High Cyl Progressive

[Robert_S]

Question:

you have a client with the following Rx:
+5.25/-6.25 X 90 add +2.00 R+L

wearing trifocals but wants to try progressives. Wants the best balance between all distances (no preference for either).

what lens would you most likely dispense?

I am thinking Auto II in trivex or 1.6 Zeiss Individual.

thanks for your help

[Barry Santini]

1.6 INDIVIDUAL 2N or Definity 3 Plus with POW compensation

B

[Robert_S]

Thanks for your opinion Mr Santini. By 2N I suppose you mean the new Individual, 'near' version?

[Barry Santini]

Thanks for your opinion Mr Santini. By 2N I suppose you mean the new Individual, 'near' version?

Yes, and oops! Definity can't be ordered in that cyl power.

B

[a1vo]

Question:

you have a client with the following Rx:
+5.25/-6.25 X 90 add +2.00 R+L

wearing trifocals but wants to try progressives. Wants the best balance between all distances (no preference for either).

what lens would you most likely dispense?

I am thinking Auto II in trivex or 1.6 Zeiss Individual.

thanks for your help

Even though I have not done any research, but I think you need to think "what PALs are available with this HIGH cyl?" I really doubt you have too many choices!

[Robert_S]

Most of the best lens designs are available in this Rx. I am trying to find the most suitable given the details of the patient.

[uncut]

Most of the best lens designs are available in this Rx. I am trying to find the most suitable given the details of the patient.

You might start by determining the best raw material to use............I would suggest matching the material that the person is currently wearing, so as not to introduce any new side effects(weight,thickness,chromatic aberration).

In your first post you used the word "TRY".......................this should not be in your vocabulary. Multifocals, blended have been in use in the optical industry for 30 years, the "trying" thing is just an patient excuse for being too lazy to accept the limitations of a device, in exchange for its advantages, and an excuse for fitters being too complacent/careless in usage instruction, limitation explanation, IMO.

[Robert_S]

Uncut, I already said I would prefer trivex or 1.6; ideally trivex but I think we can sacrifice a little of the abbe value if we have to for to choose the best design... I'm sorry but I disagree with your point on our approach, as I believe it is perfectly legitimate for the patient to want to 'try' progressive lenses to see if they can give him more natural vision than his trifocals.

[Robert_S]

Barry, I'm curious... given that I have determined the patient wants the best balance between all distance zones, why not select the 'balance' option of the Zeiss Individual? I hope you don't mind me asking, but I'm interested.

[Jubilee]

I am guessing that it will be the limitations in the near that will make or break the experiment of wearing a pal with that rx. Her cyl power already narrows her distance field in her current rx, so she is used to the sacrifice in that zone. She is used to having the full segment area for near to that is where she will be making the bigger transition in field at.

[Barry Santini]

Barry, I'm curious... given that I have determined the patient wants the best balance between all distance zones, why not select the 'balance' option of the Zeiss Individual? I hope you don't mind me asking, but I'm interested.

Because in view of the habitual trifocal use, I have found the 2N most closely mimics that vertical utility. Intermediate width is really the only issue, and if your client is motivated, the will adapt for general use.

B

[sharpstick777]

Most of the best lens designs are available in this Rx. I am trying to find the most suitable given the details of the patient.

Paul is right, here in the US, there are only a handful of lenses available in that high of a cyl, you may have more choices across the pond Robert than we do. But blank size is the first limiting factor here. Eyesize and PD will be limiting factors, and then lenght the actuator arm on the generator, because many manufactures require their blanks be used with their lenses. Some labs will surface the Auto II in this power, but some won't, if the blank will surface out. It may not because the Eyesize has to be tiny, and pd very centered to not grind out flat.

The only lens that I know of that can be made in this power in any frame is the Ice-Tech lens, they make their own blanks have modified their generators. We have done a -8.00 cyl through them, but they have done up to a -11.00 cyl in progressive recently.

I think you only have 2 choices here in the US, an Auto II in a very small frame, and the Ice-Tech in any frame you want.

[n711]

Hands down the Fixed Autograph II (TRIVEX or even 1.67) if possible with your/their frame selection.