IZON Wavefront Prog. Lenses:Post your experience

[rob.optician]

Please use this thread to post your experience dispensing the Izon Wavefront Guided Progressive Lenses.

This product is a large investment for any office and if those opticians that have dispensed these lenses could post their experience it would be a great help to the rest of us.

How are patients responding to the new "custom" design?

Can the patients actually see a difference in these lenses compared to their old prog. lenses since the Izon corrects multiple distortions?

What are you selling them for? How are patients responding to that price point?

What about how long they take to get (4 weeks)? and what if you have to remake the lens, is that taking another month?

Overall, how has the Izon lenses and the Aberometer affected your office?

[rinselberg]

iZon wavefront corrected PAL (progressive) - press release
http://ophthonix.izonlens.com/news/p...ed.asp?prID=95

iZon PAL product page
http://ophthonix.izonlens.com/izon-l...ogressives.asp

[optigrrl]

It looks like they "sandwich" a *film* layer that may or may not negate the unwanted prism created by the power change in the design, then seal it with another layer of material.

Seems confusing. Does anybody know more about this?

[AWTECH]

I have studied the Izon technology. A few comments.

It is a high tech process.

I wonder after hearing the complete process what the benefits to the patient are.

I also wonder if this technology is capable of making a thin lens since they depend on a sandwich construction. (I know J&J had to abandon the sandwich idea and ultimately introduced the freeform Definity)

I don't see the high tech transfering to dispenser or patient cost effective benefits. (I am envious of there ability to attact the investment capital with so many unknowns)

[optigrrl]

(I am envious of there ability to attact the investment capital with so many unknowns)

Hehehe...I suppose it's all in the way it is presented. ;)

[xiaowei]

It looks like they "sandwich" a *film* layer that may or may not negate the unwanted prism created by the power change in the design, then seal it with another layer of material.

Seems confusing. Does anybody know more about this?

No, that´s not the main idea.

I studied their claims and stuff (also the patents), because our company would probably be intersted in having such a "programmable film" in other optical components. (We make microscopes, special OEM systems and lenses and stuff, NO eyeglasses).

The idea is to use that film to correct those higher order aberrations - and probably also fine correct lower ones down to 0.01 D - they claim many eyes have and cannot be corrected by simple +/- glasses and cylinders. (I agree with this, as I have really bad multiple images at full pupil at might myself)

I assume the thin film cannot acchieve such much correction that it could take over the function of the progression, so their progressives will still need to have atoric/asperic surface, be it on the outside or inside of the lens.

HOWEVER, wavefront correction (for higher orders) cannot work the way as their ads suggest: That you take the wavefront map from their aberrometer and transfer it "magnified" over to the the eyeglass.

You would need to transfer that aberration function at the very SAME size (i.e. only a few milimeters) on the eyeglass. Therefore, and also their patent says so, the higher order correction will only work in a few very small spots. However, they also argue, with the advent of PALs, many people are already used to being able to only use their eyeglasses in certain sweet spots in the near (or far) area or along the small intermediate corridor, so they argue (in the patent, NOT in the official docs for the costumer!) the patent would adopt pretty easily to those "islands of supervision", given the BIG benefit they have in those spots.

However, what I seriously doubt is, they say they can connect those islands by smoothing/interpolating those islands in a smart way when programming the film. From some mathetical reasons, a bit too complicated to detail here, this seems impossible to me without drawbacks, either you keep the high order aberration up to the edge of the pupil intact, so to really get the best supervision or you start smoothing it already before reaching the edges.

In the first case you have one POINT of perfect supervision, but at the slightest move away it will get worse, even worse as without higher order correction, as those higher order will combine ("interfere") in the wrong way (especially when you move away by about half the pupil diameter). OR, you do the smoothing, but to avoid the bad interference, it seems to me, that you need pretty strong smoothing, so much of the supervision effect is lost. What you gain in one area, you lose in another place, it´s like that "sandbox rule" about the distribution of aberrations in a traditional PAL.

Hope this helps

XW (Joachim)

[drk]

Nice, nice post. We're honored to have you post that.

[xiaowei]

Nice, nice post. We're honored to have you post that.

Glad if it was useful! I really would like to have a pair of those iZones for my high order prescription myself to test and see. It seems (at the time of research, about 6-8 weeks ago) there is/was currently only one optician in Germany that has the special Aberrometer to make the measurements and prescribe the lenses (It seems they started in Switzerland before, there they already have quite a few).

Interestingly, the guy who heads the company is German too and graduated at a German university working on Lasik and similar. I could not
yet find or get any other scientific papers on their eyeglass technology and how the tapering off at the edge of the "supervision" areas is done (this actually VERY important detail is not explained at all in the patent, as it might appear straightforward at first to the "casual" reader), it seems there were at least a few talks on conferences on early (SV) wearing tests of his "wavefront guided" eyeglasses.

