Anyone using SolaMax as occupational PAL's?

[ilanh]

I recently have started to use Solamax for presbyopes whose distance vision is close to plano but who spend many hours a day at the computer. These are patients who have specifically complained about the concept of "pure occupational" PAL's like Access or Office. They want to be able to spend hours a day at the computer but to also race around the office as needed without taking off their glasses. Using a computer program that gives me the effective "corridor" of every PAL at specified distances I realized that Solamax has one of the widest intermediate and reading zones available. Naturally this comes at the expense of the distance zone (but these patients are plano anyway and can take off their glasses for driving if they want to). I have fit about 8 patients this way over the last month and asked them to complete a survey on my website about 60- 90 days post dispensing. I hope to learn if this gambit works for this subgroup.

[Framebender]

I probably have 5 pair with Solamax Velocity. A great lens with very wide intermediate. The little bit of garbage in the distance doesn't bother us because most of us aren't critical seers.

I personally prefer the Velocity over transitions. It seems to run a little darker and has a little wider range.

[Happylady]

What is a very wide intermediate? Isn't the Sola Max only about 5 mms wide? Of course it depends on the prescription.

I had a pair a while ago. It was okay but seemed swimmy to me. The distance was alright. I don't remember thinking the reading was that wide.

Let us know what the outcome is. :)

[Framebender]

sitting approximately 3' away I can cover the whole screen with no head turning. Most of my other glasses I lose about 3" on each edge. I'm +2.00 OU with a +2.00 add.

[drk]

SolaMax is, IMO, a quasi-NVF lens, and that's how I use it: exactly as you do.

[rbaker]

Would someone care to define "occupational" for me? Does it in any way tie in with safety eyewear or any other type of PPE?

[drk]

Task specific vs. general everyday use.

[Framebender]

Straight ahead about 6' with edge to edge near. The Office has a window that'll kick you out to about 10'. Great lenses really. I've put them on caterers, house painters, motorcyle mechanics, anybody working in that 3' to 5' range. Not very expensive either.

[Darryl Meister]

What is a very wide intermediate? Isn't the Sola Max only about 5 mms wide?... I don't remember thinking the reading was that wide.

SOLAMAX has a very wide, high near zone.

[snowmonster]

sitting approximately 3' away I can cover the whole screen with no head turning. Most of my other glasses I lose about 3" on each edge. I'm +2.00 OU with a +2.00 add.

Really, a 36" monitor? Is is this what I get to look forward to with presbyopia?

-Steve

[Framebender]

Its great for gaming too!

[CDOT]

Its great for gaming too!

HERE, HERE!!!

[ilanh]

I've played around with many of the occupational lenses over the years and they all seem to have their pros and cons. I think it's very important to understand the concept of power digression and to custom tailor the choice to the patient's needs. For example, an emerging presbyope with +1.50 add could do quite well with a Sola Access digression of +1.75. He would get his entire add addressed within the +1.75 digression zone and would even have a clear zone at the upper lens to navigate with. However, a +2.50 add put in an Access +1.75 digression would have +0.75 or more at the top of the lens which would limit his mobility around the office. Another choice may be more appropriate eg: Shamir Office, Zeiss Gradal RD, SolaMax. Let's say that same patient does not care about mobility around the office and wants to wear their Access glasses purely at the computer; it still matters how far away they sit from their computer. If they sit very far from the computer (a growing trend) you will have to modify the Access prescription which typically gives an add of +1.75-2.00 at intermediate (Office, Cosmolit, Rd give less). Some of this stuff is science but some is gestalt and tweaking.

[Happylady]

When I look at the latest measurements of progressives in the Sheedy report the Sola Max doesn't have the widest intermediate. It is the 5th widest and measures slightly less then 4 mms in a plano distance with a +2.00 add. There are many that are almost as wide.

There are also many that have a wider reading area.

You can look at the report by going to the progressive lens forums and looking for the thread titled New Progressive Lens Study Published. There is a link there.

[ilanh]

You have to look further down at the chart that discusses "combined intermediate/near" specific tasks. There you will see that SolaMax is rated 3. The first two, Pentax AF and Mini, have dismal distance scores (dead last). My conclusion is that if you want very good intermediate/near but don't want to totally sacrifice distance, the SolaMax is a good choice. Let's see if Sheedy's studies stand up to actual clinical testing. For example, I was intrigued that Varilux Comfort got mediocre scores whereas it seems to be staggeringly popular (? hype). Likewise, Image did amazingly well in both Sheedy's studies yet is often used as a "cheapy" alternative.

[Happylady]

You have to look further down at the chart that discusses "combined intermediate/near" specific tasks. There you will see that SolaMax is rated 3. The first two, Pentax AF and Mini, have dismal distance scores (dead last). My conclusion is that if you want very good intermediate/near but don't want to totally sacrifice distance, the SolaMax is a good choice. Let's see if Sheedy's studies stand up to actual clinical testing. For example, I was intrigued that Varilux Comfort got mediocre scores whereas it seems to be staggeringly popular (? hype). Likewise, Image did amazingly well in both Sheedy's studies yet is often used as a "cheapy" alternative.

It is hard to figure out the best lenses, isn't it?

I agree that the SolaMax is one of the better progressives as far as intermediate and near. However, it's intermediate is no where near as wide as a true computer/desk lens. It's only 4 millimeters wide. Also many people need intermediate correction straight ahead and no progressive offers that.

I tell people all the time to lower their computer screens but many people tell me they aren't able to do so.

[Darryl Meister]

When I look at the latest measurements of progressives in the Sheedy report the Sola Max doesn't have the widest intermediate. It is the 5th widest and measures slightly less then 4 mms in a plano distance with a +2.00 add. There are many that are almost as wide. There are also many that have a wider reading area. You can look at the report by going to the progressive lens forums and looking for the thread titled New Progressive Lens Study Published.

I am intimately familiar Sheedy's evaluations, and -- while I certainly commend his efforts and his work in general -- we believe that his methodology suffers from several important limitations in the context of modern progressive lens design. The "reading area" you are referring to is a measure of the amount of the lens surface that reaches within 0.25 D of the nominal (+2.00) Add. While this type of measurement may be useful for predicting near utility in small frames, it has only limited relevance when ranking the overall performance for near vision tasks.

A more clinically meaningful approach would be to ray trace the performance of the lens for a realistic near object geometry using blur thresholds based on actual wearer studies. Dr. Sheedy even notes in his articles that most of these lenses would appear to provide very little if any usable vision for tasks like distance vision using his current methodology, though progressive lenses obviously work quite well for the vast majority of wearers.

For example, I was intrigued that Varilux Comfort got mediocre scores whereas it seems to be staggeringly popular (? hype). Likewise, Image did amazingly well in both Sheedy's studies yet is often used as a "cheapy" alternative.

Another unfortunate consequence of Sheedy's methodology is the fact that his relatively tight power thresholds favor "older" lens designs with rapid power gradients. Many "modern" progressive lenses, including lens designs like Varilux Comfort, strive for a reasonable balance between wide viewing zones and smooth transitions with low levels of distortion and swim. However, Sheedy's evaluation has virtually no metrics for dynamic vision, visual comfort, or even binocular performance. Even the astigmatism measurement is provided as an optional clinical consideration.

Secondly, since his analysis does not consider binocular performance, lens designs with optical compromises meant to improve overall binocular utility are also at a disadvantage (e.g., older rotated lens designs versus modern asymmetrical designs).

That said, Dr. Sheedy is very eager to make his evaluations as clinically meaningful as possible, so I suspect that he may revise certain aspects of his methodology in the future to better reflect modern trends in progressive lens design.

[jas256]

To ilanh:


Where did you get the computer program that shows you different PAL designs?