Aa
Aa
A
A
A
Close
Avatar universal

experiences with Symfony IOL, or trifocal IOLs?

Has anyone here gotten the new Symfony IOL, or heard from others who have, or know more than the research you can find with google? It was just approved in June for use in Europe, but initial studies on the web seem to indicate it provides better odds of having good intermediate/computer vision, and better than the AT lisa trifocal except at very near distances. It refers to it as having an extended depth of vision rather than   calling it multifocal (perhaps because it doesn't divide itself into 2 or 3 discrete focal points but in essence it must still have a range of focuses to provide "extended depth").

I've seen detailed threads about the FineVision but only brief comments on the AT lisa trifocal.  Any more comments on any of these lenses? I'd  be curious if anyone has more comments on getting a multifocal in only one eye with the problem cataract and wearing a contact lens in the other (which is still correctible to 20/20 with only an early cataract). The hope would be that perhaps before it goes bad a new generation of lenses might come out, like an accommodating lens that is more likely to work well than the ones out there now.

Any suggestions for good doctors to get them from, preferably laser cataract surgery? I'm open to considering doctors in any country since I'm in the US and will need to travel to get the lens, the UK would be easiest since I only speak English, but I'll consider other options. I've heard the Czech Republic may be cheaper but still have   high quality clinics. Its worth a bit of hassle to get a good lens. I'm only 52 so I'll hopefully be using it a few decades, so thanks greatly for any information you can provide.
57 Responses
Sort by: Helpful Oldest Newest
Avatar universal
I have toric Symfony lenses in both eyes and my opinion is that these lenses should be banned from use. I was told there was good chance that these lenses would make me spectacle free but there is no chance of this happening for anybody who wants sharp eyesight at all distance. Far, intermediate and near are all blurred for me and so I need glasses all the time. These lenses are a complete disaster and a waste of money. I have been used as a guinea pig.
Helpful - 0
14 Comments
=
I just had regular symfony implanted inboyh eyes and disagree strongly wit the above comment.   My vision has not been this good in a long time even when considering some minor night time issues.   I also went through a top surgeon.
Everyone's experience varies. These internet forum's do not attract people happy with their surgery.
I should have been more sympathetic.  I definitely would not have gone for a multi focal.   I also firmly believe that the quality of the outcome of these surgeries can be tied to the skill of the surgeon.   Negative outcomes will not be completely eliminated.   Implanting topic symfony lens requires great skills(and maybe a little luck) , and careful patient selection.    I now have 20/20 distance vision and  near J1 near vision.  I maybe one of the lucky.

Each patient is different.  I know the person is venting.  Something is wrong.   It could be personal reactions healing to surgery,  It could also be poor spherical, cylindrical choices for the lens.  

Blaming the symfony lens for all of the issues, when the issues might have happened anyway with a mono focal topic can be misleading.  

I know people say cataract surgery was easy.   I  suspect many patients have issues  with monofocal  and monofocal toric lens that  get corrected with glasses after the surgery.  

Patients who choose the symfony have higher and maybe sometimes unreasonable expectations.   Issues with power selection, lens centration, sturgeon’s skill become more problematic,  Patients expect a degree of independence from glasses.  Symfony is supposed to a more forgiving lens,  

The lens is not perfect.  I would not label it as trash.  
AustinDiver: Thank you for your comments. It's important to put cataract surgery in perspective.  It is the most successful operation done on adult patients worldwide.  With a competent surgeon and a normal eye except for cataract less than 1% of patients will have surgical complications and 98%  will have CORRECTED vision of 20/20 (6/6 metric).   The patient heals quickly usually off drops in 3-4 weeks and returns to most normal activities the day after surgery.   Surgeons are paid LESS to do the surgery than they were 20 years ago.   HERE IS THE RUB:   1. Many patients have more than one problem in their eye. Example diabetes, macular degeneration, glaucoma, retinal vascular diseases,  amblyopia, or physiologic aging changes.  So the person may see better but not as good as they did before these diseases and not as good as their friends and neighbors who had no problems other than cataracts in their eyes.   2. The expectation of seeing perfect without glasses.  This is not possible 100% of the time and  inserting toric, multifocal, accommodating and other such extra charge IOLs introduces many more problems: extra cost, greater change of complications and second procedures, degraded optics and night vision problem and dyphotopsia.  