I also find it interesting that the glasses are only called "guided" instead of "correcting" or "corrected", IMHO it already indicates that they only can acchieve partial correction of the full higher orders if you want a larger zone size. However, this could be also because "wavefront corrected" or similar was already taken away by Essilor or others for their latest designs (where it only refers to unwanted LENS aberrations).

XW

[rinselberg]

The idea is to use the film to correct higher order aberrations - and probably also to correct lower [order aberrations] down to 0.01 D - they claim many [patients] cannot be corrected by [only] simple plus or minus [sphere power] and cylinder [corrections]. I agree, as I have really bad multiple images at full pupil at night.

I assume the thin film cannot achieve so much correction that it could take over the function of the progression, so their progressives [would] still need to have atoric/aspheric surfaces, be it on the outside or inside of the lens ...

I would be surprised if this were the case. I think they started with their SV (single vision) technology and modified it in a relatively straightforward way to make PAL (progressive lenses) -- by changing only the software algorithm that maps the variable refraction points onto the unique "iZonik" film layer.

Anyone with an interest in the Ophthonix iZon lens technology may also be interested in these other recent posts on OptiBoard: Post from rinselberg; post from Darryl Meister.

[xiaowei]

I would be surprised if this were the case. I think they started with their SV (single vision) technology and modified it in a relatively straightforward way to make PAL (progressive lenses) -- by changing only the software algorithm that maps the variable refraction points onto the unique "iZonik" film layer.

This sounds logical, however, a thin film would need to have an extreme refractive index to do this contigously, say to create a total power of several D!

One could in principle think of setting up a microscopic system of "Fresnel lenses" where one microlense only shifts by one wavelength (you might remember those cheap very flat "ribbed" lenses you get as gifts etc., sometimes people use such a lens at the back window of the car for parking navigation), however, if I´m not mistaken here, if these lense are sub mm so the boundaries to not disturb, this would in the end be equivalent to setting up a diffractive system instead of a refractive lens and that one has several disadvantages: higher refractive orders (kind of ghost images) and terrible lateral color!

XW

[xiaowei]

higher refractive orders (kind of ghost images) and terrible lateral color!
XW

Sorry, this must read "higher diffractive orders".

Regarding the linear interpolation or similar in the post mentioned, I think this does not solve the problem. The hard thing is that the "Zernikes" they want to correct are highly "oscillatory" in the pupil, i.e. they have positive and negative contributions and a slight misorientation would cause that a big part will add up "the wrong way", i.e. the patient would experience more higher order aberrations (HOA) than with a non "wave guided" lens. As Daryl Meister writes, it might be possible, due to the assymetric nature of the HO aberrations, that correction along certain directions from the "sweet spot" is easier than in other directions, given a certain patient combination of HOA. I suspect, part of the test their Aberrometer does when deciding that the patient is a "good subject" for their glasses, has to do with that.

Or put the problem more mathematically: To get a correction of higher orders through an extended area you need some "self similar" surface, that looks basically the same wherever you go. This works well with spherical/toric surfaces, as a sphere (or better a parabolic function) has the same curvature (2nd derivative) wherever you go. (Actually, the "linear" term changes, but that´s what opticians call "prism" and does not cause a big problem) However, it seems that you cannot have a surface that maintains a constant 2nd derivate and at the same time have a given 4th deriv (or whatever)

XW

[AWTECH]

As I understand the technology they still use different front and back curve depending on the Rx. The film that changes index is used for the intermediate transition zone and possibly the add also. I tried to get a clear understanding of this at VEE and the people that were trying to explain it to me did not really understand the technology.

One big question I have is the minimum thickness. Johnson and Johnson started with what became the Definity lens project with bonding two surfaces and this just could not deliever a lens of similar thickness to traditional surfacing with two bonded together. There process was to match front and back blanks to create the power without surfacing.

I think they wound up the the definity design with a small part of the add on the front to avoid the Seiko Epson patent on a spherical front surface with the progressive design on the back.

Perhaps someone from the company with good technical knowledge could join in here and explain their technology.

[xiaowei]

As I understand the technology they still use different front and back curve depending on the Rx. The film that changes index is used for the intermediate transition zone and possibly the add also. I tried to get a clear understanding of this at VEE and the people that were trying to explain it to me did not really understand the technology.

<snip>

Perhaps someone from the company with good technical knowledge could join in here and explain their technology.

I sincerely would hope somebody would come up with more info as what can be found in the ads, the patents and the fancy, but technically no so correct, videos. Somehow I get the impression this is mostly a hype.

Is there nobody in the States, at best with ophthalmic knowledge, that has dispensed or even worn those glasses himself and can report about
the pros (and cons) of it?

