Aa
Info instant focus IOL
I came across this new Swiss made IOL called INFO by Sav-IOL. A new IOL made in Switzerland described like this...... InFo is the first implant able to correct optical capacity without interfering with resolution, instantly. InFo borrows its unique use of a single light field of constant intensity from optical physics. Perfectly distinct images are projected onto the retina, whatever the circumstances are. The brain is not confused by the multiplication of focal points.
As a result, the functions of focus, optimal resolution and distance adaptation are restored. InFo allows perfect vision, whatever the distance of objects and light conditions are, with no halos or ghost images.
Has anybody ever heard of this new IOL, and if so can you tell me about them please.
As a result, the functions of focus, optimal resolution and distance adaptation are restored. InFo allows perfect vision, whatever the distance of objects and light conditions are, with no halos or ghost images.
Has anybody ever heard of this new IOL, and if so can you tell me about them please.
InFo Instant Focus SAV-IOL
Hi, I'm also planning to have those lens implanted and wondering if anyone else has any feedback?
Thank you
Hi, I'm also planning to have those lens implanted and wondering if anyone else has any feedback?
Thank you
3 Comments
No experience with it.
It partly depends on what your visual needs are, and how much of an early adopter you are since there is little information out there about it, suggesting there hasn't been much study of it.
I'd seen early articles like 2.5 years ago I posted above of 4 patients that looked promising, but the problem is not seeing larger study data since then.
I found their current product brochure, and that oddly in that:
http://www.sav-iol.com/PDF/EN_BrochLecture_SAV-IOL_web.pdf
They have a defocus curve chart, something showing visual acuity at different distances, which has a curve for "left eye" and "right eye" which suggests its the results of *1* patient (or such a small sample size that the eyes didn't average out to the same curve, since on average the results should be the same). That suggests it might be a cherry picked single case with good results (and if you were going to cherry pick, even a minuscule fraction of those with a monofocal IOLs get some near reading, its just not something anyone should expect since its rare). It also doesn't give actual data on what a decent sized study shows regarding night vision issues like halo&glare, merely making a vague non quantitative comment.
I also notice a drop even in that chart for intermediate (going back up for near), though if its only from one patient its hard to tell how much it means, down to to 0.15 logMar which is about 20/28 vision. The bottom of the curve is at about -0.75D = 133.3 cm = 52.49 inches = 4 feet 4.49 inches). That is still decent vision, though its not as good for intermediate as typical results I see for the Symfony (its more like a trifocals slight drop), or if you are looking at less common extended depth of focus lenses with less data, not as good likely as the MiniWell, but I hadn't seen enough data on that either to know what to make of it to be sure.. It looks like it might have more near than the Symfony, but it isn't clear without more data. The distance vision results also don't look quite as good as the Symfony or some premium IOLs.
The problem is its hard to be sure of anything from that chart, to know what a larger study would show, preferably one comparing it direction with some other premium lens(es). It may be a competitor to trifocals in terms of providing a larger range of vision than the Symfony, but a slight drop at intermediate.
I'd ask them if they can give you any pointers to study data on the IOL that is public on the net to see and post it for the benefit of others, in case there is something a search isn't showing.
If looking for a larger range of vision a trifocal might be another option to consider (I'm assuming you are someplace where those are approved), or if distance&intermediate are of more interest but some hope for decent near, then the Symfony seems a better bet, or perhaps other options where I haven't seen enough data (but at least more than the sav-iol) like the MiniWell, etc.
I'd seen early articles like 2.5 years ago I posted above of 4 patients that looked promising, but the problem is not seeing larger study data since then.
I found their current product brochure, and that oddly in that:
http://www.sav-iol.com/PDF/EN_BrochLecture_SAV-IOL_web.pdf
They have a defocus curve chart, something showing visual acuity at different distances, which has a curve for "left eye" and "right eye" which suggests its the results of *1* patient (or such a small sample size that the eyes didn't average out to the same curve, since on average the results should be the same). That suggests it might be a cherry picked single case with good results (and if you were going to cherry pick, even a minuscule fraction of those with a monofocal IOLs get some near reading, its just not something anyone should expect since its rare). It also doesn't give actual data on what a decent sized study shows regarding night vision issues like halo&glare, merely making a vague non quantitative comment.
I also notice a drop even in that chart for intermediate (going back up for near), though if its only from one patient its hard to tell how much it means, down to to 0.15 logMar which is about 20/28 vision. The bottom of the curve is at about -0.75D = 133.3 cm = 52.49 inches = 4 feet 4.49 inches). That is still decent vision, though its not as good for intermediate as typical results I see for the Symfony (its more like a trifocals slight drop), or if you are looking at less common extended depth of focus lenses with less data, not as good likely as the MiniWell, but I hadn't seen enough data on that either to know what to make of it to be sure.. It looks like it might have more near than the Symfony, but it isn't clear without more data. The distance vision results also don't look quite as good as the Symfony or some premium IOLs.
The problem is its hard to be sure of anything from that chart, to know what a larger study would show, preferably one comparing it direction with some other premium lens(es). It may be a competitor to trifocals in terms of providing a larger range of vision than the Symfony, but a slight drop at intermediate.
I'd ask them if they can give you any pointers to study data on the IOL that is public on the net to see and post it for the benefit of others, in case there is something a search isn't showing.
If looking for a larger range of vision a trifocal might be another option to consider (I'm assuming you are someplace where those are approved), or if distance&intermediate are of more interest but some hope for decent near, then the Symfony seems a better bet, or perhaps other options where I haven't seen enough data (but at least more than the sav-iol) like the MiniWell, etc.
Unfortunately there isn't much info out there in the InFo lens. Before I had my surgery in Dec. 2014 I'd run into an article about an earlier version of that lens. I didn't think it was this one, but here is an article on it from Sept. 2014:
http://ophthalmologytimes.modernmedicine.com/ophthalmologytimes/content/tags/cataract-surgery/novel-iol-provides-promising-results-small-series?page=full
The concern I had was that there was too little information about it. Coincidentally I recently ran into a surgeon's video about it from a June 29th,2016 presentation, when taking a check to see if there was more about it yet:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A4VvXdvSPI
The video (and the article) may be a bit technical for most laypeople, but the video gives an impression of just how much of a barebones small scale operation this new lens seems to be at the moment. The first batch of lenses had lower quality results they say due to lower quality production methods. Even if the current production is higher quality, it still suggests caution before being an early adopter, and doing your research. It may be that it is a good choice, I just hadn't explored the issue in detail and there isn't much data out there to compare it to other lenses.
The InFo lens would be considered an "extended depth of focus" lens, which is a new category of lens (which unfortunately some surgeons still confuse with multifocals if they are more knowledgeable about medicine than optics). The Symfony, which is what I got, is the most widely used and studied lens in the class, from an established major IOL company, and is the same overall shape&material as the widely used Tecnis monofocals and multifocals. I was an early adopter when I got it, but I saw it as lower risk than a completely new lens.
There are some other lenses in the category that seem to be receiving less attention and study (so they may be hard to compare) like the IC-8 which is an IOL that uses the pinhole effect to get an extended depth of focus, and the MiniWell (which last I'd heard is approved, but doesn't seem to be widely marketed, I'd heard from one source that they might be refining it and studying more before doing wider scale marketing, though I don't know whether that impression is out of date), and the WIOL-CF (which some surgeons have concerns about since it doesn't have haptics and might move, there are case studies talking about dislocated lenses) and a trifocal with some enhanced depth of focus to smooth over the peaks, the RevIOL Tri-Ed. Until I see more info I'd still consider the Symfony a safer bet, but I hadn't hunted too much for data on them recently since I already had my surgery. I keep up with some news about them out of curiosity (partly curious if I made the right choice) but hadn't gone hunting for data or asking them for it.
http://ophthalmologytimes.modernmedicine.com/ophthalmologytimes/content/tags/cataract-surgery/novel-iol-provides-promising-results-small-series?page=full
The concern I had was that there was too little information about it. Coincidentally I recently ran into a surgeon's video about it from a June 29th,2016 presentation, when taking a check to see if there was more about it yet:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A4VvXdvSPI
The video (and the article) may be a bit technical for most laypeople, but the video gives an impression of just how much of a barebones small scale operation this new lens seems to be at the moment. The first batch of lenses had lower quality results they say due to lower quality production methods. Even if the current production is higher quality, it still suggests caution before being an early adopter, and doing your research. It may be that it is a good choice, I just hadn't explored the issue in detail and there isn't much data out there to compare it to other lenses.
The InFo lens would be considered an "extended depth of focus" lens, which is a new category of lens (which unfortunately some surgeons still confuse with multifocals if they are more knowledgeable about medicine than optics). The Symfony, which is what I got, is the most widely used and studied lens in the class, from an established major IOL company, and is the same overall shape&material as the widely used Tecnis monofocals and multifocals. I was an early adopter when I got it, but I saw it as lower risk than a completely new lens.
There are some other lenses in the category that seem to be receiving less attention and study (so they may be hard to compare) like the IC-8 which is an IOL that uses the pinhole effect to get an extended depth of focus, and the MiniWell (which last I'd heard is approved, but doesn't seem to be widely marketed, I'd heard from one source that they might be refining it and studying more before doing wider scale marketing, though I don't know whether that impression is out of date), and the WIOL-CF (which some surgeons have concerns about since it doesn't have haptics and might move, there are case studies talking about dislocated lenses) and a trifocal with some enhanced depth of focus to smooth over the peaks, the RevIOL Tri-Ed. Until I see more info I'd still consider the Symfony a safer bet, but I hadn't hunted too much for data on them recently since I already had my surgery. I keep up with some news about them out of curiosity (partly curious if I made the right choice) but hadn't gone hunting for data or asking them for it.
1 Comments
Never heard of it. Look for something not written by the company advertising department.
Have an Answer?
You are reading content posted in the Eye Care Community
Top General Health Answerers
Kansas City, MO
Grand Prairie, TX
San Diego, CA
Discharge often isn't normal, and could mean an infection or an STD.
In this unique and fascinating report from Missouri Medicine, world-renowned expert Dr. Raymond Moody examines what really happens when we almost die.
Think a loved one may be experiencing hearing loss? Here are five warning signs to watch for.
When it comes to your health, timing is everything
We’ve got a crash course on metabolism basics.
Learn what you can do to avoid ski injury and other common winter sports injury.