Any time someone expects to see perfectly without glasses, at all distances, in all lighting situations and for all visual tasks using technology available 12/3/2018 they can expect to be disappointed 90% of the time.
I agree entirely with your last sentence, but I am disappointed because the useless consultant did not give me the facts about the Symfony lens. I understood there was a risk of needing glasses and was told that 90% of people do not need glasses after both eyes have the lens. This is not the truth at all. I also read recently that one consultant does not recommend them for people over 75 because they are less able to adapt. My consultant did not even mention adapting to the lens. He said this applied only to monovision. The reading in my left eye, unaided has gone from N9 on 29 May a few weeks after the operation to N10 on 1 September and N18 on 1 October. How is that possible?
Immediately after surgery and for for the first several weeks there may be some swelling of the cornea, that makes the cornea more curves (myopic) which helps near vision.  As the swelling goes now the eye is less myopic so near vision may be worse without glasses but distance vision often gets better.
So doesn't this comment validate my view that these lenses are useless? We are sold them on the basis that reading will be better than the monofocal lenses. I have checked my reading with people who have monofocal lenses and they are just as good (or bad) as my expensive lenses.
You are a series of one. Like a person that has a bad automobile accident and concludes cars should be banned.  Large scale studies done prior and after approval indicates most people are happy and pleased.  This, and other 'problem' internet sites, attracts unhappy people.   A person happy with cataract surgery and their IOL choice doesn't come here to tell you how well they did.
How would that help? All the information, including yours indicates that these lenses are not perfect and need to be matched to patients needs. My initial comment was as much about the consultant as the lenses. He promised the earth and gave me hell. That is the point I am making. Perhaps it is time that you recognised that all surgery has risks and in this case the consequences of failure are very severe.
As surgeons no one knows more than us about risks and complications.  We have to get written permission, which I'm sure you signed, from everyone before doing surgery.  You signed a consent of the surgery would not have been done. If you look at that consent it says that one risk is loss of all vision in the eye.   Any adult should understand  all surgery involves risk, just like every car trip involves risk.   Having good vision WITH GLASSes is not a bad result.  A bad result is an infection that destroyes the eye or a massive hemorrhage at the time of surgery that leaves vision with with glasses.
Also saw in clinic yesterday two patients with Symfony IOLs and they could not be happier.  Saw many patients with standard IOL most of whom wear glasses who were also extremely happy.  Saw a second opinion from a different practice that got multifocal IOL and had to wear glasses and was unhappy.   This person had paid out of pocket about $7000/eye.
How can you tell me above that I am a series of one and now tell me that you have met someone else who is not satisfied? Did you tell that person they were a series of one? I did not post comments here to complain. I posted them to try to understand why I have a problem and how I might deal with it. Your comments are insulting. Just like my own consultant you are not listening. You are doing the same as he does and that is to tell me that other people are satisfied. They are not even his own patients. He is quoting from published surveys. You tell me that people are satisfied but you do not say what they expected in the first place.

I was not given a copy of the consent for so I do not know what it says, but a document he gave me says there is a 1:1000 risk of sight loss. You entirely miss the point which is I paid an extra £2000 to be without glasses!!!!!!!

My consultant told me initially "For patients wanting to be free of glasses, the ideal option is a multifocal IOL providing distance and near." I was not bothered about that having worn glasses for almost 60 year but it seems a sensible option. Then he told me "These lenses are an ideal choice for patients who do not mind wearing reading glasses (though they often do not need to)." It is a pity that he d id not tell me that when I agreed to the treatment. I cannot read or watch TV without glasses, distance is blurred but is not as important since I do not drive but I do not want to walk about looking at blurred object so I wear glasses all the time. My consultant is not in the least bit concerned.
=
Avatar universal
Again, many thanks. I think that the people complaining about poor near vision with the Symfony must not realize that, although it uses diffraction, it is not a multifocal and can't create a dedicated second focal point to target near vision.  Since I don't mind using reading glasses for close work, this is not a great drawback for me - the improved mid-range vision is what I find compelling.  

I hadn't thought about the possible benefit you mention that the Symfony's extended depth of field could help to keep things in focus even if the lens tilts or moves forward or back after implantation.  Thanks for that observation.

The study you found that complained the most about lack of near vision improvement, where the author didn't notice that the subjects all wound up hyperopic, makes me wonder whether these people may have been correctly measured for monofocal IOLs, but in fact some allowance, or constant, or adjustment needs to be made to conventional measurement results when using the Symfony (and they didn't do it and used a too-powerful lens).  This kind of possibility (along with my pseudoexfoliation/zonule issue)  is why I would prefer to find a surgeon who has had a lot of actual experience with the Symfony.  And, as well, a surgeon who takes time to really consider my eye's requirements, rather than a cataract-factory-type guy who has done 20,000 cataract procedures and has thereby achieved a dazzling level of surgical technique, but, who, in the interest of office efficiency and keeping things moving, simply slaps in monofocal IOLs whenever the alternative would require slowing down the assembly line.  

I once listened to a podcast of a lecture given at a professional conference by one of these guys on the subject of  "how to run a high volume cataract practice."  He describes how he has three or four operating rooms running simultaneously, with nurses and assistants in each one finishing up the last patient and preparing the next one, allowing the surgeon to simply walk in and find an already prepared patient sitting in a chair, so that he can immediately do the procedure and move on to the next room where another patient is already set up and waiting.  The guy said that he really likes the feeling of getting into the "rhythm" of moving from room to room without breaking his pace.  I find this somewhat worrying, but maybe I am being too cynical. And I do place a lot of value on extensive experience, especially when it involves a manual skill. I know personally how much difference years of piano practice makes in performance technique, and I've been told that the same kind of practice is necessary for a professional athlete to get really good, so it seems obvious to me that the same principle applies to cataract procedures.

As far as the camera lens comparison is concerned, I didn't realize that IOLs were multi-element too.  I thought that they were one solid piece of plastic.  Thanks for cluing me in.  As usual, there is a lot more to this than I had assumed.  My level of photographic knowledge is pretty rudimentary, and I'm not sure I want to learn about lens designing anyhow; I mean, enough is enough.  But I did fish out the patent you referenced, and it looks like it may well be the operative Symfony patent (although there may be other supporting patents too).  It was applied for in 2008 by two Dutch inventors and finally granted in 2014 (six years!) and simultaneously assigned to the Dutch Abbott subsidiary.  It claims to describe an IOL with a diffractive element having extended depth of focus.  Sounds right.  But it is 39 dense pages and looks like pretty tough sledding.  The timing (2014) seems a little curious.  But maybe they were testing it and applying for approval while waiting for the grant to come through.  I think that, in the case of a patent, you have priority as soon as you file and thereby disclose your invention publicly.  They certainly didn't wait until 2014 to begin putting the wheels in motion.  I'll see if I can understand any of the patent description, although I don't know how much practical benefit it would be, even if I could.

Anyhow, it is nice to find someone who is as obsessive as I am about these things.  And thanks again for taking the time to tell me - and everyone on this blog - what you have learned.
Helpful - 0
1 Comments
re: "but in fact some allowance, or constant, or adjustment needs to be made to conventional measurement results when using the Symfony "

There are constants that are associated with each lens that are plugged into formulas. I suspect in this case the doctors merely chose for some reason to err on the side of being hyperopic to ensure good distance vision (since the extended depth of focus means that you get good distance vision even if you wind up a bit hyperopic).  I had heard that with high add bifocals, or even trifocals, some surgeons tended to prefer to err on the side of being hyperopic since it didn't matter if the near point was pushed out a bit, to again ensure good distance vision.

I have read of studies that indicate experience does have an impact with cataract surgery, which makes sense. Surgeons with tens of thousands of surgeries are especially likely to have encountered the various potential rare  complications that might arise and have dealt with them before. I think high volume in general us is useful, but I don't think experience with this particular lens (vs. other Tecnis lenses) is important.


re: "it looks like it may well be the operative Symfony patent "

Yup, though it isn't definite even though its from the right company. It could be that its an earlier version of the approach, or that its a different approach to extended depth of focus that the same company has explored. (though the similarities suggest its most likely either the Symfony or an earlier version of its approach).

Avatar universal
PPS - Forget the preceding comment/question.  I just realized that camera lenses probably do all of their correcting by using multiple elements, while IOLs are still all (I think) single-element lenses.  Sorry.  Also, thanks for answering my question by pointing out that the slight loss of luminance in multifocals may, besides being due to the splitting of the light into two portions, be also due in part to the diffraction itself, or the widening of the depth of field (which may, for all I know, be the same thing).

Anyhow, I promise not to write any more PSs or PPSs or PPPSs, etc.  Thanks for being such a great sport and attending to everyone's concerns on this blog site.
Helpful - 0
1 Comments
A single piece lens can have multiple layers. The exact physical design and functioning of the Symfony isn't clearly spelled out in any articles for public consumption beyond high level descriptions that it uses diffractive optics to extend depth of focus and to correct chromatic aberration. Someone found what might be the patent behind the Symfony which is too technical for most people, I've not taken  the time to delve into all the technical details myself (nor even confirmed this is the Symfony),  US Patent number 8,747,466 B2 dated June 10,2014.
Avatar universal
P.S. - I understand - at least in theory - the tradeoff between chromatic correction and depth of field.  But I figured that the use of diffraction to achieve the better chromatic confluence (and increased sharpness) might give rise to some other kind of tradeoffs.  Contrast sensitivity was only an example, not my sole concern.

Do you know how the camera lens manufacturers correct for chromatic aberration?  They have been doing it for a long time and I don't recall any photographers complaining about disadvantages.  Do they use a diffractive technique?  As you point out, a high abbe value is really a property of the material and not independently controllable.  Anyhow, maybe you know about these things, and can shed some light by analogy with photography.
Helpful - 0
1 Comments
Camera lens manufacturers sometimes correct using the shape of the lens, but they can use diffractive optics like the Symfony does. Diffractive optics is used in some high end optical systems (camera and telescopic). I don't know your level of background knowledge of the topic, but if you search for something like: camera chromatic aberration diffractive optics, you should see some hits.

High abbe value merely reduces chromatic aberration, which is different from correcting for it as the Symfony does.
Avatar universal
Thanks for the quick response.  I'm in Tampa, FL, if that is any help to anyone.  There are 2 or 3 "go-to" cataract surgeons in this area, who all do exceptionally high volumes of IOL replacements, so lack of experience with the currently existing lenses would not be an issue.  However, the mass-production type of setup of their operations (and possible consequent lack of individualized attention) worries me a bit.  As well, they may be slow to add a new lens to their existing familiar arsenal.  

Also, I don't know their feelings about a square-edged one-piece acrylic lens (i.e, as you point out, any Tecnis lens)  - although that would be the same question with any surgeon - either in general, or in my particular case. I do have some glaucoma and pseudoexfoliation (which is apparently a marker for weak zonules)  in one eye, and I'm not sure how that affects the choice of IOL design for a potentially weakened capsular and supporting structure.

For that reason, I rejected the idea of the Crystalens (or any lens with moving parts) pretty quickly when I started thinking about this last year, and the multifocal solution seemed kludgy, especially since the intermediate range was the most compromised with those lenses, and they were apparently subject to halos and other artifacts.  And I know I wouldn't be able to get used to a monovision arrangement with conventional monofocal IOLs (and would probably have trouble with the two focal points in a multifocal for the same reason).  I don't mind using reading glasses for close vision,so the allure of improved mid-range vision with the Symfony  (as well as its simple unitary structure) has kept me waiting while my cataract has grown progressively denser.  

I was just about to settle for conventional monofocal lenses when the FDA approval for the Symfony finally was announced, so now I'm not sure how much longer I will have to wait, or want to wait.  I'd like to feel comfortable that other unforeseen drawbacks of the Symfony will not begin to emerge over time.  It is encouraging that there don't seem to have been many complaints reported on the internet during the recent 2 years of usage experience in other countries.  Of course, I haven't tried to find (and couldn't read anyhow) foreign language websites.  But your own experience seems to indicate a happy outcome with the Symfony.

I didn't feel as adventurous as you in terms of travel to Europe, especially if some problem cropped up due to my glaucoma/pseudoexfoliation that required repeat visits, plane trips, hotels, etc., especially with no one in this country really equipped to deal with the Symfony legitimately.  So I nixed the European (or even, apparently, Mexican or Canadian) idea.  However,  now, of course, the picture is all changed and this will all be able to be done domestically, even locally.  The real questions now are where and when.  And if the Symfony is appropriate for my eyes.

Anyhow, I don't know why I have taxed you with so much detail about what are probably just some personal choices for me, but I figure that you might have some further words of wisdom.  Thanks for reading all this rambling on, and please answer if you have any further thoughts.  
Helpful - 0
1 Comments
The psuedoexfoliation issue is one that I haven't checked on in detail.   I seem to recall statements that it may be a better bet than a multifocal, but it isn't clear whether its as safe a bet as a monofocal, though there is some speculation it could be safer due to the extended depth of focus which might make it more tolerant to any displacement. I don't know if anyone has studied the issue, but obviously it is one to be cautious about.


re: "during the recent 2 years of usage experience in other countries.  Of course, I haven't tried to find (and couldn't read anyhow) foreign language websites. "

I get the impression that most ophthalmology research is published in English so searches should turn it up, or e.g. the abstracts at sites like the ESCRS conference site. Most articles in other languages should   also use the name of the lens using English characters, Tecnis Symfony, and so google searches turn up foreign language references and any that look useful can be translated with Google translate (which a link is usually provided to). I guess in part since I was an early adopter I've been watching to see if any "unforseen drawbacks" appear in the studies (to see out of curiosity if I did make the right bet)  and I haven't seen any yet. There is a video interview with I think Jason Jones, and perhaps an article, talking about his meta-analysis of the study data out there on the lens that seemed to confirm the low risk of halo&glare comparable to studies on monofocals. The basic drawback is not having as much near vision as multifocals. There is an occasional fluke publication like one abstract complaining about the level of near vision with the Symfony more than usual while neglecting to notice that the reported data showed their  patients wound up hyperopic on average so they were bound to have lower quality near regardless of the lens compared to other studies.



Avatar universal
Since you appear to have the most extensive information and experience with the Symfony IOL, perhaps you can tell me:

1.  Is it "axis-independent"?   I don't know the correct terminology for this, but what I mean is, if the lens rotates slightly, or is placed originally so that the north-south position is not exactly north-south, will vision be degraded?  (Or is there even such a thing as a correct north-south orientation?) I am speaking of a non-toric version of the lens.

2.  What optical characteristics are given up in exchange for the broader depth of field?  For instance, does reducing the chromatic aberration affect contrast sensitivity?  Or any other things? I understand, from the literature, that simply correcting chromatic aberration alone would result in better than 20/20 distance vision, and that the manufacturer has therefore also "dialed back" the vision sharpness down to 20/20 in order to widen he depth of field into the intermediate range.  But it seems "too good to be true" that there are only advantages with this lens and absolutely no offsetting disadvantages.
Helpful - 0
1 Comments
The regular non-toric Symfony isn't axis dependent, rotating it would make no difference. Most non-toric  lenses don't vary when rotated. (though  I think there are some bifocals outside the US that do vary).

Toric lenses that correct for astigmatism  are all axis-dependent, they need to be oriented right in order to correct the astigmatism.

Other IOLs don't correct for chromatic aberration (even if they might try to reduce it by using a high abbe number material). So for the most part the intent with the Symfony is that the benefit gained by correcting chromatic aberration is what is offset by providing the extended depth of focus.

Studies report its contrast sensitivity is comparable to a monofocal, though in theory its possible that the studies aren't accurate enough and that there is some slight reduction. Standard multifocals lose some light, and reduce low light vision through the light being split to the different focal points. I suspect its possible that the Symfony might have some reduction of light compared to a monofocal due to the elongating of focus, but I hadn't seen any data on it nor any data on whether there is any light lost the way there is with a multifocal. It may be that the chromatic aberration correction counterbalances the lost light in terms of keeping contrast sensitivity similar.

