Comments on this posting?
http://theopticalvisionsite.com/equi...-is-it-better/
Comments on this posting?
http://theopticalvisionsite.com/equi...-is-it-better/
The article is poorly written, its only advertising really, and designed to boost Google search rankings. It never actually talks about refraction at all, or what it actually dos. I hate pointless articles like this, only to get sponser dollars without any real info, because mostly, there is no real info.
The Visionix website actually has ZERO information on their technology, they just throw words out like Wavefront and Digital Refraction. If they are using an "Motorized" Phoropter, then the only difference is that the dials are moved by motors, and its push button for the OD. Its faster sure, and enables more choices (A,B,C,D) than the 1 or 2. So it could result in a better refraction, but its no different than anyone elses motorized phoropter. Its just buzz words.
The only buzz word I didn't find was "Titanium", I am sure their marketing department is working on that now.
Going to a 12th of a diopter is what ODs used to do, ages ago. So the thrill of a "new" technology from the 1920's is lost on me.
Visionix also makes equipment for the Gynocology industry? That would make for an interesting trade show mistake.
I feel a lot of this striving for pinpoint accuracy is hooey. The final Rx is flavored more by the patient's symptoms, the habitual Rx, whether or not they are presbyopic or soon to be, whether there is reduced acuity from some pathology...and a miillion other things. I could care less whether the "actual" refraction is 2.125 or 2.25.
Visionix actually worked on technology for many fields including gynecology and aeronautics. They hold 31 patents and their research and technology are well respected all over the world. It's just not a well known name in North America.
Originally Posted by fjpod
What about very high myopes or people with night driving issues, do you think that there is credibility in these instruments determining different refractions for day and night or situational use? Would you sell glasses based on that?
Kallen, do you have any commercial interest in Visionix, or their products, even remotely? If so, your original post is probably a violation of forum rules. Mods?
Nope, just wondering what opticians think about wavefront. It's everywhere and curious if anyone is using it and if they are, is it making a difference? There are tons and tons of articles but I've never actually had a doc refract to that degree.
IMHO, I don't think it is a violation
Thanks Jacqui. So that kicks it to you....you work with a lot of specialized rx patients...what are your thoughts? Is it worth it? Do you think everything is going to go that way in the industry? Or do you think it's a trend that will fade with time? I was amazed at AAO by all the info that's out there.
I think it will go that way and stay around for a long time. Do I think it's really worth it?? NO. I was taught to refract to an eighth diopter, but most people don't need it. Wavefront has been found, in practice, to be unnecessary.
P.S.I always wanted to see one of the Eyelogic digital phoropters wired to a freeform system, just push a button and the Rx would go from refracting to fabrication. Should give the patients better than one hour service.
I've attened a Visionix-sponsored seminar at VEE and I must say, they are on to something! They have correlated PSF with many visual factors, especially dry eye. A reading from their equipment can be interpreted and used to more confidently predict dry eye, which we all know dramtially impacts subjective impression of acuity and contrast. Although I agree that the flip between 0.12D and 0.00 is not overly significant, I think this type of diagnostic will prove to be beneficial and enhance the refractive/prescriptive paradigm going forward. It boils down to getting more data upon which to help guide us to the best endpoint, which is never bad, yes?
Anything that can help reduce the patient's impression of reliance on subjective findings for thefinal Rx is OK by me. Known endpoints are amongst the fundamental elements upon which to deliver the best possible eyecare.
B
Great then. "Wavefront" has about 20 different definitions, many used incorrectly or at best, confusingly, essentially, all light has a "wavefront". What definition of "wavefront" do you mean? Its one of the most disingenuous terms in this industry today. We are at a disadvantage then, because Visonix does define even remotely how they use it. Its hard to talk about a potential technology when the company that advertises it, doesn't even explain its usage.
Do you have info they don't put on their website?
Thats great info Barry, but I wonder why you have more info than Visionix does on their website? I am hesitant to work with data companies don't put into public domain, its too easy to retract later. Remember Opthanix? It was difficult to pin their claims down because they kept changing... depending on who you talked to... their tech was always different.
