SV and Ft-28 visual difference

Currently have a pt that has a DVO pair, trivex, photochromic, Crizal Alize, and a FT-28 pair, trivex, photochromic, Crizal Alize. Both pair are in the same style frame and adjusted the same as well. Pt is complaining that the DV in the SV is much better than the FT-28 pair. My mgr and I have tested the base curve, warpage and the prescription itself. Everything checks out. We are at a loss. Any help would be appreciated.

The Rx is from August 2020 and the only change was the add power from +2.00 to a +2.75. The SV was purchased in August 2020 and the FT-28 was purchased in January 2021.

It would have to be either psychological or some defect in lens quality. Maybe put him on an eye chart, monocularly, see if you can do a comparison between pairs and see if his subjective complaint can be "objectified"?

Was there a seg hgt. Change? Is there any buildup of hardcoat at the seg line under the AR? It could also be the +.75 bump is adding more blurr in lower peripheral viewing. Definitely check acuity between the 2 as drk suggested. I doubt it’s psychological if the patient successfully wore ft’s in the past.

Is the SV aspheric and the FT spherical? Was the proper OC height specified in the FT pair along with the seg height?

Check the off center optics in the ft. Move the lens horizontally and vertically in the lensometer and observe if there is any dramatic change in power do to poor surfacing techniques.

What's the Dist RX?

Welcome to Optiboard halsey1977!!! :biggrin:

What is the distance prescription?

[QUOTE=Is there any buildup of hardcoat at the seg line under the AR? It could also be the +.75 bump is adding more blurr in lower peripheral viewing..[/QUOTE]

That's what I'm thinking