I've seen a comment in an interview  video by one doctor (Dr. Mark Packer on Eye World Video Reporter) who has been examining luminance for various IOLs, but no published results on it yet or other info that I've seen from it. He has been studying  how bright things seem at night through various IOLs, but he only mentioned  examining it qualitatively (in a somewhat questionable fashion taking pictures through a model cornea & IOL, which calls into question the light sensitivity of the camera).  He suggests there is some reduction in luminance with the Symfony, as there is with a multifocal, compared to a monofocal, but I hadn't seen details. It   may be compensated for by neuroadaptation.

I know my vision in dim light with the Symfony is better than it was with multifocal contacts beforehand, partly based on trying to read in a dimly lit restaurant I have a weekly meeting at and my general sense of how light things are.  I know someone who got the Crystalens who is about the same age, and we compared near vision in a well lit auditorium after a lecture. He held a file folder above a near vision chart to cast a shadow, and that was enough to drop his visual acuity some lines, but it didn't impact mine at all. That may be personal variation of course, but it was a surprising data point.


Personally to me it seems like my night vision improved overall after I had the Symfony, things seem bright enough to me, but  my memory may be flawed since I wore multifocal contacts before surgery (at least in the non-cataract eye)  and it had been a few years since I had worn single vision contacts in both eyes.  
Avatar universal

Now that the Symfony IOL has been approved by the FDA for use in the USA, does anyone know when it will be actually available, and/or what US cataract surgeons have experience using it?
.

Helpful - 0
1 Comments
I haven't seen definitive information about when it'd be available, presumably they didn't know exactly when the FDA approval would come through so they need a little time to get distribution in place.

The Symfony is physically the same shape&size as other Tecnis lenses, their monofocal and multifocal, it merely has different optics, so the surgery would be the same so I wouldn't worry too much about the level of experience a surgeon has with this particular lens.  There were US surgeons involved in the clinical trials, but I haven't seen a list of them, and others  who seem to pay more attention to upcoming technology. If you mention where you are located, perhaps someone might know of a surgeon.
18655974 tn?1467287844
I may be getting a symphony IOL for my right eye here in Pune, India. This lens seems to be common place in India. It is going to cost Rs. 60,000. ( slightly less than 1000 $ US).
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
re: "it's that question of does it go from clear to blurry fast"

That is the difference between a monofocal and the Symfony, the monofocal gets blurry much faster than the Symfony, the range of good vision is smaller. The range outwards from the best focus is about the same in both cases (e.g. if the best focus is set at 10 feet, the vision further out would be about the same with a Symfony and a monofocal, and it still might actually be 20/20 for far distance).  Unfortunately the studies only give average values, some people have better or worse results, but the studies give some clue what might work.

It is difficult to know what the various numbers like 20/40 translate to in terms of visual quality, but this site I found lists the print sizes you can see for various levels of vision at near, which suggests e.g. 20/40 isn't bad:

http://www.teachingvisuallyimpaired.com/print-comparisons.html

For instance if you had an eye set to focus at  far distance with a monofocal, then according to info on the Tecnis website:

http://www.tecnisiol.com/eu/tecnis-symfony-iol.htm

with their monofocal your vision would have dropped to almost 20/40 by around -1.5D = 66 cm = about 26 inches, whereas with the Symfony it wouldn't drop that far down until about -2.5D = 40 cm = about 15.7 inches. With a slight bit of monovision, you might be able to have one eye set just a little bit closer in and be able to hit your "one foot" mark with the Symfony while still having great distance vision.  

10 feet is about 305 centimeters. The formula for determining the diopters  required for a particular focal point is -(100 / distance_in_centimeters) so that would be focused at -0.33D.  So one eye could be focused there (giving you perhaps 20/20 still at far distance) or at perhaps -0.5D or -0.75D (since you get good vision a little further our).

1 foot is about 30.5 centimeters, so that would a focal point of   -3.3D. If you had 1 eye set at -1D with the Symfony, that would give you better than 20/40 vision at 1 foot,  -1.5D with the Symfony  would give you better than 20/30 still at 1 foot, or if you had it set at -2D that would give you 20/20 vision still at 1 foot.  The level of difference between the two eyes would impact how much loss of stereopsis (3D binocular vision) you had. The level of monovision required   would be less than with a regular monofocal.  Unfortunately again those are average study results, so to play it safe you might wish to have one  eye set a bit further in than you need.
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
thanks for the input. as i work as a hair stylist/barber my need for best vision is in the "foot to ten feet" range-- or close enough for a good men's hair cut and out to the mirror and back.... i have worn didstance glasses since 9, so that's not an issue, i'd be fine still wearing them. it's that quesiton of does it go from clear to blurry fast or is there that 'range' where like normally, it just gets blurry from the distance? if the makes sense. the monofocals sound like it's "focus at one foot and anything 13 inches and out or in is blurred" or "get good distance, but trying to see the dashboard while driving is like looking trough wax paper.... that depth of focus and binocular vision loss...
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
The lenses come in different powers, just like glasses or contacts. You'll see discussion on this site and elsewhere of people getting monofocals where there best focal point is set for intermediate or near instead of for distance. The same can be done for the Symfony. The difference is that if you had the Symfony and a monofocal both set to the same best focal point (whether intermediate or distance), that the Symfony will give you a wider range of clear vision, you will be able to see well  closer in with the Symfony  than a  monofocal by a diopter or so  (unfortunately that isn't a fixed distance in inches or centimeters, the distance  a diopter translates to is different depending on where the focal point starts).

re: "then to find someone versed enough to to the surgery"

Any competent surgeon will be able to do the surgery with the Symfony since the procedure to implant it is the same as other IOLs. The lens material and the overall lens shape and size is the same as the widely used Tecnis monofocal and multifocals currently available in the US. The only difference is the optics of the lens, which doesn't matter to the surgeon implanting the lens. The only issue that might be new to them is helping you decide where to put the best focal point because of the fact that it does have a wider range of good vision than a monofocal, but that is a simple matter they can understand from looking at the defocus charts and data.

re: " "liquid vision" lens to be out sooner for better"

The next generation accommodating lenses are a ways away from approval in the US. The only one I'd heard trying for approval anywhere is the Lumina which is reportedly trying for approval in Europe, trying to get  a CE Mark (their equivalent of FDA approval). I haven't seen any estimate as to when that might happen, and after it does it'd likely be quite a while before its approved in the US. More importantly, I'd suggest caution before considering using a next generation accommodating lens until they've been widely used in human eyes. Their functioning relies on the eye's accommodation mechanism, which means that the only way to test them well is with humans.  They need to be sure not only that the lenses move properly, but that all the movement doesn't lead to problems over time (e.g. the lens moving out of position, some bad interaction over time physically wearing out part of the eye through its movements, or whatever other complications might arise when there are moving parts at work). The new accommodating lenses are also often different sizes, shapes  and materials compared to existing lenses, so any issues that might arise from that need to be tested.


Static lenses that don't need to move or change shape (like the Symfony, monofocals, and multifocals) only differ in their optics, which can be well tested on optical benches outside of the eye. The major issue they need to test for in human eyes are subjective factors like halo&glare, which can be done well with fairly small clinical trials.  


The Synchrony lens was an accommodating lens that showed promise, but seems to be off the market (or at least not used by anyone) due to a sizeable minority having problems (one of the posters on this site, AnomalyChick, got the Synchrony lens in Europe).  I tend to be an early adopter of technology, but someone who tries to take educated risks and I'd personally be cautious to ensure a new accommodating lens was used a fair amount before I risked it, but everyone's risk tolerance is different. The issue would be to figure out what the potential risks are, e.g. if you did need a lens exchange from an accommodating lens due to problems,  would there be a greater risk that the capsule might be damaged, which would limit the sort of replacement lens you could get (since most premium lenses are for placement in the capsule).

I'd originally hoped I might wait for an accommodating lens, but I later realized that I'd have been more cautious about it than a new static lens like a new extended depth of focus design or a  trifocal.
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
just wondering -- i have cataract in rt eye caused by a vitrectomy from another issue so am "looking forward" to surgery to replace lens. trying to wait till symfony is approved in the US (sounds like 2017 or earlier now)  
question
do they come in different "flavors" or strengths? i.e. can it be set for more close/intermediate rather than intermediate/far? i have worn distance glasses since grad school and have no issue with continuing-- but i need far more close and intermediate clear vision for work and hobbies.
how do they set the extended depth of focus?
i really hope they get approved in the US soon. and then to find someone versed enough to to the surgery.

i was hoping for the "liquid vision" lens to be out sooner for better but this seems the best current solution and as it's the non dominant eye less strict?
in L.A. area
Helpful - 0
177275 tn?1511755244
=
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
I am a retired 69 year old GP in Scotland and am 2 weeks after having Restor IOLs . I had been reading SoftwareDevelopers posts with great interest , and asked my Ophthalmologist for Symfony - his advice was to go for Restor 2.5 in the dominant and 3.0 in the other eye. I had confidence in his assessment of my needs ( good vision when sailing , running and hill walking in Scottish weather  - and reading  )  so went with his suggestion.
I have had excellent results for my needs - 20/20 or slightly better distance , smallest font size on Kindle perfect , laptop easy to see. Night driving - 3 hours on a particularly wet night was fine , and much better than using multifocal contacts. Less haloes than with contacts . Yes , at a temporary red traffic light I did have a particularly beautiful  spider web of concentric fine rings , but if I diverted my attention the web disappeared -  part of my neuroadaptation ?  I am posting this because I feel there are good results out there which should be reported.
Very grateful to SoftwareDeveloper for his input.
Helpful - 0
1 Comments
Glad to hear you have good results. You might consider posting that  on a separate page with its own topic so people realize its about the Restor lenses, which many people complain about so it is a good example to remind people that the vast majority are happy with their results.  Those who go for non-monofocals do need to be aware of the risks of course since someone winds up being the "statistic" since no lens is perfect.

A low add bifocal likely gives reasonably comparable results to the Symfony. You might have slightly better near but not quite as good intermediate (at least further out intermediate). The major difference is   I'd suspect your contrast sensitivity, low light vision, might be reduced compared to the Symfony due to the light splitting to multiple focal points. I  definitely have better low light vision with the Symfony than I had with multifocal contacts pre-cataract, though I was happy with the contacts despite that.

Your running&hill walking comment brings up one of the potential benefits of presbyopia-correcting lenses compared to monofocals. Full monovision using a monofocal with the near eye set to for instance -1.75 leaves its best focus at 27 inches, which means that further out intermediate distance, seeing the ground ahead of you when walking, may be relying mostly on one eye with less 3D vision. I don't know how much of a difference that makes, but I've been out walking trails more  (and soon running them) and appreciate seeing rocks/snow/ice in full 3D clarity with both eyes. I'd be curious how much the odds of a fall are reduced.  Actually I'm guessing that is within the range the Symfony may do better then the low add Restor&Tecnis bifocals.
Avatar universal
I am a 37-year old female, high myope with the Symphony IOL in my right eye as of October, 2015. No near and no intermediate vision after the surgery. Distance vision is near perfect with limited peripheral vision. My cataract was pretty advanced in that eye, so this outcome is still better than it would have been with the cataract, but I expected much better results, at least for intermediate vision.
Helpful - 0
1 Comments
Avatar universal
I'll post a summary, but I'll note I  started a new thread to focus on my experiences with the lens:

http://www.medhelp.org/posts/Eye-Care/my-Symfony-IOL-results-after-cataract-surgery/show/2425258

which is likely too long for many to wade through by now, partly with details of some visual glitches that seem to be due to back luck with my eye anatomy after surgery (like iridodonesis and/or phacodonesis) and nothing to do with the Symfony lens, which I think was a good choice. I have excellent visual acuity, i was almost 20/15 for distance by 1 week postop, and am probably there by now I'd guess, and 20/25 for near (at the distance I hold the reading card). I'd guess I'm between 20/15 and 20/20 for intermediate like computer distance, and I can read my phone's email and browser (though for multi-column newspaper pages where they use a small font  sometimes I need to double-tap a column to read it more easily).

I am one of the rare people that see halos with the lens, but they've never been problematic since they aren't very bright so I see through/past them and since my night vision overall is better than I remember it being in the past (I always felt my night vision wasn't as good as others seemed to be). I don't have a problem with glare at night, I think I had more trouble back before i had cataracts.   I think for very near a trifocal might have been better, but that this was a better tradeoff in my case to make to get likely better intermediate than I would have had with a trifocal.

The only option I'm wondering if I should have looked into more is the idea of a Crystalens in combination with the Raindrop corneal inlay which provides more depth of focus, but I hadn't seen any studies on that (only studies of a monofocal IOL with the Raindrop). The Crystalens by itself  which risks not accommodating, and by itself is more likely to leave a need for reading glasses than the Symfony so I didn't consider it as good a choice. However the results I'd seen for the Raindrop corneal inlay placed over   a monofocal IOL seem comparable to what the Symfony provides. So I have to wonder if the Crystalens did accommodate if that would give even better near vision with the Raindrop, and if the Crystalens didn't work if the Raindrop would then provide usable near vision. I'm not sure if  the Symfony and Raindrop would work in combination to extend depth of focus even further, or if there is a limit to how well that would work, I hadn't explored the idea since the Symfony is good enough for the moment.

There are other risks with the Crystalens (like z-syndrome, which might not be much of an issue with recent lenses so I hadn't looked further into it) so it is something to be cautious of before considering that approach. I also don't know how contrast sensitivity would compare with that approach, but it sounds like the Raindrop may not reduce contrast sensitivity much (unlike the Kamra inlay where that sounds like perhaps more of an issue).  The Symfony is simpler obviously than that approach since it doesn't require 2 lenses and the added expense and risk.
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
Can you give us an update on your vision and experience with this lens?
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
What clinic did you visit for your Vision ICL surgery?
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
I had the Vision ICL implanted in both eyes a few years ago overseas, because I wanted the toric version, which is still only available outside the U.S.  This is a phakic IOL, so it is inserted into the posterior chamber and does not affect the natural lens.  I spent a few months researching the lens (along with other treatments for high myopia with astigmatism) and various surgeons.  I selected one who has extensive experience with the Vision ICL and routinely presents at conferences and publishes papers.

The surgeon and all the staff spoke perfect English and the surgical facility seemed top-notch.  Each O.R. has positive air pressure, all staff switch to O.R. shoes before entering.  The surgeon rewashed and changed gloves, smock, mask, etc. between eyes.

