If we have "brands in particular" that don't measure up to stated specs. Why are we afraid to mention the brand?
Don't we have this board to help each other. Or are we afraid we might offend "the brand" ?
Maybe I was being naive but I thought we weren't suposed to "slam" certian manufacturers?
goodsearch.com vosh
LadyDie:
If a large company makes a product that is junk, slam the product.
"And the Truth Shall Make You free."
Not only will it make you free, it might save a lot of patients and opticians a lot of grief.
There is even a remote possibility that if bad products were named the "certian manufacturers" might improve the product.
Trust me the great manufacturer's congomerate isn't gonna cut you off from your source of supply for negative product postings.
Chip
LOL I wasn't worried about the manufacturer but this forum. Thought there were rules against it.
One of the things I was referring to was V-Comfort. The seg ht reccomended 14yrs ago was 22 now they are saying 18. I never use that one myself but I think even with Physio 18 is a definite minimum. Even then some of the reading is cut off. Had someone do a Physio last week at 17.5 and couldn't get enough reading to check it on the lensometer. All of their lenses I prefer to do 1mm higher then the recommended min. if not even higher. I do like Physio and Elipse but just not as low as they say.
On the other hand you can do Shamir Genisis at 18 instead of 19 and it is Ok but I don't do that very much.
goodsearch.com vosh
Originally Posted by LadyDie
I have a V- comfort fit at 16 hi have not had one problem. The point I was making in my post was that there are some in our field who don't know a PD stick from a seg guage and couldn't compute a slab off if their life depended on it. It's all about sales not what is good for the patient but how much can we grab from every patient that walks through the door instead of what used to be referred to as customer service or optical service. Put it this way we used to ask and talk to the customers find out what they did if they needed a st. top 40 or even and Exec. for those accountants who needed the large reading area. Today it's how large was your sale and did you sell them 24 pairs for all their needs, it just seems that the caring and service have all but vanished for the almighty greed of the dollar and how much money we can put into the coffers of the boxes and chains. just me
Hardly ever do we have enough lens in the reading area to check it on the lensometer. Todays frames are just too small. If you fit an ellipse at 17mm (3mm higher than the min and the Maximum that is should be fitted), you still won't have enough. Looking for the full add on the lensometer will just drive you crazy. The apeture is about 4mm in diameter on mine. It will always read 0.12D too weak just because of the averaging of the power over the apeture of the lensometer.
And before anyone gets in a tizzy over this; I remember there where some wearer studies that showed that prog wearers rarely use the full add.
I'll post some of my personal observations regarding "actual" min FH.
Vx Comfort I've seen sucessful at 16mm
Ovation sucessfull as low as 15mm
Natural performs MUCH better at 19mm than 18mm (IMHO)
Picollo as low as 15mm
Image as low at 17.0mm
Definity short is not good below 16mm
There is some good info published by Sheedy et al. regarding this. He also says that the Image, Genesis and Picollo could be fit shorter and the Ellipse is a little tight at 14mm. But I'm going on memory here. The report is now 3+ years old so the Definity short and many of the newer freeform lenses aren't in there.
Re-read my post #29. It's not so much the fitting height (even though I will agree you can't go crazy) but in some cases it's the people fitting them and adjusting them. An example: I fit a person with a St. top 35 at 15hi. The person who delivered them on my day off told the person because they were seeing the seg that they were measured to hi. I came in the next day called the guy he came back in I refit the lenses that came adgusted them and lo and behold he didn't see the seg. The only thing the other person knew was to reorder them because they had no clue that an adjustment could fixed the problem. That is a big problem today all these re-do's that are not re-do's but just plain inadequacies in the way the boxes and chains train their people. Another words no training at all. They say they train but if you have seen any of that training it's woeful at best.
Re-read my post #29. It's not so much the fitting height (even though I will agree you can't go crazy) but in some cases it's the people fitting them and adjusting them. An example: I fit a person with a St. top 35 at 15hi. The person who delivered them on my day off told the person because they were seeing the seg that they were measured to hi. I came in the next day called the guy he came back in I refit the lenses that came adgusted them and lo and behold he didn't see the seg. The only thing the other person knew was to reorder them because they had no clue that an adjustment could fixed the problem. That is a big problem today all these re-do's that are not re-do's but just plain inadequacies in the way the boxes and chains train their people. Another words no training at all. They say they train but if you have seen any of that training it's woeful at best.
i would agree!
An old experienced lab tech once told me that if a seg height on FT's is missing, he would just go 5mm below datum, and it worked 90% of the time. Maybe the internet PAL's are made 5mm above datum with similar results?:D;)
I use 3mm.:bbg:
And I think "by the book" says 4mm.:bbg:
I've found dividing the b measurement by two and subtract 4mm, works almost everytime!
If that is true then a frame with a B (D) at 30 and divided by 2 is 15 minus 4 is 11. That's pretty low for a No-line, not bad if you fit a st.top but don't you have to take into effect where the glasses are sitting on the patients head? I have noticed that in some cases even though the B will accommodate for a no-line once I measure it on the persons face there is not enough room because of the fitting parameters.
The Varilux lens was the first PAL of modern design. It was developed by Bernard Maitenaz, patented in 1953, and introduced by the Société des Lunetiers (that later became part of Essilor) in 1959.
My father received a pair of Varilux in 1955 as one of a few opticians and good customers of the Société des Lunetiers to test them out . He was totally enthusiastic about them, and never looked back and we sold lots of them already during the first year (1959) they were on the market. No warranty, no returns and no come backs....................why?
Essilor gave courses in every city to teach opticians how to fit them and to whom NOT to sell them.
The ground rule was...............sell them or use only a frame that is deep enough to fit the whole reading segment, if patient refuses such frame do not sell them the lenses.
Having read tons of post's over the last 71/2 years on OptiBoard referring to PALs I have come to the conclusion that there must be some millions of people walking around with PALs on their noses that can barely read, because most of their reading area has been cut or ground off, and it does not matter what make or brand it is, they have been sold the wrong frame to go with it. :hammer:
Your statement seems to contradict itself:
If millions are indeed walking around with them, with the reading areas "ground-off", and they, by and large, anecdotally seem "satisfied", then the only conclusion I see possible is that
Millions of eyeglass wearers are satisfied with just the adequate.
We, as an industry, deliver, by and large, just an*adequate* eyewear experience (mea culpa!)
What will you do tomorrow to deliver a truly excellent eyewear experience?
Barry
Segment height refers to straight top or round top
You still didn't answer the question. If you re-read my post I did mention St.Top. But even on a St.Top I have found you still have to take in where the frame is sitting on the patients head.
I agree with the last part of your statement because I have seen it. People come and say "I have to keep picking up my glasses to see and even then it's not good". The big trend is small but if the lens is not fit correctly who cares if it's small they can't see. If you have a B smaller than 30 your just asking for trouble.
Pupil reflex method
After i take accurate pd's with the pupilometer , i preadjust the frame on patient with a centrist view i want the patient to be comfy with a fit that allows the center of the pupil to be close to central. I also like adustable nose pads on pals and try to promote that as well. No b measures below 26/ then i have the patient sit in a proper posture , back aligned properly/ patient looking in primary gaze. I then grab a marker and a pen light and have them ignore the light and mark the visual reflex in both eyes , check the pd's and make sure i'm aligned with the patient vertically, i want to have at least 10 mm from oc to the top of the frame. If your are properly aligned vertically the visual reflex method works well.
I have noticed a few things at my place which I feel could lead to errors:
-Sometimes, on smaller frames, the optician does not leave at least 10mm between the central dot and the superior eyewire.
-She tends to accept the min. seg height recommendations of the manufacturers. I have encouraged her not to believe anything they say and to allow at least 1-2mm leeway as a buffer (ie: if they say 18mm, try to leave yourself 19-20mm)
-I've noticed sometimes that the frames are not pre-adjusted before the markings are done.
-She likes to dot the center of the pupil and I'm inclined to dot the bottom. I think that more redo's occur when the add corridor swims into the distance vision ie: seg height set too high.
We do not use a flash light to obtain the reflex. This strikes me as good idea since it's often hard to see the center of a pupil in a dark eye.
I have also found that putting patients into the same PAL that they were in before also helps. If you need to change the PAL, make sure it has the same perameters (example: 4 or 2 mm fitting cross) to ensure less adjustment issues.
Also, the checking of base and ocular curves are important as well. The few redos I have had usually revolve around these issues. Seg heights, not so much..
Just my two cents...
There is no physical reason why a lens with 2mm from the markings to the pupils would be any different than a lens that is 4mm. Remember that the mfg can put the markings wherever they would like in reference to the pupil.
However, there may be a difference in mfg philosphy and this could be manafested in the pupil-to-marking height.
I seems just about all the lens companies are going to 4mm (except Seiko, Younger and Excellite). Probably because no one seems to keep anything except for a Varilux layout chart.:hammer:
once again just remeber SAAKE,S rule of 35, all progressives will be 3 to 5 mm above and all lines will be 3 to 5 below, with the occasional exception
I read through this thread and just can't help but chuckle. When my state association, and probably most of the rest of them, plan education conferences, we're always told by our membership "just don't schedule another class on how to fit a progressive", yet it's still recognized as a problem with multiple solutions. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
I can't agree with u more Judy!, i get so tired of those pal measuring seminars, we find that free form technology is helping patients adapt much easier!
Ok Barry I will bite! What do you do to truly deliver an excellent eyewear experience?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks