They invented wavefront glasses and claim supervision!

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?

 

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)

 

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.

 

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

 

wrote:

[snip]

I don't know if they *claim* supervision, but *supervision* is
something that you desperately need.

 

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

 

shut the fu@k 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.

 

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

 

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

Include full headers

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

You need to post on the lasik forums with your sad story. Those guys
think lasik is as safe as a haircut! I am trying to explain to them the
risks of lasik but they havent heard a bad case


http://groups.google.com/group/alt.lasik-eyes?lnk=li

 

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

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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....

 

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