Failed job at check in?

[Eyedentity3]

I would just like to confirm that I should fail this job and get some opinions. The job in question is a -1.00 OU SV Esslior 360 poly and the power checks out but the lens was obviously edged crooked in relation to the laser markings. With a Pal this job would be going back without discussion, there is a 3mm difference between the OD watermarks. This is going back unless it really will not affect anything, I have never ran into a SV lens with this issue so I am not sure the rules here.

Thanks everyone,

Josh

[Barry Santini]

Do not fail a job of this power for this reason!

B

[wmcdonald]

First you should know how much prism is induced, and you can do that by spotting the OCs and reading the prism in the focimeter. Then you must know what is acceptable according to ANSI standards (you should have ANSI standards someplace nearby). In this case you will find that little prism is induced. You can also mathematically determine approximately how much prism is induced. Hint: Prentices Rule. Look it up, review the concepts, and good look in your future development.

[PRECISIONLAB]

@ wmcdonald The question is not one of induced prism but rather principal grinding axis. The laser marks are off 3mm which I approximate about 15 degrees off. Think of the lens as a polarized lens with alignment best @ 180. Although a sphere power was the "WAVE" technology compromised being edged off axis is the question. The goal is to reduce peripheral aberration via aspheric design. In your case -1.00 might be ok but worth calling the lab and make them aware that someone obviously ignored the reference marks. Here is a link to the lens in question http://essilor360.com/benefits.html

[jpways]

In the case of digital SV the PRP and the DRP are at the midway point between the etchings (at least in every digital SV centration chart I've seen). So, if you were to mark up the DRP OD, with the etchings not being on a 180 how can the DRP be anywhere near the PD and OC Height ordered (or simply within the ANSI standards for these measurements) unless it's a perfectly round lens?

[MakeOptics]

There is no ANSI standard for SV laser marks. Unless the lens blank is atoric on the front assume rotational assymetry and chalk that up as poor form but acceptable.

[jpways]

Not for the markings, but there are standards for how far a PD is allowed to be off horizontally or OC Height (if ordered) is allowed to be vertically off. (Which leads to the prism)

[Tallboy]

Not for the markings, but there are standards for how far a PD is allowed to be off horizontally or OC Height (if ordered) is allowed to be vertically off. (Which leads to the prism)

Or does the prism lead to the pd being off.

I prolly just would have used a digitally molded stock lens for that rx

[jpways]

Or does the prism lead to the pd being off.

I prolly just would have used a digitally molded stock lens for that rx

I wouldn't have either, but that wasn't the question

[MakeOptics]

Not for the markings, but there are standards for how far a PD is allowed to be off horizontally or OC Height (if ordered) is allowed to be vertically off. (Which leads to the prism)

The poster started with the power checks out where is PD and prism in your assumption coming from? I interpreted the question being about the watermarks.

[jpways]

The poster started with the power checks out where is PD and prism in your assumption coming from? I interpreted the question being about the watermarks.

The lens may show up as optically centered on a digital lensometer (it would at any area near the DRP it's a digital for a low power, I've had my glasses with an digital single vision lens with an rx of a little greater then a -5 show up as being optically centered on my digital lensometer even though my marked DRP was no where near the lens stop (I'm really not sure that's the proper term on a digital lensometer but it's the closest I can come up with)) but that doesn't necessarily mean that the actual DRP and the point on the lensometer that is showing up as OC are the same

[MakeOptics]

The lens may show up as optically centered on a digital lensometer (it would at any area near the DRP it's a digital for a low power, I've had my glasses with an digital single vision lens with an rx of a little greater then a -5 show up as being optically centered on my digital lensometer even though my marked DRP was no where near the lens stop (I'm really not sure that's the proper term on a digital lensometer but it's the closest I can come up with)) but that doesn't necessarily mean that the actual DRP and the point on the lensometer that is showing up as OC are the same

I know what you are trying to say but like I mentioned the lens is rotationally symmetrical and in fact is spherical on the front surface so decentration will have negligible effect.

[Paul Smith LDO]

The questioned poised was whether or not the lenses or lens should be failed based on the work done. Yes, send them back to the lab and have the job done properly. If you are going to be dispensing FFSV lenses you want to eliminate any form of contention, as you may have to perform trouble shooting. Ensuring that the job was made properly is the first step in trouble shooting. Spherical RX or not.

[wmcdonald]

@ wmcdonald The question is not one of induced prism but rather principal grinding axis. The laser marks are off 3mm which I approximate about 15 degrees off. Think of the lens as a polarized lens with alignment best @ 180. Although a sphere power was the "WAVE" technology compromised being edged off axis is the question. The goal is to reduce peripheral aberration via aspheric design. In your case -1.00 might be ok but worth calling the lab and make them aware that someone obviously ignored the reference marks. Here is a link to the lens in question http://essilor360.com/benefits.html

Hummmmm.....here in NC a -1.00 is a sphere, so the only real issue is prism. But obviously you are smarter than I so I will not comment further. Good luck.

[jpways]

I would normally think that too but I had a patient who we did a digital lens on a -3.25 where the same thing happened, decentration was 1 mm vertically 2 mm horizontally, so barely under ANSI standards for prism (it's so close that I had to check my notes to make sure that I wasn't remembering it wrong and just coming up with convenient numbers), so after talking with the Dr. I work for we decided to try dispensing it as is, but the patient was complaining that his vision wasn't as clear through the new lenses (vs. a traditionally surfaced lens before both lenses in Polycarbonate) so I sent it back for the rotated lens and when it was remade the patient's vision was better through the new lenses.
Now, I'm not saying that the same thing would happen at -1.00 (I'd be surprised if it did) unless total decentration was even greater or if the decentration was more in the vertical then the horizontal, but if Eyedentity3 is on the fence about rejecting it saying that the lens it improperly decentered would be a more valid reason under ANSI for rejection then just saying that the etchings are not on a 180.

[MakeOptics]

The job in question is a -1.00 OU SV Esslior 360 poly and the power checks out but the lens was obviously edged crooked in relation to the laser markings.

Am I missing something?

jpways and wmcdonald you are right it should be rejected for the prism.

[mshimp]

I doubt it has any unwanted prism. I'm sue the order is just fine.... let it go.

[morinput]

precisionlab's response is the correct one, but why in the world would you use this lens for the RX?

I don't think anyone can convince me this was in the patient's best interest.

[obxeyeguy]

precisionlab's response is the correct one, but why in the world would you use this lens for the RX?

I don't think anyone can convince me this was in the patient's best interest.

Answers: Insurance and who really cares. Very simple as I watch my own office I worked to build turn like this. I still refuse to play in that sand box.

[braheem24]

rotationally symmetrical

If a Freeform Spherical SV is rotationally symmetrical, Does that make it nothing but an aspheric lens?

[MakeOptics]

If a Freeform Spherical SV is rotationally symmetrical, Does that make it nothing but an aspheric lens?

I already said everyone on this thread is right I'm wrong, stop beating a dead horse.

[braheem24]

Wmcdonald, Barry Santini, Mshimp along with others believe the job is fine, I'm one of the few who don't, Sorry if you thought I was singling you out.

There is no prism error. The patient paid for freeform which requires a specific fit, I would not give them a D28, PAL or any polarized lens 15 degrees off axis.

[Eyedentity3]

Wow, a lot of responses! Thanks everyone!

To address a few peoples concerns, all the measurements check out so I am not seeing any prism being induced. It looks like when the lab produced the lens they blocked it correctly in relation to the OC ect, but ignored the reference points causing them to look like this ( ' - , )

Now the 360 SV being only an "enhanced" lens and not a true free form compensated lens I wasn't sure what kind of effects it could have on the optics. My understanding, it is a symmetrical design? But, what about a SV individual or SV fit? these lenses are true freeform. I would image that in this scenario the reference points would be a much bigger deal due to the compensation?

Also, about patient benefits. The lens was 100% covered by the patients insurance so it is definitely did not hurt her. Minor benefits are still benefits.

Now with what I ended up doing. I dispensed the Job, but I also am having the lenses reproduced. The patient did "pay" for a perfect lens she should get one.

Thanks everyone again for all the responses!

JS

[Robert Martellaro]

If a Freeform Spherical SV is rotationally symmetrical, Does that make it nothing but an aspheric lens?

Right. It could even be a spherical surface design and free-form. Caveat Emptor.

The original 360 lenses were backside aspheric, not atoric.