High Plus Pal Transition

[Danna]

Any one can give me any advice on Rx: (R)+8.50-2.25x051 add +3.00 and (L)+6.50-0.75x089 add+3.00 PD: 31/30. Patient is currently wearing 1.67 Essilor comfort transition lens and complaining lens thickness and heavy. This time she wants a lighter and thinner transition lens. I would like to offer her 1.74 transition progressive, but I can not find a suitable lens with available power for her. Nikon Balance is out of range. Essilor and Seiko Surmont are no 1.74 transition available. Is there any other lenses suggestion?

[uncut]

Welcome, Danna, to the forum.....

I would start by insuring that:

a) the frame is lighter than the previous.

b) the frame size is appropriate for the lens power.

c) the frame shape is appropriate for the lens position.

d) and the most important part...the nosepads are adjustable, and large enough to support the lenses of any material used.


I dwell on d) above due to the fact that with a plus 3 add this person's nasal skin structure is disrupted and yes, the weight needs to be light, but I would dwell on the frame and lens production/centering, to attain maximum weight loss.

[Judy Canty]

Remember that a higher index does not necessarily mean a lower specific gravity (lighter weight).

[uncut]

I just thought I'd add that the thickness of a multifocal(progressive) is based on the thickness somewhere between the distance and combined near and distance powers, whereas the thickness of a FT bifocal is influenced primarily by the distance power.

[Danna]

Thanks Uncut,

a) frame is memory flex, the light material and weight is similar as her old frame
b) frame size: A 50, B 31, ED 52, Bridge 18, it is smaller that old frame
c) frame shape is rectangular
d) metal frame with adjustable nose pad.

Is there any 1.74 pal transition available?

[Danna]

I forgot to tell you that pd is 29/29 for dist and Near 27/27

[Optoanomaly]

Donna,


Did the Rx jumped quite drastically from the previous one? And what was the previous lens?


2 things,
First- there are no available 1.74 transitions yet in our era, perhaps in the next decade or so. Feel free to browse all lens manufacturing companies, and all they have is 1.67 transitions.
Second- keep in mind that any transitions lens would have additional thickness to the lens due to it's photochromic property. Try to compare and contrast same powered and index lens between white and photo, the photo will be a little thicker. Which means more weight. Im afraid what she has before is a clear white lens, 1.74 perhaps.


So try to either switch to 1.74 white, it should reduce the weight a bit, or if you insist on giving her transitions lens, try
Rodenstock Impression Hyperop 1.67 colormatic IQ solitaire protect plus. That lens is designed for extreme plus power and it is quite thin for your Rx (it accomodates S+6.00-S+13.00), That's a top notch lens, I've dispensed it many times and can't go wrong with it. But of course it's not for everyone due to $$$$$

[CCGREEN]

1.74 transition is available in Physio Drx and Essilor digital SV. I just received my email notice from essilor 5 days ago.
And nope.......it may not be available yet in Indonesia for Optoanomaly. I don't know that one way or another.

[Optoanomaly]

Hmm, that's good to know that there's such thing exist. I'm sure it's not available in Asia just yet. We only have Digital Comfort, not even physio level. Not a fan of essilor anyways. Their marketing is superb, but their design is crap. Especially for high plus/addition like Donna's. Very narrow visual acuity, full of aberration. Good luck though

[Jason H]

I've got Kodak Unique as availiable in Transitions 1.74. Grey or Brown. Would have to run the numbers to be sure it's within Rx range, but a +8.50 doesn't sound like a climb up Everest.

[AngeHamm]

1.74 transition is available in Physio Drx and Essilor digital SV. I just received my email notice from essilor 5 days ago.
And nope.......it may not be available yet in Indonesia for Optoanomaly. I don't know that one way or another.

+1.

I can't speak for this product specifically, but my 1.74 SV Transitions from Seiko work very well.

[Danna]

1.74 transition is available in Physio Drx and Essilor digital SV. I just received my email notice from essilor 5 days ago.
And nope.......it may not be available yet in Indonesia for Optoanomaly. I don't know that one way or another.

I asked essilor rep today, he said no 1.74 progressive transition available. Are you sure the correct name is Physio Drs? I did many pairs Physio 2.0 360, but have not heard Physio Drs.

[hyperoptic]

Digital may not be the best way to go, because of the sum power requirements of the front curve, to keep decent optics you would need to use around a 12 base, anything less would diminish the near visual zone, no matter who designed the lens. However it may be one of your only choices if you are set on a 1.74 Transitions product. Typically house branded designs offer greater flexibility in this area as they do not require the use of as specific base curve, or blank manufacturer. If you would like to share the Seg I can run some numbers through our calculator and let you know what is possible in the digital world.

[Danna]

Digital may not be the best way to go, because of the sum power requirements of the front curve, to keep decent optics you would need to use around a 12 base, anything less would diminish the near visual zone, no matter who designed the lens. However it may be one of your only choices if you are set on a 1.74 Transitions product. Typically house branded designs offer greater flexibility in this area as they do not require the use of as specific base curve, or blank manufacturer. If you would like to share the Seg I can run some numbers through our calculator and let you know what is possible in the digital world.

I do not mind digital or non digital, patient wants transition and only care about the weight and thickness. the info is as bellow: Rx : (R)+8.50-2.25x051 add +3.00, (L)+6.50-0.75x089 add+3.00 PD: 29/29 for distance, 27/27 for Near Frame size: A 50, B 31, ED 52, Bridge 18 Can I use double sides reverse surface to make the base flatter and thinner?

[Robert Martellaro]

I do not mind digital or non digital, patient wants transition and only care about the weight and thickness.

A deeper, narrower, rounder frame is the only way to significantly reduce weight and thickness.

the info is as bellow: Rx : (R)+8.50-2.25x051 add +3.00, (L)+6.50-0.75x089 add+3.00 PD: 29/29 for distance, 27/27 for Near Frame size: A 50, B 31, ED 52, Bridge 18 Can I use double sides reverse surface to make the base flatter and thinner?

You mean bi-convex? If you could do it, the oblique astigmatism and power error would rise to three diopters or so. Sure, it would be thinner (but probably not lighter), but the vision would be very poor. If you can skip photochromism, I'd put Zeiss's 1.74 Individual 2 on the table for the best vision.

[RT]

If you surface both sides, you'll cut the Transitions off.

[sharpstick777]

using 1.74 wont significantly reduce thickness or weight even in this RX. You and the patient will be disappointed.

In this power, a ROUND and CENTERED frame will reduce weight far more than a material change would. Ice-Tech offers their 1.67 Trans, and it would be thinner than most 1.74's. The frame shape in round increases the thickness in hyperopes across the entire lens, where in myopes it only affects the edges.

c) frame shape is rectangular

[Randle Tibbs, ABOM]

did you mean to say a round frame would increase or decrease thickness in plus lenses?

[sharpstick777]

did you mean to say a round frame would increase or decrease thickness in plus lenses?

A round frame, if centered, will reduce or even eliminate edge thickness in plus. A smaller round frame, if centered, will reduce center and edge thickness. A decentered lens in either will increase both center and edge thickness, but it will increase edge thickness even more if its a rectangular frame.

Decentration in plus increases thickness across the entire surface of the lens, where in minus, its only thicker around the edge, the center thickness can remain the same. Did I mis-state myself?

[Jason H]

Sharpstick, just curious, and with your devotion to Ice-Tech noted - how is a 1.67 index thinner than "most" 1.74 index lenses if all else is equal?

[Randle Tibbs, ABOM]

A round frame, if centered, will reduce or even eliminate edge thickness in plus. A smaller round frame, if centered, will reduce center and edge thickness. A decentered lens in either will increase both center and edge thickness, but it will increase edge thickness even more if its a rectangular frame.

Decentration in plus increases thickness across the entire surface of the lens, where in minus, its only thicker around the edge, the center thickness can remain the same. Did I mis-state myself?

My bad!! missed the CENTERED part, no mistatement made.

[sharpstick777]

Sharpstick, just curious, and with your devotion to Ice-Tech noted - how is a 1.67 index thinner than "most" 1.74 index lenses if all else is equal?

Its hard to explain, but the best description I can give is they what I call a micro lenticular blending toward the edges, and focus on a 60-75 degree central zone with best optics, its invisible unless you know what you are looking for, its a better blend than the Epic jobs I have ordered. The blend and the power zones are all calculated individually based on frame dimensions, not pulled from a static point file. We did a +18 and it came out looking like a +10, and took a child out of lenticular lenses. The best way is to request a sample from Ice-Tech in Plus, it can be 40% thinner than a standard ground lens in the same material.

[Danna]

Its hard to explain, but the best description I can give is they what I call a micro lenticular blending toward the edges, and focus on a 60-75 degree central zone with best optics, its invisible unless you know what you are looking for, its a better blend than the Epic jobs I have ordered. The blend and the power zones are all calculated individually based on frame dimensions, not pulled from a static point file. We did a +18 and it came out looking like a +10, and took a child out of lenticular lenses. The best way is to request a sample from Ice-Tech in Plus, it can be 40% thinner than a standard ground lens in the same material.

what is Ice-Tech? Which manufacturer's lens and what is its design for progressive?

[scriptfiller]

+1 on Ice-Tech.

Danna, Ice-Tech uses a proprietary process and design (rumor has it that IOT designed the formula for their PAL's). They produce a truly remarkable product, using in-house engineered and produced machinery, software and lab management systems.

I personally wear a 1.60 Transitions and polarized lenses and my vision has been better with their products that any other lense(s) I have worn. FYI my RX is +1.5-5.0 OU

[Robert Martellaro]

Rx: (R)+8.50-2.25x051 add +3.00 and (L)+6.50-0.75x089 add+3.00

I would strongly warn the client that a blended lenticular, and the subsequent plus back curve, even if it starts well outside of the near zone (and it has to), will cause some (probably significant) degree of discomfort and bluring in the nasal portion of each lens, and will still be the same thickness at the top and bottom compared to the old eyeglasses.