Restor IOL Monovision

[Hoddy44]

Just wondered what people thought about using Restor multifocals to essentially create monovision by overcorrecting the nondominant eye with -1.00 D of myopia. The following link describes some results by Blaylock, Si, Vickers, and Aitchison (http://pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/cjo/cjo41/i06-908.pdf.  It is the twelth article.  It seems to have corrected intermediate to 20/20 wthout affecting near and distance.  Hud, I'd appreciate your comments since you are familiar with Restor.

[K-D]

Hoddy, I know what you mean. I have just one corrected eye and there is a feeling of unbalance with two different systems for the brain to compete with.  But because I did not have immediate results with my implant, I wanted to be sure that I wanted another multifocal before a second surgery.
When I went to have the second multifocal surgery, recently, the doctor said that I had too much astigmatism and to go with a traditional lens.  Complete change of plan, which did not sound very good to me.  So, for now, am living with just the one corrected eye.
Am so hoping that everything turns out perfect for you! Please let us know.

[K-D]

Hoddy do you have to have both eyes done so close together?  Since you are going to have a Restor first, why not give it a ittle time to see if you are satisfied with the results.  Then you could more accurately decide on a second Restor or a Rezoom.

[hud]

You should not get caught up in the numbers. I have no idea what my snellen chart acuity is. In fact, everything I've heard about any multifocal is that surgeons should be judicious in their patient selection against "perfectionists". No offense, but you seem to be obsessing on achieving perfect vision post-operatively. Everything is a compromise of something. The Blaylock experiment must be for those patients that want the intermediate vision immediately, at the expense of the near and distance in one eye. But in my opinion, you get it all with Restor in time. And for the rest of your life. Dr Christenbury, by all accounts, has more experience with modern multifocals than anyone else in the world, so I would trust his judgement.
My computer-distance vision is excellent, and I recall that it took about a month after the second eye before I realized that. My distance vision is sharp, and my near, about 14 inches is my sharpest. For all I know, my vision may be 20/15, 20/25 or 20/30 with a snellen chart, but really I'm 20/happy and VERY functional. If you obsess on the numbers, you'll make yourself and your doctor miserable.

[hud]

I'm no expert, but any change in the variables will trade-off one thing for another. I have read the Blaylock experiment, and it seems that the goal is to move the 2 focal points of the multifocal to a visual distance in one eye that would result in a single peak focus at the expense of the second peak focus. In other words, he is compromising your distance focus in one eye to bring that focus into an intermediate range (targeting -1.00D), and the near focus would peak at, maybe 4 inches? I think that this might be acceptable to a very small subset of patients who 1. Can tolerate modified monovision, and 2. Want the arms-length vision sooner post-operatively than the usual recovery with plano bilateral restors. Keep in mind that the FDA results show 80% of Restor patients have 20/20 near and distance vision, with the arms-length vision at 20/32. Surgeons I've talked to have said that their results are better than 90%, because they can include additional treatments not allowed in the FDA study.

[JodieJ]

Who can argue with success?  I've also read about improving intermediate vision with ReStors by implanting a piggyback IOL in the nondominant eye.  And there was another report about a woman who was "absolutely delighted" with her range of vision with ReZooms when she received unintended monovision due to a power calculation error.

[Forum-OD-MP]

a form of "modified monovision".  i'm not personally a big fan, but to each his/her own.