I am now developing a cataract in one eye and am considering the Symfony for when my vision deteriorates to where I need surgery.  I would no concern with again going overseas if best lens for me is not approved in the U.S.
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
I contacted AMO directly and they provided to me the clinics conducting the trials in my state.  My understanding is they where selecting people in Dec. and performing the operations in January so I think the trials are closed, but you can contact them and check.  I was not interested in the trials as they would not tell you if you were in the control group or not and the other lens was a mono-focal lens.  I will give you another option that I am now considering.  I contacted the person heading the Symfony trials and he recommended to me the newly approved Tecnis low-add lens.  He had also done the trials with that lens and he was very impressed with the results.  I am still researching it but I feel there is risk (imagined or real) with having an operation of this nature done overseas, so I am now leaning toward the Tecnis Multifocal low-add lens.  From all my research it is a superior lens over Restor's Multifocal.   Anyway another option for you to consider.  I would recommend finding the clinics in your area who did trials for both the Tecnis Symfony and the Tecnis low-add lens and talk directly with that Ophthalmologist and get his assessment.  The person I talked to called me on the phone and went into great detail about the 2 lenses.  I also heard the Symfony is on the fast track for FDA approval.  Of course the FDA idea of fast is usually slow to everyone else.
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
Could you provide info about how to contact clinics in the Symfony trial?
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
re: "that seems so promising."

I'm still waiting to post more until after Friday postop with US eye doc when I've had some recovery time. However I was pleasantly surprised to discover that I can already read the small print on medicine bottles (like the eye drops I'm using) if I concentrate a bit, and I can use my smartphone. The vision is fluctuating a bit so I suspect I'm still recovering from the surgery, but since it can take a few months to fully adapt to the lenses I'm hopeful that I'll have useful enough near vision even without reading glasses usually.
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
Thanks for the update,  Please let me know which center you went to and the Dr. you used and your experience as time passes.  I did finally call the Clinic doing the trial closes to me.  Like you said 50% chance you get the Symfony lens, but the other lens is a mono-focal, not a multifocal, so not crazy about the idea.  Plus they require a lot of follow up so a lot of traveling back and forth.  Also still waiting to hear back from them on what the cost would be.  You still have to pay for surgery, surgery center and other things.

BTW, I want to thank you for being brave enough to try out this rather new lens that seems so promising.
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
re: "Might be worth calling this surgeon who has experience with both. "

Actually I had contacted him first, , and after an initial reply he didn't respond to a followup query. He'd suggested that neuroadaptation is much faster in the AT Lisa tri, and so I hoped to get him to quantity that a little bit but never heard back. That article also gives a defocus curve for the AT Lisa tri which doesn't match any of the ones I'd seen in other articles with far larger numbers of patients. I'm not sure if its an artifact of the curve fitting software he used along with a random statistical fluctuation due to the low number of patients, or what explains it. The fact that he both didn't get back to me with even a quick reply made me consider going elsewhere, as did  the fact that he didn't address this odd discrepancy in the article.

I'd contacted other doctors who used both lenses who suggested that the Symfony was a better bet.

I decided to get the Symfony, and things appear promising. I just had the surgery a couple of days ago so still recovering/adapting so I wanted to hold off on comments (especially since I'm also not fully awake after major jetlag doing a weeklong trip to Europe for the surgery, with 8 hour time difference and long travel time with little sleep). I'll give an update in a few days after a postop with my usual eye doc where I'll try to get more detailed results.

I hope I adapt well since I actually got both eyes done, even though I'd hoped to wait on the other and get to decide later. One eye  barely had a cataract and was still correctible to 20/20, but after I had the first eye done and had the bandage off the next day,  it appeared hard to get the vision in the 2 eyes to merge even though each eye seemed to have good vision by itself . The other eye was using a contact lens, -6D. I'd read of others just doing one eye and wearing a contact lens on the unoperated eye. So its possible  I may have adapted to it quickly, it may simply have been the issue of adapting to the new lens. However I didn't have much time to wait to see if that would  happen if I were going to get the 2nd eye done on this trip. I figured  perhaps I'm myopic enough that its harder to adapt to, and   I didn't want to risk getting home and having trouble, so I went ahead and got the 2nd eye done a few hours after the bandage came off the first eye.

After the bandage came off the 2nd eye, I didn't feel any trouble merging the two eyes.  I will note that  the day the bandage came off the 2nd eye, when I tried a few hours later I was able to read gmail on my phone (with concentration), without changing font sizes,  though the vision still seemed to fluctuate a bit still recovering from surgery. I figure that is a good sign that with adaptation I'll be able to read it without struggle. (perhaps even merely after I've recovered from surgery, and caught up on sleep, within a few days).
Helpful - 0
Have an Answer?

You are reading content posted in the Eye Care Community

Top General Health Answerers
177275 tn?1511755244
Kansas City, MO
Avatar universal
Grand Prairie, TX
Avatar universal
San Diego, CA
Learn About Top Answerers
Didn't find the answer you were looking for?
Ask a question
Popular Resources
Discharge often isn't normal, and could mean an infection or an STD.
In this unique and fascinating report from Missouri Medicine, world-renowned expert Dr. Raymond Moody examines what really happens when we almost die.
Think a loved one may be experiencing hearing loss? Here are five warning signs to watch for.
When it comes to your health, timing is everything
We’ve got a crash course on metabolism basics.
Learn what you can do to avoid ski injury and other common winter sports injury.