Poly Polar Progressive Question

[Grubendol]

We need a short corridor polar/poly for a patient, but of course there really aren't any options out there for that.....does anyone have a recommendation for a full corridor design which will work at a height of 16 effectively?

[EyeFitWell]

I'm pretty sure that definity short comes in polar poly.
If not, use anything but bump the add accordingly.

[Grubendol]

Nope, we wanted to do Definity Short but it's CR only.

[Fezz]

Shamir Piccolo 16 min fitting height.

[Fezz]

PS.
You may want to try the Essilor Ovation(17, but I have fit at 16) and maybe the KBco EOS Wrap (17-never have tried). Also, maybe contact Awtech, a member here. His company Ice-Tech may be able to help. Hope this helps.

[AWTECH]

Grubendol said:

We need a short corridor polar/poly for a patient, but of course there really aren't any options out there for that.....does anyone have a recommendation for a full corridor design which will work at a height of 16 effectively?

Give me the fitting height at the point on the "B" below the pupil, and Rx data plus A, B and ED.

We can go as small as a 23mm B but the distance will only have between 6mm and 7mm of height. The vision for distance from side to side is full range above the horizonal plane of the geometric center of the lens. That is if the lens is fitted 2mm above the middle of the B measurement the patient will have full vision at all points 2mm above the middle of the B measurement.

You should see what we can do in polarized plus powered PAL lens, no more thick centers for high plus patients. I just looked at one in process.
Sph +1.75, +.50, 75 with 3.00ADD for a 62mm A for a rimless. Center thickness 4.8 with approx. 2mm thickness edge.

Ask others who have tried ICE-TECH progressives. Every day we do a job that the optican was sure could not be done.

I believe I sent you some information on our product line.

[AWTECH]

EyeFitWell said:

I'm pretty sure that definity short comes in polar poly.
If not, use anything but bump the add accordingly.

I don't agree with posting such advise. Bumping the add is not a realistic solution, it is a Bandaid that should not be offered to a patient. Bumping the add does not give the patient any significant reading zone. It gives an optician a point that can be verified in lensometer but it is not a good solution. If you map the area of usable powers with a bump the add strategy, I am sure you can confirm the limited effective reading zone.

[For-Life]

EyeFitWell said:

I don't agree with posting such advise. Bumping the add is not a realistic solution, it is a Bandaid that should not be offered to a patient. Bumping the add does not give the patient any significant reading zone. It gives an optician a point that can be verified in lensometer but it is not a good solution. If you map the area of usable powers with a bump the add strategy, I am sure you can confirm the limited effective reading zone.

Maybe not, but depends on the use of the product. This person may just be using them for fishing and golf. May only use the reading very rarely.

[AWTECH]

Maybe not, but depends on the use of the product. This person may just be using them for fishing and golf. May only use the reading very rarely.

I understand your point, and I am not just saying this because my company makes such a product, but there are better alternatives.

Our dual zone backside lens is a much better alternative. We can put any size, diameter,(or oval shape), reading zone in any location on the back surface of the lens.

Many Opticians are not aware of the emerging lens offerings from smaller less well known companies, but our lens technology is quite advanced.

I just think that Opticians should not be encouraged to solve a patients reading needs in this manner when there are well designed products available. Especially if these well designed products are available and the Optician is just not willing to purchase due to the cost.

If the customer does not want to pay for the proper solution and such an alternative is then offered I guess I could understand proceeding with such a Bandaid.

[cocoisland58]

EyeFitWell said:

I don't agree with posting such advise. Bumping the add is not a realistic solution, it is a Bandaid that should not be offered to a patient. Bumping the add does not give the patient any significant reading zone. It gives an optician a point that can be verified in lensometer but it is not a good solution. If you map the area of usable powers with a bump the add strategy, I am sure you can confirm the limited effective reading zone.

Maybe not, but we've all done it. I rarely use this strategy but it has worked. As long as the patient is aware it won't be the best solution but will allow them to use the frame they have chosen. This is almost always women in a lower add power where fashion wins out over technology. I have done it for myself and it's usable.

[Fezz]

I have never been a fan of bumping the add. I know it works for some, and thats OK. I want to throw another angle at this though. For a large number of my sunglass patients, we LOWER the seg! We discuss useage and limits of lens designs, etc. Most come to the conclusion that they really do not need the use of a large reading area. They are not doing a huge amount of reading, or up close while wearing the lenses. This has allowed us to use a more "conventional" progressive instead of the "short corridor" lenses. Some patients also decide that they would prefer a..a...a...FT BIFOCAL! More distance clarity and plenty of reading when they do hit the zone.

[Andrew Weiss]

Shamir Piccolo 16 min fitting height.

I've fitted the Piccolo at 16 high and it works very well. But check with Shamir -- am I correct in remembering that it Piccolo polarized poly is available only in the "attitude" line (meaning with a very steep base)?

[Fezz]

I've fitted the Piccolo at 16 high and it works very well. But check with Shamir -- am I correct in remembering that it Piccolo polarized poly is available only in the "attitude" line (meaning with a very steep base)?

You are correct. The base curve is +8. Thanks for pointing that out!

[EyeFitWell]

EyeFitWell said:

I don't agree with posting such advise. Bumping the add is not a realistic solution, it is a Bandaid that should not be offered to a patient. Bumping the add does not give the patient any significant reading zone. It gives an optician a point that can be verified in lensometer but it is not a good solution. If you map the area of usable powers with a bump the add strategy, I am sure you can confirm the limited effective reading zone.

Let me just say that I agree this is not a great solution. But it sounds to me like this is a patient who is very particular, or else we wouldn't be in this situation. The real answer is "use a frame which you can fit a progressive into." If that's not the case, and they are something like fishing glasses, then the only way to achieve the reading higher up in the lens is to bump the add.
Sorry, I guess I should have specified that I would only do this in the very rare case that the patient knows they'll have little reading and wants to do it anyway.

[EyeFitWell]

I have never been a fan of bumping the add. I know it works for some, and thats OK. I want to throw another angle at this though. For a large number of my sunglass patients, we LOWER the seg! We discuss useage and limits of lens designs, etc. Most come to the conclusion that they really do not need the use of a large reading area. They are not doing a huge amount of reading, or up close while wearing the lenses. This has allowed us to use a more "conventional" progressive instead of the "short corridor" lenses. Some patients also decide that they would prefer a..a...a...FT BIFOCAL! More distance clarity and plenty of reading when they do hit the zone.

Fezz you have an excellent point. A ST sounds like a good alternative. I also offer to lower the seg a little for sunglasses, after discussing usage with the patient. If they opt for it, I drop it one or two mm.
I've also had cases when the seg was, say, 18 but we wanted to drop it, so we use a short corridor at 16 instead. They're not looking at a computer through their sunglasses, anyway. And in all these cases, it is discussed with the patient BEFORE lenses are made so that expectations are realistic.

However, if they're already at a 16, lowering the seg doesn't provide the opportunity to use a full corridor lens.

[Gary Falk]

The Vision-Ease Illumina will work well at 16 high. The recommended fitting height is 17, but I have seen many fit at 16 with no issues. I wear a clear pair at 16 high with a 2 add and no problems. The Polarized comes in poly only in gray or Melanin.

[AWTECH]

The Vision-Ease Illumina will work well at 16 high. The recommended fitting height is 17, but I have seen many fit at 16 with no issues. I wear a clear pair at 16 high with a 2 add and no problems. The Polarized comes in poly only in gray or Melanin.

Yes this will work but for about the same price the patient could have an ICE-TECH Advanced Polarized Lens with no power error, full distance, (no need to drop the seg to give better distance area), 30% wider intermediate, thinner 6 or 8 base front curve designed to fit the frame keeping a spherical front surface, fully compensated for tilt and wrap angle etc.

[Fezz]

Specialty Lens Corp. has released the new " IRX- short". I have not tried it. It is in poly and high index.


Have you decided on a lens yet?

[AWTECH]

Specialty Lens Corp. has released the new " IRX- short". I have not tried it. It is in poly and high index.


Have you decided on a lens yet?

Remember with traditional cast front side PAL's you only have about 65 different basice design layouts.

With the ICE-TECH Advanced Lens Technology approach each lens is individualized combining the optimium thickness with design based on the frame and patient information. This can not be done with traditional PAL technology. Some lens designs using traditional technology vs. the ICE-TECH PAL approach will be 3mm or more thicker. We offer over 2.5 million individualized designs. Each lens is custom designed using very sophisticated lens design software.

[glassman]

More information is available on the iRx Short Polarized lens at http://www.irxlens.com/short. Minimum fitting height is 14mm.

[Scott R]

I just dispensed a poly polar shamir piccalo at 16ht. Apx +1.75/+2.25 ou. The Woman was very comfortable with the Dv and Nv.

[HarryChiling]

Bump the Add used to be a good solution, however the manufacturers have already bumped the minimum fitting height on all lenses across the board so that the power is only 85% at the fitting height and brought the clients that much closer to the corridor. The manufacturers have already taken and bumped the add for you, if you go any further you do start to lose the peripheral reading area. Could be a decent idea if the patient was more of a head turner or like mentioned rarely uses the reading (they are sunglasses after all).

[Dot the Eye]

Harry, I think there is really only one lens manufacturer that has recommended fitting heights that promote 85% of the add. Most offer minimum heights that will achieve the full add power.

Dottie