Wavefront glasses

Discussion in 'Glasses' started by Chuck, Jan 11, 2009.

  1. Chuck

    Chuck Guest

    My eye doc will soon be offering wavefront, or "high def" (or
    something) glasses. They have a fancy machine (aberometer) and make
    the lenses accordingly, instead of just doing sphere and cylinder. I'd
    be interested to hear opinions and experiences related to this. I'm a
    sucker for this type of thing, so I'll probably give it a shot, but
    does it really work noticeably better than the old way?
    Chuck, Jan 11, 2009
    1. Advertisements

  2. Chuck

    Neil Brooks Guest

    I wear them.

    I like them, but ... don't particularly LOVE them.

    Much will depend on the amount of higher-order aberrations YOU have.
    The MORE you have, the MORE you will, theoretically, benefit. The
    wavefront aberrometry will determine this.

    Mine simply weren't that high, so ... no overnight miracles, but ...
    good, crisp vision.

    Not a doctor
    Neil Brooks, Jan 11, 2009
    1. Advertisements

  3. Chuck

    Mark A Guest

    There are two kinds of wavefront lenses, those requirement special
    measurements, and those which use a regular Rx. The ones that require a
    special measurements with the machine you mentioned are mostly hype,
    although for certain kinds of problems it may be useful.

    Here is an article that explains it in more detail lists all the
    manufacturers of wavefront lenses individually ground to your Rx.

    The Hoya ID is considered by many to be the best.
    Mark A, Jan 11, 2009
  4. Chuck

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    You might have better luck with wavefront soft contact lenses which
    actually move along with the eye. The correction of higher order
    aberrations requires very close registration of the optical
    correction, and this is difficult to accomplish in spectacle lenses.
    Some aberrations are more forgiving, however, such as spherical
    aberration, one of the more common and prevalent ones. WaveTouch
    Technologies is the manufacturer of the wavefront generated soft lens.

    I'm a little puzzled, however. If you are the same Chuck who is being
    fitted with some type of semi-scleral GP lens, wearing the contact
    lenses will change your aberrations profile enough to make the
    spectacles useless.

    What's going on here?
    Dr. Leukoma, Jan 12, 2009
  5. Chuck

    Salmon Egg Guest

    I am not a vision professional. But I do have reasons why wavefront
    (figured) corrected glasses are not a good idea.

    Wavefront correction can be carried out for looking in a particular
    direction. If done on the cornea of an eye, it will correct errors for
    looking in a particular direction. That would be for looking in the
    direction that images onto the fovea, As you look in different
    directions by turning the eye,the correction turns with the eye. Light
    that does not focus on-axis is likely to be aberrated more than if there
    were no wavefront correction. That would not be expected to be a problem
    because sharpest vision is desired for foveal vision. Off-axis
    aberration is not that great a problem because the eye's retina is
    losing acuity anyway.

    For wavefront corrected glasses, however, your eys turn to see through
    portions of the lens that are designed to correct best in another

    Salmon Egg, Jan 12, 2009
  6. Chuck

    Chuck Guest

    Yeah, I'm the same guy, and I'm just taking many stabs in the dark
    trying to find satisfaction. My eyeglass Rx has changed a bit since
    wearing RGP, so I understand that I might be wasting money on wavefront
    if I change my contact wearing habits.

    On the "macrolens" front, my eye doctor is not proficient enough to
    deal with the fact that my astigmatism is persisting. I went in for a
    follow-up today and we decided to just give up on them. I wasn't going
    to argue if he didn't feel confident going forward. I also was kind of
    down on them due to the difficulty of getting them in without bubbles
    and out without making my eyes bloodshot. I don't doubt these issues
    could be dealt with with practice though.

    I think wavefront soft lenses will be an option here, so I'll follow up
    on that next visit. He had some new (to him?) custom soft contact that
    he said he's had good luck with, so we're giving that a shot next. My
    experience with soft lenses so far is that they don't stay oriented
    right and are generally worse than nothing, but we'll see. He seems to
    think that these hold some promise that "off the shelf" ones don't.

    Back on the wavefront glasses, what I've read on-line is mostly a lot
    of skepticism and negativity, but I asked him today and he said that
    many of his patients (at his other office that already offers it) are
    really impressed and happy with it. I guess I'll just wait and see.

    Chuck, Jan 13, 2009
  7. Chuck

    Neil Brooks Guest

    What's your goal? What's your overall Rx?

    Have you considered wearing contacts to take care of the near/
    farsighted, and then glasses (over the contacts) to take care of the

    This might give you a much broader choice of contacts, stable vision,
    and a good 'cosmetic' appearance.

    I wear my wavefront glasses over Boston Foundation Scleral Lenses.
    Neil Brooks, Jan 13, 2009
  8. Chuck

    Chuck Guest

    I have a pretty mild Rx, basically all astigmatism, 0.75 diopter when I
    regularly wear RGP and 1.0-1.5 diopter when they settle out. I had
    some issues adapting to the astigmatism correction in glasses as my
    astigmatism creeped up past 1.0 (or possibly I have higher order stuff
    for which cylinder was the best approximation). Anyway, I tried RGP
    and life was great except that wind and AC irritate my eyes with them
    in and my night vision is marginal. Comfort is also not great,
    especially around 12 hours of wear.

    So, I'm just trying to find my best solution. Nothing complex, just
    comfort, vision, wear time, etc.
    Chuck, Jan 13, 2009
  9. Chuck

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    I'm sorry to hear about your experiences. I know precisely what you
    are going through.
    Dr. Leukoma, Jan 13, 2009
  10. Chuck

    Chuck Guest

    I'm not an expert in this field, but why would you expect everyone's
    error to be fully corrected with only sphere and cyl corrections?
    Surely some people have other errors that remain uncorrected with only

    Chuck, Jan 15, 2009
  11. Chuck

    Salmon Egg Guest

    It is possible to design lenses so that you get perfect imaging of a
    point object to a point image. Such a design does not cover chromatic
    aberrations or diffraction. The key is to design the surfaces of the
    lens so that for every direction of light leaving the object will have
    the same optical path length. This is Fermat's law. The trouble is that
    as soon as you chage the object point, that path length to the image
    point has changed. Moreover, it is unlikely that there will be pairs of
    conjugate points (pair of an object point and an image point) that will
    meet the criteria for the constant path length. As you swivel your eye
    in different directions,other than that for which the lens is designed,
    you can expect decreased performance.

    Sphere and cylinder are used for most prescriptions because they are
    relatively easy to grind and polish using classical techniques.

    Salmon Egg, Jan 15, 2009
  12. Chuck

    Chuck Guest

    Snellen lines aren't the whole story though. I can see the 20/20 line,
    but the contrast is much worse on my right eye, and it gets worse the
    darker it is, with point sources smearing out. I keep thinking I want
    more cylinder for this, but the doctor tells me that I reject it in the
    batter/worse chair. With RGP's things look great until it gets dark,
    then I get uniform starbursts. It _seems_ like there's something going
    on that sphere/cyl isn't getting. Not that I'm bumping into stuff,
    it's just annoying.

    I just don't know enough about optics to have an informed opinion about
    the scientific merits. I'm in engineering though, and I keep wanting
    to make an analogy to fitting a curve with a polynomial. It's like
    we've been using a 1st order polynomial for hundreds of years and now
    we have the option of using a 6th order polynomial. Maybe 6 is overkill
    because of the alignment issues and variation over the day, etc, but
    perhaps 2nd or third order will make a noticeable difference to 10% of
    glasses wearers? Fine tuning the diopters would be analogous to
    dialing in the terms of the 1st order polynomial to ridiculous accuracy
    but not adding any more. There are cases where that wouldn't hack it.

    I'm not sure my analogy is right though...
    Chuck, Jan 16, 2009
  13. Chuck

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Higher order aberrations are third order and above. Sphere and
    cylinder are second order. Higher order aberrations are pupil
    dependent. This has been well-documented, and tables are available.
    In fact, I have documented it myself (I have an aberrometer). The
    most common ones are spherical aberration (fourth order) and coma
    (third order). Coma often results in a cylindrical correction that
    never seems good enough. It also makes a difference as to where the
    aberrations are located. If the origin is corneal, then a GP lens
    with an optical zone that is sufficiently large should work. If the
    origin is not corneal, then the GP lens will not work.

    There is a company called WaveTouch Technologies that has the only
    commercially available wavefront-correcting soft contact lens. Their
    product can theoretically correct corneal and internal aberrations. I
    might pursue this route first. The Marco OPD and Tracey aberrometers
    are both approved to be used with the WaveTouch lenses.
    Dr. Leukoma, Jan 18, 2009
  14. Chuck

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    My educated guess is that this is not the case. The OP clearly stated
    that this effect was more pronounced in low light situations, and this
    is an entirely different phenomenon than clouding of the media. Terms
    like "smear," "low contrast," "worsening at night" are very familiar
    to anybody who has worked with eyes having elevated spherical
    aberration, coma, etc.

    Otherwise, you are correct in that wavefront corrections are not going
    to help eliminate scatter from cloudy media.
    Dr. Leukoma, Jan 18, 2009
  15. Chuck

    Chuck Guest

    Since I see great in my GP's in all but dark situations, and based on
    Dr. L's comments, my theory is that I have a little bit of higher order
    abberation in the cornea. If I could get a big enough optical zone in
    GP's, life would be pretty good, though my eyes do still get irritated
    in the wind, etc, as I've posted before. Oh, and ideally I wouldn't be
    getting residual astigmatism in my other eye...

    I will pursue the wavefront glasses and soft contacts (if the latter is
    an option), and see if I get lucky.

    Dr. L, is it possible for the GP's to induce higher order abberations?
    Specifically, I was as high as -1.5D cylinder prior to GP's, and now
    I'm at -0.75D. Is it possible the 1.5 was pure cylinder and now I'm at
    0.75 cylinder plus higher order junk?

    Chuck, Jan 18, 2009
  16. Chuck

    Salmon Egg Guest

    Even if the problem arises out of enhanced aberrations from increased
    pupil size, wavefront correction from external lenses are not likely to
    solve the problem. That would only mean that the wavefront correction
    will introduce optical distortion near the view angle for which the
    correction is designed. That is, the correction is useful only when you
    are looking through a lens in the design direction. For other
    directions, the wavefront is merely another aberration.

    On the other hand, if the correction swivels with the direction of
    viewing, as might be the case when wavefront correction is built into
    the contac lens system, the correction will track with the viewing

    Salmon Egg, Jan 18, 2009
  17. Chuck

    Chuck Guest

    Sphere and cylinder corrections are also only perfect when looking
    straight ahead, right? But they seem to hold up okay. The net benefit
    is still there even when looking pretty far off axis. Do you have
    reason to believe that this breaks down when we get to 3rd or 4th order

    Chuck, Jan 18, 2009
  18. Chuck

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    This point has been made several times in this thread.
    Dr. Leukoma, Jan 18, 2009
  19. Chuck

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Any change to the cornea can increase higher orders. Orthokeratology
    and refractive surgery increase higher orders while simultaneously
    reducing lower orders.
    Dr. Leukoma, Jan 18, 2009
  20. Chuck

    Salmon Egg Guest

    These "quadratic" corrections are only slightly sensitive to direction.
    Looked at from the wavefront point of view, the added thickness varies
    smoothly. That is, there are no sudden bumps in the surface. Wavefront
    correction will add thickness rather suddenly as the fourth power of the
    radius. It will be a ring around the design direction that would be of
    no use unless the pupil is large and you are looking in the design
    direction. For everything else, this will be a ring of spherical
    aberration introduced unnecessarily.

    Salmon Egg, Jan 18, 2009
    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.