I am considering Crystalens and would like to hear from anyone who has had it for the purpose of vision correction not cataracts. I am 43 and have been told that I am a good candidate since I am not a candidate for
LasikLasik eye surgery - series but have also been told noboby my age should have it done. I'm confused.
crystalens is probably a much better option for a person in their 40's
I'm glad your dad has had a good result, but I just don't want everyone to believe that they will have the same result if they make Crystalens their choice. Night vision glare is also a big issue with these types of lenses, due to the design of the lens.
In your previous post you mentioned that the near isn't that good with crystalens. My dad has them and see's very well at near. What are you referring to? JO
You will have an adjustment phase. You will also have to have both eyes done to balance your vision. Yes $4,500.00 per eye is expensive, but if the calculations are done right, you should be happy. Happy is a relative term depending on you! The LASIK doctors have a term called, "20/Happy" vision. It may not be 20/20, but who said you have to be 20/20 to be happy.
First make sure you have a very good ophthalmologist with at least 100 eyes under their belt. Second make sure they have the IOL Master or an immersion type A-Scan or both to measeure the length of your eye. It all starts with the measurement. Then make sure you and your eye doctor get together on your visual expectaions for far and near, and trial the vision with a trial frame or contact lenses. These are steps that most doctors won't do, because they usually think they know best. WRONG! you have to be looking through the lenses the rest of your life, and your paying big money out of pocket to do so. Yes, NOW the the government will kick in a few bucks if you really have a cataract. Take your time, and if your doctor won't explain things to your satisfaction, let you see educational videos, and offer you the opportunity to talk to patients that he/she has done surgery on already, go elsewhere. They should also make sure you understand the risks involved. Go to a seminar on it somewhere else to see what other doctors will tell you.
I have a question for you though. The fact that this doctor is a big shot doesn't really impress me. We have plenty of those here in Chicago. But what did his exam and explanation about your concerns convince you to do? Are you planning on doing the surgery? I can tell you that doctors, like the one you describe, are always convincing people to do the procedure they happen to be doing at the time. I've seen it with Array, Crystalens, Veriseyes, ReSTORE, Rezoom, etc.,. Your goal should be a lens that gives you a good reading range, great distance vision, little, to no night vision distortion, and long term safety. If you don't have a real cataract, one that inhibits your daily life while driving day or night, and can still see fine with your +2.00 readers, hold on a while longer. This isn't a face lift or a Botox treatment, it's eye surgery. Your still 20 years early compared to most cataract patients. I really want to see how many ophthalmologists would run to do this on their own eye's. I don't mean to be negative, I'm just trying to make you think deeper.
http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/pmasep97.html
Look at PMA 960028
Patient labeling begins on page 34
Hope this helps
JO
I appreciate your input. I don't think you come off negative; rather, you are simply stating facts, and givng good food for thought. I'm thinking while I wait a bit, I might try contact lenses.. for mono vision. See how that works. out.
My goal was to avoid having a pair of glasses in every room, car, etc. The FDA data that swayed me was the percent of patients never using glasses after surgery. The crystalens was something like 20%, the Array/rezoom was 41%, but the Alcon Restor was 80%.
It has been 2 months since my surgery and I have been reading the stock charts as well as driving at night without problems (or glasses). I'm sure that the other lenses could have given me some improvement, but to eliminate glasses altogether is huge for me. you should check out the restor website.
I thoroughly investigated the crystalens and restor for my dads surgery, both are excellent choices. I'm glad your surgery went well and you have received the benefits you desired. My dad is extremely happy with his crystalens surgery also.
For those reading this thread that want to compare facts please see the links below.
http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/mda/docs/p030002.html
http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/MDA/DOCS/p040020.html
JO
On my last dr visit I was talking to another Restor patient who had just got the latest restor which filters blue light. Most implants filter UV only, but now I wished it was available when I had my surgery. I asked my dr about it, and he said there are some studies that show removing the human lens also removes some of the retinal protection from light damage. My mother has macular degeneration and I want to take any precautions I can.
as for Jesse's comments, he's right that I am using the internet to pass rumors, but I know a lot of docs, and unfortunately, some do have serious conflicts of interest. crystalens works for a small set of people and the company would probably love to sell to as many surgeons that would buy. You're doing what you have to do-research.
At 43, you can surely wait. The Tecnis multifocal lens is under study in the US now and is one of the most preferred lenses in Europe at this point. The ReZoom is gaining in popularity as it is an improvement over the Array lens. Spectacle independance has just about doubled from the Array. This is due to a refocus of light at night to distance so the halo effect is minimized. With the Array, surgeons shot for a plus .50 correction to minimize halo. WIth the ReZoom, they are shooting closer to plano since they are not as worried about the halo effect so the near results are much better. There are some other changes which have enhanced performance.
You will get different opinions from many people but that is why you talk to more than one, research it and make your decision. You will find happy and unhappy people with all types of lenses, even monofocal lenses.
Go to www.tecnisiol.com and www.visioninfocus.com for the AMO lenses.
The bottom line is to research it and try to decipher and assimilate all of the informaion which is what you are doing. My father has the Array lenses and loves them. An eye doc in Houston has the Array lenses in his own eyes and so does one in Austin and he is a pilot as well.
Good luck.
How can you comment that MOST crystalens patients are unhappy. The practice my dad had surgery in uses it exclusively. I'm very impressed with his vision. The crystalens is a small company and doesn't have the marketing muscle of the major companies but if you compare the FDA labels, objective data, the crystalens is the clear winner. Is this your opinion or do you have some data support your claim?
JO
1. Look at the Crystalens experience in Europe.. They got it first as is often the case, and for the most part abandoned it altogether. 2. If you research the number of US surgeons that are trained to use Crystalens, their are very few that do it alot and do it well. Your Dad most likely went to one of the handful of surgeons that gets good results. If you look at the majority of trained surgeons, you will find a different story. Good for your Dad that he is pleased. Within the past 6-9 months, even the really good Crystalens surgeons are coming over to ReSTOR and ReZoom for certain patietnts. They are smart because one lens does not work for everyone. Customized service for unique lifestyles.
As suspected it is your opinion used to support your claim that "Most" doctors have abandoned the crystalens. The ability to market in Europe has nothing to do with the clinical performance of a technology. (see Excimer Lasers for details) Here is a fact for you, multifocal contact lens have been available for 20 years, and they have less than 5% share of the market. What would the share be if the fitting optometrist couldn't take them out as is the case with the Restor/ReZoom intraocular lens?
As I have previously posted, compare the labels of the Restor and cyrstalens. There are driving warnings and low light warnings on the multifocal and none exist on crystalens. None of the lens are perfect and reading this board reveals that all lens have complications. At least with the crystalens you can do something about it, currently there is no cure for the fuzzy vision created by multifocality other than explantation. In the final analysis that is why I choose crystalens for my dad.
Your points are well taken and I agree with most of them. However, not all unhappy Crystalens patients can be fixed. It is very difficult to explant that lens. Fuzzy vision can be caused by many different problems, so yours is a blanket statement against multifocals. Let's leave it at all lenses have their strong points and any given lens can be less than optimal. Again, I am happy your Dad had a great result.
I'm intrigued by the tecnis MONOFocal lens, and their claims for increased contrast sensitivity, and enhanced night driving vision. I presently wear multifocal contacts which do a pretty good job at all distances. Good enough that I never wear readers, and I still see pretty well for distance. I would really miss not having near and intermediate, however, if I didn't do something else in addition to the tecnis monofocal. To that end, I've been considering this plan: tecnis monofocal (not monovision; I tried that with contacts and didn't like it), + RGP contact lenses for near and intermediate, or maybe in the evenings when I want to ditch the contacts, spectacles for near and intermediate. My thought is that at the present time, perhaps one is better off taking an a la carte option, rather than trying to find an IOL that does it all. I'm just not hearing a lot about folks who are committed to the multifocal contact (mine presently are RGP, which I understand gives better acuity than soft) after IOL implantation. Could it really work? Assuming the IOL power for distance was spot on, and IOL alone gave 20/20 distance, would the presence of a "plano" distance portion of a multifocal RGP contact act as a refracting element on its own? So do you have to plan for this approach in selection of the IOL distance power?
Alternatively, the tecnis monofocal + another surgical correction for the near and intermediate? I don't know much about what that would entail.
All that said, I also am interested in the tecnis MULTIfocal, not yet FDA approved. Does anyone know how that's coming along, and when approval might be granted? Another surgeon I've consulted was among the docs doing the FDA trials for that IOL. Is it likely that the multifocal will retain the same characteristics that the monofocal has with respect to contrast sensitivity and enhanced night driving vision? This same doc implants restor, rezoom, and crystalens, in addition to tecnis monofocals, so with him, I'd have lots of options. Right now, I'm exercising my option just to wait until either my vision deteriorates to an unacceptable level, or my research heads me unequivocally in one direction. Thank you to those of you who share your experiences for the sake of those of us trying to learn.
This feature is being added to the diffractive multifocal created by 3M to become the Tecnis multifocal. 3M sold the rights and the name "Restor" to Alcon, who took the diffractive concept and apodized it, but limited the diffractive portion to just the center of the lens optic. Alcon patented this treatment, and then sold the rights to Pharmacia/Pfizer, who then sold to AMO. 3M's study results showed a 59% spectacle freedom, with significant unwanted effects, due to the diffractive portion going all the way out to the edge of the lens (creating a lot of glare and halos). Alcon took 17 years of R&D to revise the 3M lens to the current day ReSTOR, which the FDA study patients show 80% spectacle freedom, with minimal glare and halos. For comparison, AMO's Rezoom, did not have to submit study data to the FDA for approval, saying it was a minor change from it's predescessor, Array, which reports a 41% spectacle freedom. Rezoom is an acrylic version of the Array with more distance vision enhancement.
What might be worth waiting for is ReSTOR IQ, the aspheric version of the presbyopia correcting ReSTOR with blue-light and UV filtering. But this is somewhat like deciding when to upgrade your computer, as technology keeps getting better.
To answer your question about when the Tecnis Multifocal might be available, it won't be until sometime in 2007, maybe 2008.
I think you should seek the opinion of an ophthalmologist that does all 4 ReSTOR, ReZoom, crystalens, Tecnis monofocal, and get info on the progress of the clinical trials for the Tecnis multifocal from someone other than our financial advisor and buddy HUD...
To your question, I think the vision will be better with a lens implant than a MF contact lens. With the CLs you have external eye issues, fit, movement of the CL, eye irritation, allergy/ environmental issues. Plus as we get older, (starting around age 40) even if we do not develop cataracts, our natural crystalline lens gets thicker and harder so we have distortion and changes in our vision anyway. There are some patients that do opt to get multifocal in one eye and monofocal in the other eye, especially when it is Tecnis. Years ago, our patients that had Array in one eye and a monofocal didn't do as well, but with the improvements with the technologies (ReZoom and ReSTOR) that is not so much of an issue anymore. Also, it is possible to get a monofocal and then later get a piggyback or another lens on top of the existing one, that is Multifocal. That is where AMO has a definite advantage over Alcon because of the advantage of putting two different materials in the eye. (Silicone - Acrylic) vs (Acrylic - Acrylic). My point is that if you desired Tecnis in one eye and a multifocal in the other eye and you later decided you prefer the MF eye, you could have the Tecnis exchanged for a MF or a MF piggyback on top of your Tecnis. You mention intermediate vision, that would weigh towards ReZoom than ReSTOR for your MF eye. Lots to ponder. I ponder daily because I am contemplating the same thing myself as I have previously mentioned.
In a final notice published in the Federal Register, CMS stated, "CMS approves AMO's claims of clinical advantages and superiority of the Tecnis IOL for ocular spherical aberrations and simulated night driving. We find the AMO Tecnis lenses models Z9000, Z9901 and ZA9903 to meet the NTIOL definition and are to be given new NTIOL classification of Reduced Spherical Aberration".
The Tecnis IOL is the only lens approved for NTIOL. "Tecnis NTIOL status confirms the unique design of the lens and the very real benefits it provides to patients" said Dr. Ralph Chu, a cataract refractive specialist in private practice in Minneapolis and an early adopter of the Tecnis IOL technology. "The unique modified prolate technology increases the patients functional vision in varying light conditions, which is critical for every day tasks conducted in low light conditions such as reading, diving at night or in the fog."
Dr. Mark Packer, clinical assistant professor of ophthalmology at the University of Oregon and clinical study investigator for several Tecnis IOL studies, including a driving simulation study said, "The Tecnis lens is the only IOL available that was specfically designed, based on wavefront measurements of a representative sample of the population, to fully compensate for the spherical aberration of the cornea."
Dr. Michael Colvard, and eye surgeon in Encino, CA with over 20 years of clinical practice and speciality interest in IOL technology and cataract surgery added, "The Tecnis IOL, which takes into consideration the importance of correction of spherical aberration with cataract surgery, is one of the truly major advances in intraocular lens technology over the past two decades."
Dr. R. Bruce Wallace, III, cliinical professor of ophthalmology as LSU Medical School stated, "We have a number of our Tecnis patients comment on their enhanced vision at night and in other low light conditions, adding a margin of safety to their activities, espcially for driving.
An analysis by the Potomac Institute for Policy studies states that improved driving performance from reduced spherical aberration with the Tecnis lens could translate into annual preventable costs of automible accidents raning from $450 million in 2004 up to 2.4 billion by 2014.
This information came off a press release on AOL and can probably be found on any of the financial websites.
I would just work with your doctor and take your time if you are not pushed. Techology will move forward and offers so much more today then yesterday. My dad is very happy with the Array lens. Could he be happier with the newer ones. Probably. But he has better vision now than he did before and that what counts. There are happy patients with all lenses. The most important thing is working with you surgeon to try to determine which one would be best for you. There is a website that a surgeon has which is pretty cool and shows the pro's and con's of all the lenses. I think it is a Dr. Harvard in California.
In an attempt at fairness, I would like to clarify that AMO was successful in being the first applicant for this NTIOL status for the Tecnis monofocal lens. This goes into effect Feb. 27, 2006, by which time Bausch and Lomb and Alcon will have their NTIOL submissions approved for their respective aspheric IOL designs. (B&L's AO, Alcon's IQ). Also worth noting is that Staar Surgical received NTIOL status for their astigmatism-correcting (toric)IOL a few years ago, and that design failed miserably due to poor performance. The Array was also a NTIOL and sold for $195 and created a bigger niche than the Staar, but is now on the trash heap. Rezoom is the an acrylic Array with the optic devoted to more distance than near vision. But so are all monofocals.
In an attempt at fairness, I would like to clarify that AMO was successful in being the first applicant for this NTIOL status for the Tecnis monofocal lens. This goes into effect Feb. 27, 2006, by which time Bausch and Lomb and Alcon will have their NTIOL submissions approved for their respective aspheric IOL designs. (B&L's AO, Alcon's IQ). Also worth noting is that Staar Surgical received NTIOL status for their astigmatism-correcting (toric)IOL a few years ago, and that design failed miserably due to poor performance. The Array was also a NTIOL and sold for $195 and created a bigger niche than the Staar, but is now on the trash heap. Rezoom is the an acrylic Array with the optic devoted to more distance than near vision. But so are all monofocals.
OK HUD,,,,,,since you say you are not in the eye business, then why do you keep regurgitating the same balogna on here? Even if you haven't been properly and thoroughly educated before coming to this website, the info is here. Expand your knowledge and attempt to be honest. You don't see eyecu saying that ReSTOR is the old 3M diffractive. Stop reliving the past. The 3M lens had changes and is the new and improved ReSTOR and the Array had changes and is the new and improved ReZoom.
As far as Tecnis goes, the FDA gave it 2 safety claims which is not something Alcon nor B&L have. No wonder AMO just got it NTIOL status for Tecnis. Seems like John Sonntag, MD is right. Lots of reasons to look at AMO products. We use them all Alcon, crystalens, and AMO ReZoom, Tecnis monofocal and looking forward to Tecnis multifocal, but definitely are using more ReZoom than ReSTOR. The proof is in the pudding. Our ReZoom patients are happier than our ReSTOR across the board.
I have -8 in left eye and -10 in right with slight astigmatism in both eyes.
Say with the apodized/diffractive multi-focal lenses, is small correction required post the implant if the results are not on spot? I mean these IOLs are meant for making you spectacles-free for most of your work BUT is it a possibility that one might have to use spectacles OVER the MF IOLs sometimes for some type of work? Personally, I don't mind wearing spectacles for some work. I normally wear contacts.