Aa
my Symfony IOL results after cataract surgery
I'd posted before asking for information about lens options before surgery, but thought I'd start a new thread now that I've gotten the lens where perhaps others can add their results as well with the Symfony lens. It is a new type of "extended depth of focus" lens that uses a different design than multifocal and accommodating lenses.
I had Symfony lenses implanted in both eyes the first week of December. By 1 week postop my uncorrected vision at distance was between 20/15 and 20/20. At near my vision was already about 20/25 (but fluctuating a bit it had seemed better earlier that day). Given its improvement since then I'd guess its likely 20/20 or so, I can read the small print on my eye drop bottles for instance. Not everyone achieves this level of near vision with the lens so people shouldn't expect to necessarily get quite as good a result, and should be prepared for the possibility for needing reading glasses at near. I suspect the fact that I'm comparatively young for cataract surgery, 52, might have something to do with the results.
I had originally only planned on having 1 eye done (since the other was 20/20 correctible still), but when the patch came off the next day I discovered it might be hard to adapt to the difference in vision between the two eyes even with a contact lens in the other eye. I might have quickly adapted if I'd taken the time, but I decided I didn't want to risk it, so I had the 2nd eye operated on a few hours later.
My intermediate vision hasn't been tested explicitly but I suspect is at least 20/20. That is based on my subjective sense of it being better than near and because of the design of this lens where visual acuity drops off in a continuous curve from far to near, so intermediate should be around the same as far, definitely better then near. That is one of the differences between this lens and for instance a bifocal IOL where vision may be worse at intermediate than it is at near or far. I spend a large number of hours at a computer and was willing to risk needing reading glasses occasionally for near in order to get better intermediate vision. Most household tasks and social interactions occur at intermediate distance as well.
Unfortunately the lens isn't yet available in the US yet, they are starting a clinical trial here which is randomized with a monofocal lens (there is a 50% chance you would get a monofocal) so I went to Europe for my surgery. I figured that at my age I hopefully may be using these lenses for a few decades so it was worth a bit of effort to get a better lens. This industry publication suggests it might be generally available in the US in a couple of years, and that some US surgeons find it interesting:
http://ophthalmologytimes.modernmedicine.com/ophthalmologytimes/news/us-surgeons-anticipate-new-iols?page=0,1
"the Symfony IOL might be available in the US by late 2016 or early 2017...
Of the IOLs discussed at the ESCRS Congress, Dr. Olson and Dr. Packer concurred that the brand new Tecnis Symfony Extended Range of Vision IOL was the most interesting as it represents a new concept for addressing presbyopia that seems to overcome the limitations of multifocal IOLs....
from what I’ve heard so far from respected and trusted surgeons, patients implanted with this IOL are seeing 20/20 at distance and intermediate with very usable, J2 or J3 near vision and are not experiencing any loss of contrast or perceptible problems with glare, halos or other dysphotopsias. So, it looks like they are having their cake and eating it too.”
I had considered the option of getting a trifocal lens which targets far, intermediate, and near (also unfortunately not yet available in the US), or even a bifocal with a small add so its focused more at intermediate than near. However the studies so far seem to indicate that the Symfony provides better quality intermediate vision. In addition multifocal lenses reduce contrast sensitivity which is useful for night vision, while reports indicate the Symfony is at least as good as a monofocal lens. The other thing the Symfony does is to correct for "chromatic aberration", an issue which is discussed in this industry publication which quotes one prominent surgeon noting:
http://eyeworld.org/supplements/EW-December-supplement-2014.pdf
" Cataract surgery with an IOL with an Abbe number greater than that of the natural lens (47) can improve CA, so that our cataract patients could actually experience better vision quality than they did as young adults. "
Although the Symfony uses a high Abbe material (I'm assuming its the same Tecnis material that article lists as having a 55 Abbe), it also has other features to to correct for CA to improve image quality. It seemed like a good bet the image quality for distance would be comparable, and perhaps even better, than a monofocal lens, or an accommodating lens.
Although some results for the Crystalens look like it will similarly do well for intermediate while providing some chance at decent near vision, some showed a lower chance of good near, e.g. some of the studies listed for the March 2014 update in this government review:
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/MedicalDevices/MedicalDevicesAdvisoryCommittee/OphthalmicDevicesPanel/UCM346413.pdf
Part of the concern I had with the Crystalens was that in some patients the lens does well, but in some it doesn't accommodate, which leaves it effectively being a monofocal lens ( but without things like the correction for chromatic abberation). There is also concern I'd read among some over whether over decades of aging anything would interfere with the physical movement of the lens, something non-accommodating lenses don't require. There is no perfect lens, so its partly a matter of placing a bet on which might work out well, and I figured that it was better to bet on something that didn't require the accommodation to work (in addition to other concerns regarding problems people have with the Crystalens, though those may be fewer in the newest versions). I hadn't searched to find the study behind the figure in this presentation, but it notes:
http://www.slideshare.net/alanglazier/accommodating-intra-ocular-lenses
that about half of Crystalens patients require reading correction. That may be in part because as it notes: ' "Pushing” does not equal “Sustaining” '. This issue is that someone with their natural lens still who is presbyopic for instance may be able to theoretically read a particular print size without glasses, but that the muscle effort to focus may be a strain to do for an extended period of time, and the Crystalens at least partly seems to require the same sort of accommodative effort. (though there is speculation it may be benefit from some extended depth of focus, which is what the Symfony is designed to use to begin with). I'll continue this in another post in a few minutes.
I had Symfony lenses implanted in both eyes the first week of December. By 1 week postop my uncorrected vision at distance was between 20/15 and 20/20. At near my vision was already about 20/25 (but fluctuating a bit it had seemed better earlier that day). Given its improvement since then I'd guess its likely 20/20 or so, I can read the small print on my eye drop bottles for instance. Not everyone achieves this level of near vision with the lens so people shouldn't expect to necessarily get quite as good a result, and should be prepared for the possibility for needing reading glasses at near. I suspect the fact that I'm comparatively young for cataract surgery, 52, might have something to do with the results.
I had originally only planned on having 1 eye done (since the other was 20/20 correctible still), but when the patch came off the next day I discovered it might be hard to adapt to the difference in vision between the two eyes even with a contact lens in the other eye. I might have quickly adapted if I'd taken the time, but I decided I didn't want to risk it, so I had the 2nd eye operated on a few hours later.
My intermediate vision hasn't been tested explicitly but I suspect is at least 20/20. That is based on my subjective sense of it being better than near and because of the design of this lens where visual acuity drops off in a continuous curve from far to near, so intermediate should be around the same as far, definitely better then near. That is one of the differences between this lens and for instance a bifocal IOL where vision may be worse at intermediate than it is at near or far. I spend a large number of hours at a computer and was willing to risk needing reading glasses occasionally for near in order to get better intermediate vision. Most household tasks and social interactions occur at intermediate distance as well.
Unfortunately the lens isn't yet available in the US yet, they are starting a clinical trial here which is randomized with a monofocal lens (there is a 50% chance you would get a monofocal) so I went to Europe for my surgery. I figured that at my age I hopefully may be using these lenses for a few decades so it was worth a bit of effort to get a better lens. This industry publication suggests it might be generally available in the US in a couple of years, and that some US surgeons find it interesting:
http://ophthalmologytimes.modernmedicine.com/ophthalmologytimes/news/us-surgeons-anticipate-new-iols?page=0,1
"the Symfony IOL might be available in the US by late 2016 or early 2017...
Of the IOLs discussed at the ESCRS Congress, Dr. Olson and Dr. Packer concurred that the brand new Tecnis Symfony Extended Range of Vision IOL was the most interesting as it represents a new concept for addressing presbyopia that seems to overcome the limitations of multifocal IOLs....
from what I’ve heard so far from respected and trusted surgeons, patients implanted with this IOL are seeing 20/20 at distance and intermediate with very usable, J2 or J3 near vision and are not experiencing any loss of contrast or perceptible problems with glare, halos or other dysphotopsias. So, it looks like they are having their cake and eating it too.”
I had considered the option of getting a trifocal lens which targets far, intermediate, and near (also unfortunately not yet available in the US), or even a bifocal with a small add so its focused more at intermediate than near. However the studies so far seem to indicate that the Symfony provides better quality intermediate vision. In addition multifocal lenses reduce contrast sensitivity which is useful for night vision, while reports indicate the Symfony is at least as good as a monofocal lens. The other thing the Symfony does is to correct for "chromatic aberration", an issue which is discussed in this industry publication which quotes one prominent surgeon noting:
http://eyeworld.org/supplements/EW-December-supplement-2014.pdf
" Cataract surgery with an IOL with an Abbe number greater than that of the natural lens (47) can improve CA, so that our cataract patients could actually experience better vision quality than they did as young adults. "
Although the Symfony uses a high Abbe material (I'm assuming its the same Tecnis material that article lists as having a 55 Abbe), it also has other features to to correct for CA to improve image quality. It seemed like a good bet the image quality for distance would be comparable, and perhaps even better, than a monofocal lens, or an accommodating lens.
Although some results for the Crystalens look like it will similarly do well for intermediate while providing some chance at decent near vision, some showed a lower chance of good near, e.g. some of the studies listed for the March 2014 update in this government review:
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/MedicalDevices/MedicalDevicesAdvisoryCommittee/OphthalmicDevicesPanel/UCM346413.pdf
Part of the concern I had with the Crystalens was that in some patients the lens does well, but in some it doesn't accommodate, which leaves it effectively being a monofocal lens ( but without things like the correction for chromatic abberation). There is also concern I'd read among some over whether over decades of aging anything would interfere with the physical movement of the lens, something non-accommodating lenses don't require. There is no perfect lens, so its partly a matter of placing a bet on which might work out well, and I figured that it was better to bet on something that didn't require the accommodation to work (in addition to other concerns regarding problems people have with the Crystalens, though those may be fewer in the newest versions). I hadn't searched to find the study behind the figure in this presentation, but it notes:
http://www.slideshare.net/alanglazier/accommodating-intra-ocular-lenses
that about half of Crystalens patients require reading correction. That may be in part because as it notes: ' "Pushing” does not equal “Sustaining” '. This issue is that someone with their natural lens still who is presbyopic for instance may be able to theoretically read a particular print size without glasses, but that the muscle effort to focus may be a strain to do for an extended period of time, and the Crystalens at least partly seems to require the same sort of accommodative effort. (though there is speculation it may be benefit from some extended depth of focus, which is what the Symfony is designed to use to begin with). I'll continue this in another post in a few minutes.
An IOL is inside your eye just like a natural lens so its shielded from outside temperatures. It is likely more durable when exposed to temperature variations than the rest of your eye outside the lens, or the natural lens you have now. This winter I was out exercising when the temperature was perhaps 10 degrees F (= -12.2 degrees C), that isn't a problem (nor would exercising in even colder weather be an issue, we just didn't have any colder mornings this year on my workout days). I haven't been in a sauna, not something I'm that into, but I've never heard of it being an issue in anything that I'd read. Again the IOL is going to be more durable than the eye tissue surrounding it, and I doubt they'd have a sauna hot enough to to do damage to people's eyes (or that you'd remain in one if it were that hot).
I'm surprised that someone could have their contact lenses melt from a hair drier, I would suspect if the temperature at her eyes were that high it'd be enough to be damaging the eye whether or not the person was wearing contacts, but admittedly I hadn't researched the issue.
I'm surprised that someone could have their contact lenses melt from a hair drier, I would suspect if the temperature at her eyes were that high it'd be enough to be damaging the eye whether or not the person was wearing contacts, but admittedly I hadn't researched the issue.
Just a short question.
Have you read about the effects of temperature on IOLs specially from Abbot? coz recently I read bout a woman when she was getting her hair done at a saloon with a special hair drier that the whole head goes into it, her contacts started to melt and caused her eye problems. It just reminded me of how important the environmental effects on lenses could be; especially for me who am living in Canada where the weather is sometimes -10 c or lower. Apart from that, I thought what happens if I go to a sauna with my IOL for instance?
Have you read about the effects of temperature on IOLs specially from Abbot? coz recently I read bout a woman when she was getting her hair done at a saloon with a special hair drier that the whole head goes into it, her contacts started to melt and caused her eye problems. It just reminded me of how important the environmental effects on lenses could be; especially for me who am living in Canada where the weather is sometimes -10 c or lower. Apart from that, I thought what happens if I go to a sauna with my IOL for instance?
Thank you Garrry very much for your answer it gives me courage because I m about to proceed to surgery with the Symfony in may or june..we'll see(hopefully!!!)
Man, is there any doctors around in this forum? Coz no 1 visited my topic. I am in a hurry coz i have to decide to proceed to iol master test or not.
1 Comments
You might post that comment on the page you started, perhaps the doctor who posts on this site may notice (there is only 1 that often posts, there was another that used to occasionally post but I haven't seen something from him in months). I think the US doctor that sometimes posts on this site may pay less attention to this page since its about a lens not available in the US so its mostly those of us who have gotten them (or consider getting them) that are posting.
oh really? and you're having this problem with Symfony? or is it a monofocal iol? I'm going to put a mono focal iol set for distance vision in my eyes so it would be a great help if you could tell us more bout your experiences. How much blurry your vision is?
1 Comments
it seems no 1 likes to answer my questions in my topic
Update.....I had my left eye done on 03/11/2016. After one month and a half of that surgery and many visits to see my doctor I've gotten pretty much used to my new sight. Halos at night are still there but with less intensity so they don't bother me that much while driving. My sight is 20/15 but my near sight is not as expected. When I read a book, read something on my cellphone or work on my computer I see a "grey shadow" behind and slightly up each letter/word. This condition makes my sight tired after a while. Does anyone have the same problem?
I just went and bought a $30 pair of 1.5 strength over the counter reading glasses and this effect pretty much disappears at a reading distance of about 18 inches. Trying to read any closer than that would make the "phantom letters" appear. Any comments?
I just went and bought a $30 pair of 1.5 strength over the counter reading glasses and this effect pretty much disappears at a reading distance of about 18 inches. Trying to read any closer than that would make the "phantom letters" appear. Any comments?
1 Comments
Have you tried using one eye at a time to see if this happens with only one eye? One question is whether its something having to do with the vision in just one of your eyes by itself, or if its something to do with your brain combining the two images in a flawed way for some reason leading to a slightly doubled image perceived as a shadow. Has your doctor any comments on the issue? I'm guessing this doesn't relate to which IOL you have (I seem to recall posts with vaguely similar problems with people with no IOL or different ones, but I'm not positive), but some other aspect of your eyes, an issue combining vision from the 2 eyes, perhaps residual astigmatism or corneal aberrations that when the image isn't in sharp enough focus cause you to perceive the glitch as a shadow, but when in sharper focus your brain tunes it out.
Have an Answer?
You are reading content posted in the Eye Care Community
Top General Health Answerers
Kansas City, MO
Grand Prairie, TX
San Diego, CA
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.