According to Karpecki, Visionix is extracing results in various guises, including RMS, Strehl ratio and point spread function. Karpecki maintains that PSF has clinically proven to be more correlative than other expressions of optical defcous for the human eye.
Take Karpecki's course at VEE, and get his take on this technology. You won't regret it.
B
Last edited by Barry Santini; 01-08-2013 at 01:17 PM.
Firstly, I would like to say, it doesn't matter whether someone is a high myope, low myope or anything else. If an Rx is over or under plussed a bit, then this needs to be discussed with the patient before ordering glasses. If a patient wants better night driving vision, then any Rx can stand to be a little less plus or more minus. My rule of thumb is to add -0.25, or "leave 'em in the green", (referring to the duochrome refraction technique).....but this same guideline can bite you in the butt if they are a 46 year old presbyope that works in an office. So, the real issue is communicating with your patient...not accuracy to the last .125 diopter.
What I'm trying to say is that what will bite you in the butt every time is the refractionist not listening to how the patient is going to use their glasses, what problem they are trying to solve, and under what circumstances...not accuracy to the last .125 diopter. The patient may need different pairs of glasses to solve different problems. Accuracy to the last .125 will not do the trick.
One of the problems with technology, any technolgy in this industry, is the question of if we are providing value or benefit the patient? Will this result in better vision?
If I can refract with exotic algorythms, will any lens actually take those into consideration at fabrication?
If a lens actually does, will that design and refraction improve either Visual Accuity, Comfort or fields of view.
Will our patient actually see better?
The basic question is still being missed, is this a subjective or objective technology? There is simply not enough info on the website to even know.
This is both: objective in that the client participates less in the initial findings, like most automated analysis. Subjective in that the DOCTOR has more robust data with which target the best Rx for that client.
Sharpstick777: Karpecki/Visonix has found that PSF image analysis correlates more closely with client impression of subjective acuity and sharpness than other measures, including rms, Strehl, etc. This should count for something!
B
Last edited by Barry Santini; 01-08-2013 at 03:29 PM.
Kallen, I would consider the fact that you work for Briot/Visionix to represent commercial interest. They are the same company...
I think your comment below is innacurate at best.
There is a strategy called "forum priming" where I can cleverly call attention to a product, by indirectly referencing an article or asking a question. Since I can't promote directly, I can promote indirectly this way.
Its up to the mods to consider whether this violates the rules or not... not me. But I don't consider you to have been fully forthcoming in your posts... personally.
Last edited by sharpstick777; 01-08-2013 at 07:07 PM.
I don't believe I read anywhere in the forum rules that you shouldn't gather information and opinions from opticians and people who sell freeform lenses. Afterall, it's a hot topic. FYI I was an optician for 13+ years until just three months ago,and have the same experiences that other opticians have. It's invaluable to understand how technology can benefit the patient, or if people think it won't and why. I have genuine curiosity which makes any question posted legitimate. I think it has a lot of good info and great commentary from people in the field. That's what blogging is all about...opinions and ascertaining information from other professionals in the field.
.12 Diopters is actually an 8th, not a 12th of a diopter.
just splitting hairs.
RANDLE, YOU IDIOT! *EVERYONE* KNOWS IT'S A 1/12TH AND "BREAKAGE"!!!
(just kidding...)
B
You are certainly welcome to gather information and opinions from opticians. However, if you have a commercial or other conflict of interest in the product or service that you are posting about, we do request that you identify your affiliation, as described in the OptiBoard FAQ:I don't believe I read anywhere in the forum rules that you shouldn't gather information and opinions from opticians and people who sell freeform lenses.
"Please identify all potential conflicts of interest clearly. If you are commenting on an issue or product that you have a financial interest in, you must identify this relationship."
Best regards,
Darryl
Darryl J. Meister, ABOM
It's been referred to as a twelfth for at least the 43+ years that I've been in the business.
it may have been referred to as a 12th, but if you break it down into equal parts, it's an 8th of a diopter. just a pet peeve of mine.
This error is so common in our industry that there have actually been articles written about it!It's been referred to as a twelfth for at least the 43+ years that I've been in the business.
Best regards,
Darryl
Darryl J. Meister, ABOM
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks