't/ do for you.
    What /did/ they do for you, if anything.

    Two other questions:

    What did you pay for the Ophthonix lenses (without the frame)?

    What is your basic spectacle prescription, post-LASIK?

    With my vicious propensity toward ciliary spasm, and fairly decent
    astigmatism, I'm interested.... Even if you pay a lot of money for
    marginal benefit ... if there /is/ a marginal benefit ... it might be
    worth my consideration. The company is very close to me--along one of
    my usual bike routes, in fact!
    Amen, Brother (sister?)!

    TIA,

    Neil
     
    Neil Brooks, Jan 2, 2006
    #4
  5. acemanvx

    Neil Brooks Guest

    wrote:

    [snip]

    I don't know if they *claim* supervision, but *supervision* is
    something that you desperately need.
     
    Neil Brooks, Jan 2, 2006
    #5
  6. acemanvx

    acemanvx Guest

    Everyone would like supervision and see the best they can. More than
    95% of people have retinas capable of at least 20/10 vision, the
    problem is high order aberrations in healthy, pathalogy free eyes.
    20/10 or even 20/15 would be a real marvel to "see" in the future when
    wavefront glasses technology matures. Todays wavefront glasses doesnt
    do very much and like I said, my friend has at least 5 friends who
    tried that with no difference. Todays wavefront glasses are a stepping
    stone to the exciting advances of the future! 20/10 BSCVA will no
    longer be limited to a very few elite people with nearly aberration
    free optics, but itll be available to the masses! Of course this could
    be 20+ years from now
     
    acemanvx, Jan 2, 2006
    #6
  7. acemanvx

    p.clarkii Guest

    shut the [email protected] up. you have to be the most immature sniveling little
    kid i've ever seen. one minute you ask a question like the newbie that
    you are and the next minute you're handing out advise like a educated
    experienced expert. the internet police need to get your IP address
    and shut you down.
     
    p.clarkii, Jan 2, 2006
    #7
  8. acemanvx

    acemanvx Guest

    sorry but im entitled to freedom of speech and its perfectly fine to
    talk about the sciences of wavefront here. You need to learn some
    manners. Have a nice day
     
    acemanvx, Jan 2, 2006
    #8
  9. acemanvx

    Neil Brooks Guest

    IP: 68.223.203.82
    Originating from: Boca Raton, Florida
    ISP: BellSouth.net

    Include full headers
     
    Neil Brooks, Jan 2, 2006
    #9
  10. acemanvx

    RM Guest

    Sure. As long as you actually KNOW something about the science of
    wavefront. Otherwise, you look like and idiot.

    But that apparently doesn't stop you.
     
    RM, Jan 2, 2006
    #10
  11. acemanvx

    crvc Guest

    The Opthonic glasses do what I said they do. In bright sunlight, I see
    glare and halos radiating off of car chrome or shiny tops. It's a
    minor distraction when I'm driving. The glasses get rid of these.
    After sundown, I see large starbursts and halos radiating off of every
    light: headlights, streetlights, neon sign lights. These may be
    slightly less with the Opthonic glasses but it's not enough to make
    driving safe. With RGP lenses at least 80% of the starbursts are gone
    or reduced significantly, enough that it's safe to drive a car. I'm
    mainly interested in pursuing the Opthonics becasuse I can't tolerate
    RGPs for more than 2 or 3 hours at a time. I have five pairs of lenses
    from 4 different optometrists. They all reduce the starbursts and they
    are all equally unwearable. I don't rememer what my original
    prescription was. I was nearsighted with astigmatism. Now I'm nearly
    20:20 as long as the ambient light is good. I can also drive after
    sunset if I use dilute pilocarpine eyedrops. I think I paid around
    $300 for the exam and glasses. The lenses will only fit into the
    frames they have for sale so I couldn't order lenses and put them in
    and older frame that I wasn't using anymore.

    Kevin
     
    crvc, Jan 2, 2006
    #11
  12. acemanvx

    Neil Brooks Guest

    I'm sorry about the difficulty that you're having with the RGP's. I've
    been quite reluctant to go back to them myself, though I'm only a few
    weeks away from an evaluation for a scleral lens, made from the same
    material, but about the size of a quarter.

    I'll assume, then, that you haven't found the wavefront glasses to give
    you noticeably crisp vision, or greatly increased contrast sensitivity,
    or much better ability to discern letters on the fabled eye chart.

    Forgive me if I'm throwing out something wildly obvious (because you're
    already using the pilocarpine), but have you tried evening driving with
    the dome light on in your car? Some people achieve enough pupillary
    constriction with that alone.
     
    Neil Brooks, Jan 3, 2006
    #12
  13. acemanvx

    crvc Guest

    BTDT. I had LASIK in 1997, with instantly ruined night vision. Plenty
    of time to try every suggestion known to man. Dome lights don't work.
    Yellow-tinted glasses don't work. Vitamins and flax don't work.
    Alphagan didn't work. I'm lucky that I live in the desert. We rarely
    have cloudy days here. If asked, I'd say if there's no hope, try the
    Opthonix glasses anyway. They eliminate daytime glare better than my
    older glasses. But don't get caught outdoors after sundown.
     
    crvc, Jan 3, 2006
    #13
  14. acemanvx

    acemanvx Guest

    acemanvx, Jan 3, 2006
    #14
  15. acemanvx

    Quick Guest

    Ummm, in the few states I've lived in it is illegal to drive
    with the interior lights on. There is good reason for that.
    If it's necessary to have the dome light on to see while
    driving I don't think you should drive.

    -Quick
     
    Quick, Jan 3, 2006
    #15
  16. acemanvx

    Neil Brooks Guest

    Hmm. Never heard of that.

    Quick search of the rules and regs for our (CA) DMV doesn't seem to
    support that either. Do you have a citation that supports that
    assertion?

    If somebody needs their pupils to shrink, why does the use of
    pilocarpine differ from the use of the dome light. If either makes
    you safe ... then you're safe, no?
     
    Neil Brooks, Jan 3, 2006
    #16
  17. acemanvx

    crvc Guest

    The gold standard for miosis (constricted pupils) is Alphagan. It
    doesn't really constrict pupils, however. It prevents them from
    dilating in poor light. Pilocarpine constricts the pupils. These are
    both older anti-glaucoma drugs. I prefer pilocarpine. It makes the
    dark "darker". But when driving at night it shrinks the oncoming
    headlight starbursts. The constricted pupils act a bit like a pinhole
    camera, meaning everything near and far is equally in focus. I prefer
    the RGPs for driving at night. But in some conditions, such as driving
    at night in a snowstorm, the combination of RGPs and pilocarpine works
    the best. The pilocarpine is the only reason I was able to pass my
    drivers license test a few years ago.
     
    crvc, Jan 3, 2006
    #17
  18. acemanvx

    crvc Guest

    The gold standard for miosis (constricted pupils) is Alphagan. It
    doesn't really constrict pupils, however. It prevents them from
    dilating in poor light. Pilocarpine constricts the pupils. These are
    both older anti-glaucoma drugs. I prefer pilocarpine. It makes the
    dark "darker". But when driving at night it shrinks the oncoming
    headlight starbursts. The constricted pupils act a bit like a pinhole
    camera, meaning everything near and far is equally in focus. I prefer
    the RGPs for driving at night. But in some conditions, such as driving
    at night in a snowstorm, the combination of RGPs and pilocarpine works
    the best. The pilocarpine is the only reason I was able to pass my
    drivers license test a few years ago.
     
    crvc, Jan 3, 2006
    #18
  19. acemanvx

    Neil Brooks Guest

    Hm. I think that this one's above my pay grade, but here are my
    preliminary thoughts:

    Though you might be right, in theory, Kevin may be a more valid data
    point, if he's using the pilocarpine + RGP method and feels safe
    driving at night.

    I know that, for weeks, I drove at night, fully dilated on Atropine,
    but wearing yellow tinted sunglasses to curb glare.

    I'm not that proud. If I didn't feel safe, I wouldn't have driven.
    For me, it was more the pain of the brightness than the visual
    aberrations that the dilation caused. Now, that's absolutely the
    opposite case, but it's all I have....
     
    Neil Brooks, Jan 3, 2006
    #19
  20. acemanvx

    Quick Guest

    I didn't get that impression. I more or less got the impression
    that he has "managed" to drive. "Pilocarpine was the only
    reason I passed my driving test" does not inspire confidence.
    But that is different right? Your pupils were fully dilated and
    you were bringing the ambient light down to a more "normal"
    level as would(?) have been the case if you pupils had adjusted
    normally. In Kevin's case it sounds like light intensity is not the
    problem and he is constricting his pupils to reduce the starburst
    type of effects. In doing so I would expect him to reduce his
    ability to see in the dark. I would expect reducing the starburst
    effects off of point light sources (bright ones) in this manor would
    compromise your ability to see the pedestrian, the car broken down
    on the shoulder, the pot hole or obstruction in the road, etc.

    -Quick
     
    Quick, Jan 3, 2006
    #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.