iZon Lenses
How many of you have heard, seen, dealt, or used these lenses?
Are they as good as their website sets it out to be? Is the equipment needed for this fitting system expensive? Is it worth it? Did you see a quick ROI?
I can go on with the questions, how about you just fill me in on what you can about the iZon lens.
Thanks for your help
Cowboy
:cheers:
according to the Rep at the IOA convention, the abberometer is ~$29,000.Originally Posted by Cowboy
Hope someone who knows will post some information here...
Sounds like suggesting major reconstructive surgery for a paper cut to me. (In other words, major over-kill).
on Izon lenses. There's been a fair amount posted on it. Over on the UK board, www.theoptom.com , there is a member who is the Vice President of Marketing for Izon. Very helpful guy. Answered my questions, got me some material from the US distributor. Goes by the user name of Gogs.
Have a Happy Holiday!!
:cheers:
Days where my gratitude exceed my expectations are very good days!
If anyone is going to do an OptiBoard search, I suggest using keywords iZon and Ophthonix. Maybe Z-View as well.
Last edited by rinselberg; 12-19-2006 at 01:12 AM.
It is still unclear to me, based on all of the materials I've seen from Ophthonix, exactly what it is they're claiming to do exactly.
Darryl J. Meister, ABOM
Darryl said:I am with you on this one. I have seen the product, heard the company sales pitch and would like to better understand what high order abberations they are able to make adjustments for in the lens that could not be done with digital surfacing.It is still unclear to me, based on all of the materials I've seen from Ophthonix, exactly what it is they're claiming to do exactly.
I do believe that with the ablility to produce lenses today within a few micros of surface precision we are now limited by very precise prescription information.
I know they produce a prescription with standard Rx data and high order Rx data. The high order Rx data is bar coded. (I would guess encrypted)
My question is what information is about the eye is available from a adderometer that can be used to more increase vision accuity.
I am not saying their technology is not valid, I just don't understand it. And I would say they have a major communiction problem if Darryl Meister has also read over the material and can not tell us what it does that will help vision.
According to the claims on the website, you'll apparently be able to tell Superman about all the things he can't see, and help eagles and hawks find food. No longer is there a need for microscopes, telescopes, binoculars, or rifle scopes. The US Air Force is changing it's policy to now REQUIRE these eyeglasses for ALL pilots.
Smoke-and-mirrors.
Quarter behind the ear.
Bottled water from the fountain of youth.
If you know anyone who will actually buy those lenses, tell them I've got fragments from Noah's ark, a handwritten signed copy of the complete works of Shakespear, and a completely safe all-natural pill that will never allow your body to be more than 1/2 pound over your ideal weight. All these items are for sale, and there's enough for everyone in the world to have as many as they like. I've also got a business opportunity that IS NOT a pyramid scheme- and you will be rich in 3 days if you follow my plan.
You can be sure that everyting I just said is true, because it was confirmed with wavefront-guided-super-duper-high-tech-big words-make-you-think-it's-better LASERS! (Written testimony from Yoda available upon request)
hipoptical said:I know it is quite a good lens. I have a customer of mine who also sell the I-zon. We have done comparision sampling although limited with both the ICE-TECH and I-Zon showing far superior to traditional front sided PALs.If you know anyone who will actually buy those lenses, tell them I've got fragments from Noah's ark, a handwritten signed copy of the complete works of Shakespear, and a completely safe all-natural pill that will never allow your body to be more than 1/2 pound over your ideal weight. All these items are for sale, and there's enough for everyone in the world to have as many as they like. I've also got a business opportunity that IS NOT a pyramid scheme- and you will be rich in 3 days if you follow my plan.
The I-zon is an individually made lens, my question is just how much better can it be, and how much better is it. It is definitely priced as a premium lens.
They sell it as a single vision also. Now how much better can THAT be????? Get the implant, or wave-front lasik if you're that disturbed by lenses. Some people just have a need to spend money. I worked for a Dr. a long time ago...
