Ophthalmology Marches On

[rep]

I just got off the phone with my brother who is a very good Ohthalmologist with a large practice. He is attending the launch of a new IOL implant that not only corrects distance vision, but also corrects near vision.

There have been other implants on the market that have claimed to correct near vision, but the numbers panned out to only help about 25%. According to him this new lens in it's trials corrected 90% or better.

The cost expected for the patient was $5,000 per eye. His initial surveys of his patients developed into a waiting list and so far the cost does not seem to be a factor to many people. The list includes many who don't need cataract surgery at all, but simply want to ditch their glasses forever.

Look for some more information to come out at the ASCRS meeting in D. C.

These guys are getting better and better. I think this ratchets up the pucker factor about the future of eyeglass and contact lens sales considerably.

Rep

[Judy Canty]

Isn't that what was said about soft contact lenses?

[rep]

That soft contact lens had a pretty big impact on single vision prescriptions.

In addition soft contacts have a huge hassle factor, implants on he other hand would be permanent.

How many -1 to -3 sphs have you seen walking into your store, expecially 14 -29 year old females?

rep

[Judy Canty]

Probably more than you think, since eyewear has also become a fashion statement, and as most responsible ECP's will advise, they still need a pair of eyeglasses.

Every new modality has been greeted as the "death knell" for eyeglasses and, for one reason or another, it hasn't happened. Not being much of a "chicken little", I'll bide my time and see what happens.

[chm2023]

These would be appropriate for people with stable vision only obviously. What % of the universe is this?

[rep]

I am not an Optometrist or Physician, but my understanding is that after 45 vision is pretty much stable until cataracts start forming. What does change is the near vision because the natural lens becomes ridgid and cannot flex to accomodate. The lens under development actually flexs like a natural lens in a young person. If it's true you would not need to change it.

Rep

[LENNY]

Theoreticaly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

[Pete Hanlin]

Regarding refractive and presbyopia correcting IOLs- there are a few reasons to put off hanging up our pupilometers for at least a little while.

First, the standard-of-care remains that IOLs should only be given to patients with decreased vision due to cataracts (and occasionally to extreme cases of ametropia).

Second, the aging US population is expected to present with a MUCH higher % of ocular health issues in the coming years. Things like ARMD, diabetes retinopathies, glaucoma, &c, &c... Bad news for the general public- good news for ophthalmics (especially low vision devices).

Third, growth of the contact lens market has leveled off over the past number of years. True, PAL growth has also experienced a slow-down, but this is likely related to the last of the Baby Boomers turning 40 last year. You'll see fewer and fewer emerging presbyopes for about 5-6 years in a row (which is why bifocal conversions will be instrumental to PAL growth).

Finally, speaking as someone who had LASIK four or so years back, I still wear a slight correction (and in a couple years will require PALs). Additionally, I wear Rx polarized sunwear, and I'd like to think I would even if I weren't in the industry.

Anyway, the newest IOLs are certainly intriguing (although I'm not sure if some of them are covered by HCFA), but I think the market for ophthalmic devices is going to be pretty sound for the foreseeable future!