IOL implant type FineVision Micro F testimonial

[oz457]

Hi all,

I had a Micro F trifocal implant last Thursday (12th of May 2016) implanted in both eyes at a eye clinic in Belgium to get rid of reading glasses as a result of Presbyopia.
What is my experience and how I have perceived the opertion. I'm making a vblog on youtube about this subject.
You can find the updates on a regular basis on my youtube channel, but the following links point straight to the reviews and the testimonial.
pre-operative:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRcyIkuJ5Xg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiUzswz_Rm4
post-operative:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVRaTIt3eN4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEqm8-OK7n0

I'm still in a very early stage from recovery.
The neuro-adaptation is now in full progress.
The different images arriving at the retina is wrongly interpreted by my brain, stupid me, lol, but I am looking into finding exercises to make things go forward just a little faster.
If someone knows of any app for Android or computer, please let me know.


Kind regards to all.

[SoftwareDeveloper]

Those coming to this page since they are thinking about a trifocal IOL might wish to explore their options, though likely they are all fairly comparable. There are other trifocal  IOLs available outside the US, the US hasn't yet approved any. The two major ones that have been out for a while  are the Finevision and the AT Lisa Tri, and there doesn't seem to be a consensus regarding which is best, they mostly just have minor differences and different surgeons lean towards each. It sounded like there might have been a slight leaning among more towards the  AT Lisa Tri before I got my surgery, but it was hard to tell (and I think the FineVision has had an upgrade).

There is a newer trifocal, the Panoptix,  that I haven't seen much written about yet, however it comes  from a major lens company Alcon so its likely worth considering. This one article suggests it might have a slight edge over the FineVision, but I don't know if other studies will lean the same way (or how it compares to the AT Lisa tri or others):

http://ophthalmologytimes.modernmedicine.com/ophthalmologytimes/news/novel-trifocal-iol-extends-range-vision?page=0,0
"Maastricht, The Netherlands—A new non-apodized diffractive trifocal presbyopia-correcting IOL (AcrySof IQ PanOptix, Alcon Laboratories) is designed to bring patients a full and seamless range of uncorrected vision, including a wide range of comfortable near to intermediate vision (40 to 80 cm) with a crisp focal point at 60 cm."

Some places are advertising the Pantopix as a quadfocal, but that is misleading since the manufacturer bills it only as a trifocal since although the internals are like a quadfocal, one of the focal points is redirected to make it a trifocal in practice.

There is also a trifocal from a smaller company that I've seen even less about, mentioned here:

http://www.healio.com/ophthalmology/refractive-surgery/news/print/ocular-surgery-news-europe-edition/%7Bfec9633c-7a68-44c1-8c6d-00c269cd6c89%7D/novel-trifocal-iol-provides-increased-depth-of-focus-contrast-sensitivity
" Novel trifocal IOL provides increased depth of focus, contrast sensitivity

Enhanced light distribution leads to better modulation transfer function values in the transition between near to intermediate and intermediate to distance focus areas....

The Acriva RevIOL Tri-ED (VSY Biotechnology) is “a welcome addition to the family of trifocal lenses and should enrich the market,” Stodulka said. "

In my case after expecting to get the AT Lisa Trifocal, the new Symfony extended depth of focus lens came out which I decide was a better fit for my needs (and might be for others considering a trifocal) since it seemed to have potentially better intermediate vision than the trifocal, e.g. as described in this article comparing it to the AT Lisa Tri:

http://www.opticianonline.net/presbyopia-surgical-management/

Trifocals seem to potentially have better really near vision than the Symfony, but the studies I've seen show the Symfony doing best for intermediate among the options out there, e.g. this study (where the "Extended Focus IOL" is the Symfony):


https://ascrs.confex.com/ascrs/15am/webprogram/Paper16105.html
"New Extended Focus IOL Versus  Bifocal, Trifocal, and Accommodating IOLs

Results
Extended focus lens achieves the best results from 46 cms to farthest vision with no disphotopsic phenomenon and with a great subjective satisfaction."

It still has improved vision from 46 cms inward compared to a monofocal, it merely isn't as good as some bifocals or trifocals for really near vision. It also has lower risk of halos&glare than a multifocal.  I don't  how it compares, but there is also a new IC-8 IOL (also not yet available in the US btw) which uses the pinhole effect (like   the Kamra corneal inlay) to get extended depth of focus. I'm suspecting that may cut down on contrast sensitivity more than the Symfony, but I hadn't seen study results. There is also another extended depth of focus lens from a small company, the Mini-Well, which might be fairly comparable to the Symfony but hasn't had much written about it yet.  In addition to the fact that there was more information on it to evaluate it, I viewed the Symfony as a bit lower risk than an entirely new lens like the Mini Well because the Symfony uses the same material and overall shape as the widely used Tecnis monofocal & multifocal lenses, with merely different optics.

[JohnHaganMD]

=

[AimeeDanger]

Do you mind mentioning which clinic?

[JohnHaganMD]

=

[SoftwareDeveloper]

FYI, the 2nd pre-op video link is broken.

The issue of white seeming offwhite is likely as you mentioned due to your lenses being "blue blocking" lenses. I've seen reports that although most people don't report a color shift, that a minority do see a shift like what you describe. Surgeons differ regarding the utility of blue blocking,  the FInevision trifocal is a blue blocker, the other common trifocal the AT Lisa Tri isn't. Alcon tends to do blue blocking lenses, Tecnis lenses aren't.

You mention that your distance vision leaves something to be desired still, it makes  me wonder whether  the lens power was on target (since lens power choice is an educated guess based on statistics and not an exact formula). I wonder if   they left you myopic perhaps (which could be touched up later. Alternatively  you mentioned having your astigmatism corrected, its possible that healing from that is part of what is leading your distance vision to take a bit of time to come in (though I would have guessed it would have impacted your near vision also).  

[JohnHaganMD]

=