one question, are you guys excruciated by BLUE?
Has anyone actually tried the crizal prevencia? Anyone notice a difference? I'm not talking about retinal (macular) difference, but a difference in eye strain and sleep patterns as suggested with blue light protection.
Here's what they look like:
https://scontent.fsnc1-1.fna.fbcdn.n...07&oe=578ED42C
Hideous, plus you get the same reflections off that front surface from light sources located behind the wearer.
Violet Light Exposure Can Be a Preventive Strategy Against Myopia Progression
Hidemasa Torii Toshihide Kurihara , Yuko Seko c, Kazuno Negishi , KazuhikoOhnuma , Takaaki Inaba, Motoko Kawashima, Xiaoyan Jiang, Shinichiro Kondo, MakiMiyauchi, YukihiroMiwa, Yusaku Katada, Kiwako Mori, Keiichi Kato, Kinya Tsubota, Hiroshi Goto, Mayumi Oda hMegumi Hatori, Kazuo Tsubota
Prevalence of myopia is increasing worldwide. Outdoor activity is one of the most important environmental factors for myopia control. Here we show that violet light (VL, 360–400 nm wavelength) suppresses myopia progression. First, we confirmed that VL suppressed the axial length (AL) elongation in the chick myopia model. Expression microarray analyses revealed that myopia suppressive gene EGR1 was upregulated by VL exposure. VL exposure induced significantly higher upregulation of EGR1 in chick chorioretinal tissues than blue light under the same conditions. Next, we conducted clinical research retrospectively to compare the AL elongation among myopic children who wore eyeglasses (VL blocked) and two types of contact lenses (partially VL blocked and VL transmitting). The data showed the VL transmitting contact lenses suppressed myopia progression most. These results suggest that VL is one of the important outdoor environmental factors for myopia control. Since VL is apt to be excluded from our modern society due to the excessive UV protection, VL exposure can be a preventive strategy against myopia progression.
© 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
I came out with a do it yourself UV 400 lens treatment in 1981 that fully absorbed 100% of UV up to 400nm. We sold thousands of them for years.
Lenses resulted in a light yellowish tinge.
Then somebody else came out with a UV that was not yellowish but only absorbed to 380nm. And we lost a lot of sales because they were clear white and not the ugly yellowish color.
These days nobody seems to be doing the yourself method anymore, and save money big time.
Some manufacturers have now re invented UV 400 absorbing lenses 36 years later, opticians used to apply in their own offices for years at little cost.
Wow.
Chris - stop selling your stuff all over the boards here for like two seconds, and actually read the paper that was linked above. Even just the title. *shaking my head*
Anecdote not equaling evidence, but our patients, on return ~1-1.5 years after purchasing Recharge lenses, have reported less fatigue from prolonged periods on digital devices and better sleep cycles. The latter report is what I'm more interested in, as our office didn't start promoting the potential benefits to circadian rhythm until much later, after many of these patients had purchased their lenses. So, that was patients, independent of one another and without any influence from an ECP, reporting the same benefit.
We were never able to get a sample of Prevencia, and our OD (along with me, personally) had a policy of not selling anything we hadn't tried out personally, so, can't offer any info on that one.
Even if data proves down the line that there is no HEV "hazard," I'm wondering if such lenses may still have a place as "anti fatigue" lenses.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks