Which Index do you recommend ?

[rdcoach5]

I'm doing a remake Rx is +0.25+4.50x169
+0.75+3.25x171 add +2.50 o.u.

Pt is progressive non-adapt but my question is Trivex or Hi- index ?

[AngryFish]

What was the reason for the non-adapt in terms of symptoms?

[rdcoach5]

What was the reason for the non-adapt in terms of symptoms?

Poor vision dist and near. Have tried Physio 1.6, Physio 1.67 and Physio enhanced 1.67

[Paul Smith LDO]

FFFT-28, in trivex or you might find it under HD FT-28, either way I have had a lot of happier new and experienced FT-28 wearers using it.

[AngryFish]

I tend to agree with Trivex on this one if it is a choice between poly and Trivex. But I have fit quite a few progressive non-adapt successfully in hard progressives designs. Anecdotally I have found that low Rx's and or previous successful progressive wearers tolerate the softer designs better. People with a fair amount of cyl, as indicated above, and certain personality types can deal much better with the old hard designs. It appears to be much easier for them to viso-mentally (lol, I just created a new word) process the visual data from a lens that is more about "on and off" or having more clearly defined areas for near and far.

A short corridor hard design would be my choice in CR-39 if I really thought a progressive design was best for them. They tend to keep any bad areas below the 180 and offer wider or at least less ambiguous intermediate and near areas. If you would I'd love to know what you end up deciding and how it works for the patient.

[Robert Martellaro]

But I have fit quite a few progressive non-adapt successfully in hard progressives designs. Anecdotally I have found that low Rx's and or previous successful progressive wearers tolerate the softer designs better. People with a fair amount of cyl, as indicated above, and certain personality types can deal much better with the old hard designs. It appears to be much easier for them to viso-mentally (lol, I just created a new word) process the visual data from a lens that is more about "on and off" or having more clearly defined areas for near and far.

I used to do the same thing with high cylinders and PALs, using Truvisons, VIPs, and Super No-line's. They probably worked better than soft designs because the prescribed cylinder had a more localized (away from the view zones) interaction with the PAL's unwanted cylinder, with less deformation of the intended design. Of course nowadays the best solution for high cylinders are the highly optimized lenses from companies like Zeiss that can stay closer to the intended PAL design without the disadvantages of a global hard design (significant swim, sharp blur zones, difficult adaptation,etc.), and provide better acuity on and off-axis.

[mshimp]

Ditto to FT28 Trivex

[erichwmack]

Just curious, why so many remakes with such similar parameters?

[globaljp]

We use Shamir Intouch a lot with Rx like that one. Most seem to love it. I would personally do high index unless its a groove mount or drill- Trivex.

[rdcoach5]

My LAB, Toledo Optical, the lab manager , Dennis, who has always known everything, said to stay with 1.67. Period
I love Toledo Optical. Jeff, Brian, ,Kelly, Doug, Alisha, and of course, Irland
There cannot be a better lab !!