We priced some frames for under $40. They wouldn't sell, so just for fun we priced them over $100... couldn't keep enough in stock. Point is, people will pay for anything as long as it costs enough, but not too much (certainly not too little- low cost is low quality). iZon and other products like it just take advantage of people's lack of knowledge, praying on the emotion that says "expensive is better". It's a sugar pill.
That type of comment is insulting to those who are medically unable to undergo surgical procedures such as these. Cost is not always the issue.Get the implant, or wave-front lasik if you're that disturbed by lenses.
Those of us who are limited to spectacles, would pay just about anything to get more crispness of vision. Especially us younger folk. I get tired of having to explain to people why I can't wear contacts or get my corneas sculpted into crystal-clear acuity.
It is bad enough the public doesn't understand why some of us are still stuck being four-eyed. But an optical professional certainly ought to know better.
That said....I'm skeptical of these new technologies as well. I would think, in my case, the instability of my ocular surface might negate most advantages of such a design.
Last I had checked, there weren't any nearby professionals selling this lens technology, but now it seems there are a few. I'll have to check them out.
I have yet to see any studies citing a general improvement in visual acuity after wavefront-guided refractive surgery compared to the subject's best spectacle correction prior to the surgery. In fact, several studies have indicated that, while wavefront-guided ablation represents an improvement over traditional refractive surgery, which typically introduced significant levels of higher order aberrations, patients are unlikely to enjoy significantly improved visual performance with this new technique compared to their spectacle correction.Those of us who are limited to spectacles, would pay just about anything to get more crispness of vision. Especially us younger folk. I get tired of having to explain to people why I can't wear contacts or get my corneas sculpted into crystal-clear acuity.
Darryl J. Meister, ABOM
Methinks you misread what I said. I cannot wear contacts, either, and lasik for my eyes is on the difficult side (though still possible, which I understand is not the same as you...) so, understand that my comment is for the individuals who believe in anything as long as it's expensive, not for those who actually have issues. My point is that this lens cannot be THAT much better in SINGLE VISION FORM than traditional lenses. For people who claim to be negatively affected by traditional lenses, the best solution is implant or Lasik. If you were my friend (and yes I have a friend in your position) I would say "Stop being so sensitive" (actually I would tell him to quit being a baby- but we're really close). However, since you are not one of my friends, I say "I regret that you were hurt by my previous post, and hope that the comments you just read help you to better understand my point. In the future I will try to guard my words more carefully."
All I will say is Buyer Beware. We used the machines.
Is Izon smoke and mirrors?
I have personally dispensed more lenses than anybody in the world and just sent back 3 machines!! There is some merit to the machine, but we had more progressive re-do's than all other brands combined. It may be the beginning of something good; but it needs to be in the hands of a company committed to the optical industry. We acheived the same results no matter what the high order reading- I doubt they have any way to control teh high order to attain improved visual acuity over the entire lens. Some spots create awesome vision for a few individuals; most had problems reading out of the lenses and I could not get Ophthonix to solve this problem. They planned on a new progressive design to solve the problem; I used it and had the exact same results. The patients rejected the lenses up to 4 times times; we remade in the same frame and RX in a Kodak Unique and they loved them. We put all non adapts in the Kodak and they could read great. This agian proves " LET THE BUYER BEWARE" the company will go on their merry way one the purchase is made.
They are using an abberometer to measure the high order abberations (trefoil, coma, spherical abberation) and then programming this into a lens via a laser. The ability to measure HOA's has been around for some time and now we can actually do something about it.
There are studies available. The Navy did a study on these lenses and determined that people are able to react about 25 feet sooner than with traditional lenses going 55 MPH. OF course this is promoted by Ophthonix, but the study was done by an outside source, independant of pre-conceived ideas.