Nevertheless, there will be an ophthalmic conference here in Germany on Nov. 11 and one talk is titled (my translation):

"Ophthonix, first experiences with wavefront corrected eyeglasses in the optical store"

I will try to attend and report.

XW

[rob.optician]

I will be ordering a pair of Izon lenses for myself and should have them in about 1 month. I was considered a candidate for the lenses...I am also very skeptical...I will let you know my experience with the new lenses when I receive them.

also: I wear SV lenses...I know some others that will be getting Progressive Izon lenses and will find out from them their experience.

[optigrrl]

Xiaowei -

I can't wait to hear back from you on that conference.

Rob -

Is there a way for you to try another lens at the same time to get a comparison?

[rob.optician]

The OD I work for is currently very happy with his Shamir Creation...he also currently has Kodak Precise and Kodak Unique. So he'll be able to compare those to the Izon Progressive lenses.

We also have an employee that just got her very first progressive lens last week - the Hoya Summit ECP with Super Hi-Vision. She will also be getting Izon lenses. All Izon lenses are 1.60 Index and come with a good Anti-Glare coating.

I have a single vision lens...I'm very happy with all of my current lenses...I have a 1.67 pair with Crizal Alize, a 1.60 pair with Kodak cleAR and a pair of Hoya's Phoenix Trivex lenses with Super Hi-Vision AR.

Out of all the AR - I prefer the SHV...I've found that it is much more scratch resistant than the others. Next to that I prefer my local lab AR...Acclaro.

My rx.
-3.25 -075 105
-3.25 -0.25 075

I was a candidate for the Izon lens which means I had a high enough measurement of High-Order aberrations...trefoil/coma and spherical aberration.

The Izon Aberometer also recommended the rx.
-3.37 -0.75 103
-3.37 -0.62 052 which...is very close to what I already had. After the aberometor spits out that refraction the doctor has the choice of editing the Rx. or going with that one.

The million-dollar question is - will I really see the difference?

By the way, I did show the Izon reps some of the questions on this site...but I had to leave the room so I'm not sure what they discussed with the doctor. He also enjoyed the different questions that have been brought up.

I am very excited to try out these new lenses for myself...I've heard nothing but good things from other people...

we shall see...

[Barry Santini]

and he said:

1. we correct "straight-ahead" and smooth the correction to the periphery.

2. Yes, the index of refraction is individually set with the laminated layer, in minute "cells"...to provide a type of customized correction (somewhat superior in theory to "free-form").

3. OPHTHONIX is still learning what weighting of aberration profiles are optimal, as well as what client profiles typically respond enthusiastically to their corrections.

In the end, however...neither sph/cyl corrections, nor a client's wavefront aberration profile, is, or has been found to be *stable* over time.

Vision is fluid...I subscribe to variation of Occcam's Razor, and try to take the simplest approach that does the job.

Barry Santini, ABOM

[AWTECH]

Barry said, the Ophthonix expert said:

2. Yes, the index of refraction is individually set with the laminated layer, in minute "cells"...to provide a type of customized correction (somewhat superior in theory to "free-form").

I am curious how there process would be in general superior to a freeform process. Remember, freeform is a general term of processing method, not a design. The Ophthonix laminated thin layer index correcting power is not explained. How much change in index can this thin layer accomplish, ie: how much power management is possible. With a good freeform design and process you can manage the power across the entire surface of the lens and produce a product that works for the patient.

In addition:

3. OPHTHONIX is still learning what weighting of aberration profiles are optimal, as well as what client profiles typically respond enthusiastically to their corrections.

This statement sounds like Research and Development in progress not a product that is ready for the market. I also question the patent indicating that this vision correction is designed for straight ahead viewing. No eye movement is possible and still make use of the abberation correction.

Lets see buy a machine for $30,000 then perform this measurement on a patient and tell them about the wonderful new glasses that are going to cost them a gillion dollars, "but they are really worth it." By the way patient there is one thing you will need to remember with your new expensive lenses to get the optimized vision. DO NOT MOVE YOUR EYES. ALL UP AND DOWN AND SIDE TO SIDE MOVEMENT MUST BE ACCOMPLISHED BY YOUR HEAD MOVEMENT. KEEP YOUR EYES FOCUSED IN THE CENTER OF THE LENS.

Enjoy your new lenses!

I am not trying to knock this technology but please someone show me how this actually work where I can understand it, if I have it all wrong.

[optigrrl]

Hi rob. -

I think that the Kodak Unique is the only lens with comprable technology to the IZON for a fair conclusion on performance. The Shamir Creation and the Summit ECP are both great products in their own categories, however neither are free-form surfacing technology and therefor would be an unfair comparison of technologies.

Please keep us posted on your experiences!

[Barry Santini]

I am not trying to knock this technology but please someone show me how this actually work where I can understand it, if I have it all wrong.

I think too, that their will be a learning curve for a while on HOA technology and efficacy. It really is not unlike refractive surgery, where the act of asking the questions alone is at the edge of the *new* frontier.

In answer to your questions:

1. Varying the index *and* the surface curvature gives a designer TWO parameters to juggle in obtaining the desired correction. Free Form can only juggle one: surface curvature.

2. I am not put off at all by Ophthonix *learning* how best their product will satisfy clients. But I, along with you, will not invest in the Hardware technology this system requires until it is more stable, or the market demand is greater for the product.

It is interesting technology. For my money, I would want to "walk-the-cat-back" and see if I could discover what HOA *weighting* (if any), in general, enabled progressive designs such as VIP and Comfort to becaome so successful, say versus Infinity and Panamic.

Barry Santini, ABOM

[AWTECH]

Barry Said in reply to an earlier post of mine:

1. Varying the index *and* the surface curvature gives a designer TWO parameters to juggle in obtaining the desired correction. Free Form can only juggle one: surface curvature.

I agree that in concept; there is another parameter that can be juggled, but what benefit, if any to patient is there to this. Currently with our designs, combined with our processing technology, can control the surface within about one micron of accuracy. Would there be any advantage spliting up the change in surface, to achieve change in power over a distance greater than two or three microns?

It is different, and maybe very high tech in many ways. Is there a benefit to the patient. ie: Lower cost for = same performance as product being replaced or better performance than existing lenses for a similar cost.

What about lens thickness with a laminated product? What is the thinnest they can make one side of this laminated lens?

Flying on an airplane in coach, flying from point A to point B, sitting next to someone who paid $200 more for their ticket, does not give the person who paid more (customer) a better deal of any kind.

[Gogs]

...

[AWTECH]

Gordon Hughes;

Thank you for your response. Your reply is the most informative that I have seen to date.

I understand what you are saying but where is the proof that it works? copies of the studies etc.

(As I have always said numbers don't lie, but people do. Some who don't lie tell their own version of the numbers. If you look at the numbers one can decide by themselves what is factual and what is fiction.)

Is there a white paper available on this technology with good explainations as to what is happening and how it is happening. With all of the patents that I-Zon has received it would seem to be in their best interest to disclose how it works to those who are curious. Even if I never sell one to anyone, if I understand the logic and science behind it I would not have the reservations that I do have at this time. I have been asked about this technology by quite a few people who are responsible for thousands of Rx's per day. Unfortunately I usually respond: "I can't say it doesn't work, I just have been able to have anyone explain it to me where I could understand how it works."

[Gogs]

..

[eyepod]

Barry said, the Ophthonix expert said:

I am curious how there process would be in general superior to a freeform process. Remember, freeform is a general term of processing method, not a design. The Ophthonix laminated thin layer index correcting power is not explained. How much change in index can this thin layer accomplish, ie: how much power management is possible. With a good freeform design and process you can manage the power across the entire surface of the lens and produce a product that works for the patient.

In addition:

This statement sounds like Research and Development in progress not a product that is ready for the market. I also question the patent indicating that this vision correction is designed for straight ahead viewing. No eye movement is possible and still make use of the abberation correction.

Lets see buy a machine for $30,000 then perform this measurement on a patient and tell them about the wonderful new glasses that are going to cost them a gillion dollars, "but they are really worth it." By the way patient there is one thing you will need to remember with your new expensive lenses to get the optimized vision. DO NOT MOVE YOUR EYES. ALL UP AND DOWN AND SIDE TO SIDE MOVEMENT MUST BE ACCOMPLISHED BY YOUR HEAD MOVEMENT. KEEP YOUR EYES FOCUSED IN THE CENTER OF THE LENS.

Enjoy your new lenses!

I am not trying to knock this technology but please someone show me how this actually work where I can understand it, if I have it all wrong.

Sorry guys, but you are all mis-informed. The wavefront correction is mostly in the center third of the lens, but, the programming is "fanned out into the periphery and is dependent on a few things. First, vertex must be specified on the order form. Studies show that a person will only cut their eyes about 15% before turning their head. The wavefront in the periph. is recalculated based on changes to the vertex when a patient looks to the side. It is based on the original rx, vertex, frame size etc. They are using the same technology that was invented to fix the Hubble telescope when it was sent up and didn't work....remember that? This is the exact same stuff. NASA did not take into account abberations occuring in space. They thought about ATMOSPHERIC abberation, but not distortion coming from outer space. It is the EXACT same material that is sandwiched inside the lens. Well, we all know how beautifully the Hubble works now, don't we?
I am disappointed to see the negativity when most people don't really understand how this works. I have heard so many success stories from patients I can't keep track of them all. You guys are missing out on something really special. That's okay....we have patients coming from all over the United States to see us for this technology. If you don't want all of those patients, we'll gladly take them!