Printable View
I hope Im doing this right,forgive me, its my first post.
I have never filled an Rx this extreme before.
-20.50 -4.00 x175
-20.50 -4.75 x005
Her last lenses were hyper aspheric 1.66 double concave. Ive been
told by my lab other options are Zeiss 1.70 and 1.67 blended myodisc.
Anyone want to share their opinion on the pros and cons of these options.
I am reluctant to change her into something else.I would like to know as much as I can going into this.
Thank you
Huddie
At that power frame selection is more important than 1.66 or 1.70 I've had a -26.00 look like a -8.00 with the correct frame shape, size and PD combination.
Keep in mind at this RX OC is as important as PD and should have no decentration if possible also.
Good Luck :cheers:
Sorry I just couldn't resist: THE PATIENT NEEDS BI-TORIC RIGID CONTACT LENSES!
Any sort of glasses will do for back up and finding the contacts, she won't wear the glasses anyway except for this purpose once she sees what it is possible to see with this Rx and well fitted bi-toric rigid contact lenses.
Chip
Rx's like this are not hard to make. X-cel has semi-finished myodisks in 1.67 index -6.25 base curve. Just have a competent independent lab make them and fit them as Braheem has said.
And, of course, lets not forget vertex compensation if needed although I'll bet the refractionist doesn't have the foggiest idea of the actual distance.Quote:
Originally Posted by braheem24
And also of course don't forget ABBE. If you can get it in the Zeiss 1.70, do so.ABBE is not a problem for me now, bit I used to be a -15.00 -2.00,and believe me, it's very important at that power. As others mentioned, frame selection is very important also.
My mother has a similar Rx, -19.00 with some cyl. I agree with whoever said frame selection is key. The first frames we put her in were too wide (she has a narrow pd) and the temporal side of the lens looked ridiculous. Expensive lesson learned. The next frames we did were small, so her pupils were as close to center as possible, with thick temples to hide the thickness. They looked great, or about as great as -19s can look. The lenses we used were 1.67 SV with AR.
thanks everyone.
Yes, I agree frame selection is very important .I am aware of the consequences of this choice.
My main concern is taking her out of the double concave and putting her into something else.I dont know the benifits of the concave and why the last optician choose this lens over the other options. He has much more experience than I do ,but I cannot reach him to inquire.
Obviously she prefers her contacts and will not wear these often except at home, but I dont want to give her less than she already has.
So considering ABBE,VD, excellent independant lab and best frame selection..the lenses with the best optics in this Rx is the Zeiss 1.70 ?
Thank you Jacqui for the myodisc suggestion.I have heard there is peripheral distortion due to the blending, is this not true ?
regards and thanks in advance for anymore info,
Huddie
EyeCandy:
-19.00's and +19.00's can''t see anything peripherally anyway. Maybe 30 degrees of usuable vision and a little fuzz beyond but strong single lens systems just don't provide peripheral vision. (Except of course for contacts which move with the eye)
Chip
Yeah, and besides, the blend angle usually coincides with the angle of view, so it's about as far as you can gaze anyway. Be nice if you could find someone to do a double concave in 1.70.