Just so we're clear, are you referring to a study done using Ophthonix production lens samples, subjects having undergone wavefront-guided refractive surgery, or adaptive optics? Do you have a copy of or a link to this study? (Keep in mind that a study done using adaptive optics is in no way indicative of the performance one could expect with wavefront-guided surgery or Ophthonix lenses.)There are studies available. The Navy did a study on these lenses and determined that people are able to react about 25 feet sooner than with traditional lenses going 55 MPH.
Darryl J. Meister, ABOM
From what I understand, this study was performed using 1.6 high index lenses with identical coatings etc. The same people were tested using each type of lens. One with the wavefront correction correcting for the HOA's and one conventional High index lens. The study was not done with patients who have had surgical wavefront correction done. Now, granted the reaction time was only 0.3 seconds better, but at 55 MPH this translates to 25 feet. I'm sorry but I can't remember where I saw this study. I will try to find it for you. Also, I have seen several posts about people having trouble adapting to the IZON PAL, but my success has been incredible with this lens. The lens is best for people who are most concerned with clear distance vision and certainly not an architect who has a large area to be viewed at near. Fitting properly is of the utmost importance. Lenses should be fit close to the face with a slight face wrap. I have recently learned that the lenses work much better when the vertex distance and panto tilt is specified on the order forms.
Now, I have been in this business since 1984 and I have NEVER had patients seek me out to tell me how great they see with their new glasses but I promise you, this is happening every week since we started using IZON lenses. I believe that the people having trouble with this lens are uninformed about how it works. The measurement process is so important. If the patient is not positioned properly it makes a difference in how the measurements come out. The lenses on the abberometer must be kept crystal clear. Fingerprints etc will surely give you a bad reading. This lens is not for everyone and the stories of unhappy patients were probably not good candidates to begin with, or the office staff needs more training so they can better determine who WILL do well with the lenses. Unfortunatly, opticians are not always receptive to new technology because it represents one more thing they have to squeeze into their already busy days, particulary the older ones. Does it give you X-Ray vision....certainly not. Does it improve the quality of life for patients with a moderate to high amount of HOA's? Absolutly.
Have you ever asked Ophthonix which "higher-order aberrations" these lenses actually reduce, and whether this correction occurs at one point on the lens or at different points across the entire lens? And my understanding was that Ophthonix actually didn't recommend using this if the wearer suffered from significant higher order aberrations..?Does it give you X-Ray vision....certainly not. Does it improve the quality of life for patients with a moderate to high amount of HOA's
Keep in mind that the basic optics of the progressive lens design will generally overwhelm any higher order aberrations over the majority of the lens surface (in fact, the average higher-order aberrations for the general population represent only a fraction of the power errors produced around the central viewing zones of a progressive lens). So a great progressive lens design is critical before you need to worry about the correction of the more subtle, higher-order ocular aberrations., I have seen several posts about people having trouble adapting to the IZON PAL
Darryl J. Meister, ABOM
These lenses correct trefoil, coma, and spherical abberation. And yes, I have asked how they work in the periphery of the lens. As a rule, people will only cut their eyes 15-20% before turning their heads. I have observed this time and time again in real life. The wavefront correction is mostly placed in the center third of the lens BUT, if you have provided the company with the measurements they request (ie vertex), the programmer actually knows exactly how this will change when looking to the side, based on the mesurements taken in primary gaze. The wavefront correction is "fanned out" into the periphery taking into account the box measurements, tilt, vertex and lens power. The progressive design is different for every patient based on the frame, RX, seg etc. It is free-form generated on the back surface and greatly reduces the amount of distortion that we have come to expect in a progressive. As far as the distortion over-riding the HOA correction, this is true, but distortion from ANY PAL makes that portion of the lens non-usable. The focus should be on how clearly the patient can see @ distance with the wavefront correction. There is a minimum 16 mm seg height and the OC needs to be at least 10mm from the top eyewire giving you a minimum B measurement of 26. IF you are fitting them lower or too close to the top of the frame, they will not work as well. HOA's can account for up to about 20% of a persons vision. It is not about giving them 2 extra lines of improvement in their best corrected VA but increasing the QUALITY of the best corrected VA. When was the last time you asked a patient HOW CLEARLY they can see the 20/20 line? As a person who has performed MANY MANY refractions, I used to be happy if they could 3 out of 5 letters on the chart and I dared not ask how clearly they could see it. I have had hundreds of patients tell me, yes I can see the 20/20 line but it is fuzzy. My reply was "that's okay as long as you can see them.". Not any longer. I am no longer afraid to ask that question.
I forgot to add this: Ophthonix has a database built into the abberometer that compares a patients HOA's to those in the database. They can't always correct for ALL of the HOA's in a person who has a large amount of them. The lenses actually do quite well for these patients as long as their told that they may have some residual HOA left uncorrected. The company boots these people out as a candidate because they don't always get the "wow factor" and it just does not justify the cost in some cases. I have had several patients for whom we have made lenses that get a significant amount of improvement, but maybe not 100%. this is the company's way of helping you manage patient expectations. They are telling you who will get the BEST improvement for their buck.
What you're describing doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Are they only applying the optimal higher-order correction at a single point then? While the head will generally make a compensatory movement when the eye movement is large enough, the eye is in a constant state of movement. Due to the asymmetric, non-circular nature of these aberrations, you cannot have an optically continuous correction of higher-order wavefront aberrations over the entire lens. As the pupil moves just a few millimeters from the center -- or "sweet spot" -- of the lens, lower-order aberrations are introduced that actually exceed the higher-order aberrations corrected at the center. Basically, you are doing more harm as the eye moves slightly than good at the center of the "sweet spot." Alternatively, with the right technology, you could conceivably correct the higher-order aberrations at several "sweet spots" across the lens, like an insect's compound eye, but as the pupil moves away from the center of each "sweet spot" of optimal correction, which it will constantly do, the eye effectively "straddles" two different corrections.These lenses correct trefoil, coma, and spherical abberation. And yes, I have asked how they work in the periphery of the lens. As a rule, people will only cut their eyes 15-20% before turning their heads. ... The wavefront correction is mostly placed in the center third of the lens... The wavefront correction is "fanned out" into the periphery taking into account the box measurements, tilt, vertex and lens power.
Which is why a lens design that effectively manages this distortion is more important to overall performance and utility. Very few multifocal wearers spend most of their day using only the distance zone.as far as the distortion over-riding the HOA correction, this is true, but distortion from ANY PAL makes that portion of the lens non-usable.
Last edited by Darryl Meister; 07-03-2007 at 03:45 PM.
Darryl J. Meister, ABOM
Well I really don't know what to tell you then....you have to be open-minded to new technology. Everything does not always have to make sense to be worthwhile. Sounds like it's just not for you. Too bad. You are over-thinking the issue. All I know is that it works....somehow. It makes perfect sense to me. I would encourage you to contact the company for a better explaination on how this works. I have done this before and they are more than willing to explain it. The engineers there are much smarter than I will ever be so it is a leap of faith. But my patients love it. Your's would too. They are using the exact same technology that was used to fix the Hubble telescope after they sent it up and it didn't work. Remember that? In fact, the company bought the technology from NASA. I guess those guys at NASA were stupid too.......but you know what....we as taxpayers paid the bill even though we didn't understand how it worked. And it did work. They made a giant contact lens with the SAME programmable material, and programmed it to subtract out not only atmospheric abberation, but also distortion coming from outer space. Have some faith! You don't have to analyze the proces to death. You are missing out on something really special. It's the best advancement in lens technology since the no-line bifocal came out in the 1950's.
I suppose that the fact you work for Zeiss has nothing to do with your skepticism........if I were Zeiss or Essilor, I'd be worried too. The fact is that this technology is here to stay and those not on board will be left in the dark ages prescribing their dinosaur lenses.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks