On 16 Mar 2009 01:46:44 GMT, "DoN. Nichols"
wrote:



Yes, but *what* *happened*?

Surgery to replace cataracts.

FWIW There are some fascinating color patterns in the eye during the
surgery. I wish that there were some way to record them.

Yes, you are alert during the whole surgery, as you need to be
able to move the eye at commands -- but you feel nothing, and are given
something via an IV tube to keep you from getting anxious I think. I
personally found it fascinating. Something like fifteen minutes total.

Boy, your cataract surgery was different than mine. They gave me the
IV and the next thing I remember was they said it was time to get up.
I said - "you haven't done anything yet", and they said - "you're
done!" I "slept" through both of them. Mine only took about 3
minutes per eye, but they were early cataracts, so it was probably
easier to liquefy the old lens.

I finally got around to getting bifocal safety glasses a week or so
ago. The surgery was about 2 years ago.

RWL

On 2009-03-17, GeoLane at PTD dot NET GeoLane wrote:
On 16 Mar 2009 01:46:44 GMT, "DoN. Nichols"
wrote:



Yes, but *what* *happened*?

Surgery to replace cataracts.

FWIW There are some fascinating color patterns in the eye during the
surgery. I wish that there were some way to record them.

Yes, you are alert during the whole surgery, as you need to be
able to move the eye at commands -- but you feel nothing, and are given
something via an IV tube to keep you from getting anxious I think. I
personally found it fascinating. Something like fifteen minutes total.

Boy, your cataract surgery was different than mine. They gave me the
IV and the next thing I remember was they said it was time to get up.
I said - "you haven't done anything yet", and they said - "you're
done!" I "slept" through both of them. Mine only took about 3
minutes per eye, but they were early cataracts, so it was probably
easier to liquefy the old lens.

Perhaps so. Mine were definitely advanced ones -- enough so
that I expected more trouble than apparently actually happened during
the surgery.

You missed an interesting light show. :-)

But it is probably a difference between surgeons mostly. Did
your eye have to be stitched, or was it all done through a tiny hole as
mine was?

I finally got around to getting bifocal safety glasses a week or so
ago. The surgery was about 2 years ago.

Hmm ... I'm using my old safety bifocals for some things,
including reading the screen right now, but for close work they are a
bit more awkward -- perhaps through a lack of a second eye which will
focus on the areas which the small lens for the first one misses. We'll
see how it goes once the second eye is done.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

"DoN. Nichols" writes:

Hmm ... I'm using my old safety bifocals for some things,
including reading the screen right now, but for close work they are a
bit more awkward -- perhaps through a lack of a second eye which will
focus on the areas which the small lens for the first one misses. We'll
see how it goes once the second eye is done.

I lasted about ten minutes on bifocal safety glasses before spending
several hours looking for non-prescription safety glass readers, and
wound up springing for prescription readers. Definitely money well
spent until somebody figures out that there's a market here.

(no cataracts -- yet, as I live at an altitude of 3900 ft -- just age
creeping up)

On 2009-03-18, GeoLane at PTD dot NET GeoLane wrote:

But it is probably a difference between surgeons mostly. Did
your eye have to be stitched, or was it all done through a tiny hole as
mine was?

[ ... ]

It was done through a 3mm incision at the edge of the cornea as I
recall. The ophthalmologist put one suture in because it said it made
him feel better. Like yours they were foldable plastic lenses.

Alcon "AcrySof IQ" lenses by any chance? Look sort of like a
spiral galaxy in the images?

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

But it is probably a difference between surgeons mostly. Did
your eye have to be stitched, or was it all done through a tiny hole as
mine was?
Enjoy,
DoN.

It was done through a 3mm incision at the edge of the cornea as I
recall. The ophthalmologist put one suture in because it said it made
him feel better. Like yours they were foldable plastic lenses.

RWL

On 18 Mar 2009 03:03:17 GMT, "DoN. Nichols"
wrote:

Alcon "AcrySof IQ" lenses by any chance? Look sort of like a
spiral galaxy in the images?

Enjoy,
DoN.

Y'know. I thought I might have written that down somewhere but I
can't find it. I don't know exactly what brand of lenses were
placed. The only thing I remember was that the one was about -10.0
diopters and one was stronger than the other by around 0.5 to 1.0 D.
We discussed having multifocal lenses, but the ophthalmologist didn't
think they worked very well so I have single vision lenses. I"m
waiting for the day they can replace these with biologically cloned
lenses which will give me back accommodation instead of having to use
reading glasses. That said, my vision today hasn't been this good
since I was maybe 10 or 11 years old. It's been 3 years since my
cataract surgery.

RWL

On 2009-03-19, GeoLane at PTD dot NET GeoLane wrote:
On 18 Mar 2009 03:03:17 GMT, "DoN. Nichols"
wrote:

Alcon "AcrySof IQ" lenses by any chance? Look sort of like a
spiral galaxy in the images?

Enjoy,
DoN.

Y'know. I thought I might have written that down somewhere but I
can't find it. I don't know exactly what brand of lenses were
placed.

After the surgery, they could not find the "lens card", and
asked me to have the doctor look for it when I saw her the next day.
She seemed to not consider it important, but yesterday I got a letter
from the surgery which contained a folded blank sheet of paper, but when
I opened that, a small laminated card fell out which gave the brand,
where it was implanted in whom, the diopter strength (22.5 D), and the
comment "UV with blue light filter".

I consider this of potential importance, especially if the lens
needs to be replaced some day. Now I wonder whether the "UV" part means
that it blocks UV, or just that the plastic is resistant to damage from
UV.

The only thing I remember was that the one was about -10.0
diopters and one was stronger than the other by around 0.5 to 1.0 D.

Hmm ... a different way of measuring it? Or a much larger eye?

We discussed having multifocal lenses, but the ophthalmologist didn't
think they worked very well so I have single vision lenses.

Without knowing the details of how those are supposed to work, I
agree with you. I have one single focus lens implanted, and am
expecting another similar one.

I"m
waiting for the day they can replace these with biologically cloned
lenses which will give me back accommodation instead of having to use
reading glasses.

That would be nice. But is the loss of accomodation purely a
function of the lens, or also a function of muscles in back of the
retina distorting the eyeball as a whole?

That said, my vision today hasn't been this good
since I was maybe 10 or 11 years old. It's been 3 years since my
cataract surgery.

Mine was pretty good up to about ten years ago -- sharp infinity
focus, but degrading near focus. Then the cataracts started shifting
the focus until my sharp distance was about ten inches (254 mm)

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

I opened that, a small laminated card fell out which gave the brand,
where it was implanted in whom, the diopter strength (22.5 D), and the
comment "UV with blue light filter".

Holy Hanna. 22.5D and I thought mine were strong at -10D or so.

I consider this of potential importance, especially if the lens
needs to be replaced some day. Now I wonder whether the "UV" part means
that it blocks UV, or just that the plastic is resistant to damage from
UV.

I'm almost certain that it's documentation that it blocks UV. I think
knowing the information on your implanted lens might be important too,
but I suspect that in the case of having to replace one, they
remeasure what the lens strength is inside your eye rather than
relying on a record, which could potentially have a clerical error.
It's similar to blood banking. It's nice to know your blood type, but
hospitals always repeat the testing before transfusing blood since a
mismatch has the potential to be fatal.

Without knowing the details of how those are supposed to work, I
agree with you. I have one single focus lens implanted, and am
expecting another similar one.

There were at the time I had my lens implants two general types. One
was like a jar top in that the center "popped" back and forth to focus
near and far when your ciliary muscles tried to focus.

The other type was kind of like a fresnel lens, focusing the image at
different focal lengths on your retina and letting the brain
synthesize a focused image.


I"m waiting for the day they can replace these with biologically cloned
lenses which will give me back accommodation instead of having to use
reading glasses.

That would be nice. But is the loss of accomodation purely a
function of the lens, or also a function of muscles in back of the
retina distorting the eyeball as a whole?

To the best of my knowledge, it's because the lens becomes stiff over
time. The ciliary muscles pull at it from its periphery and make it
thinner or thicker. As it stiffens with age, it doesn't flex any
more. Cataracts are when the lens material develops opaque areas.

RWL

On 2009-03-20, GeoLane at PTD dot NET GeoLane wrote:

I opened that, a small laminated card fell out which gave the brand,
where it was implanted in whom, the diopter strength (22.5 D), and the
comment "UV with blue light filter".

Holy Hanna. 22.5D and I thought mine were strong at -10D or so.

The Diopter is the reciprocal of the focal length -- and of
course depends on the units of measurement. I think that mm should be
assumed -- but that does not make sense here. This appears to come out
close to 1.1" focal length, which would make sense for a normal eye.
The focal length for corrective eyeglasses is much longer, of course.

I consider this of potential importance, especially if the lens
needs to be replaced some day. Now I wonder whether the "UV" part means
that it blocks UV, or just that the plastic is resistant to damage from
UV.

I'm almost certain that it's documentation that it blocks UV.

O.K. Useful for things like arc welding. I'll ask the doctor
when I see her Tuesday.

I think
knowing the information on your implanted lens might be important too,
but I suspect that in the case of having to replace one, they
remeasure what the lens strength is inside your eye rather than
relying on a record, which could potentially have a clerical error.

Are you sure that they can measure the strength is without
knowing the lens-to-retina spacing for your specific eye?

It's similar to blood banking. It's nice to know your blood type, but
hospitals always repeat the testing before transfusing blood since a
mismatch has the potential to be fatal.

Agreed.

Without knowing the details of how those are supposed to work, I
agree with you. I have one single focus lens implanted, and am
expecting another similar one.

There were at the time I had my lens implants two general types. One
was like a jar top in that the center "popped" back and forth to focus
near and far when your ciliary muscles tried to focus.

That could be rather disorienting -- and likely to pop at
different times for the two eyes, which would be even worse.

The other type was kind of like a fresnel lens, focusing the image at
different focal lengths on your retina and letting the brain
synthesize a focused image.

That could also lead to a lot of confusion. I know that it
would be a lot of CPU power in an image processing system, and I'm not
sure how automatic it could be in the brain. At a minimum, I would
expect a loss of contrast with the out-of-focus images co-existing with
the sharper ones. I wonder how many points of sharp focus are provided?

I"m waiting for the day they can replace these with biologically cloned
lenses which will give me back accommodation instead of having to use
reading glasses.

That would be nice. But is the loss of accommodation purely a
function of the lens, or also a function of muscles in back of the
retina distorting the eyeball as a whole?

To the best of my knowledge, it's because the lens becomes stiff over
time. The ciliary muscles pull at it from its periphery and make it
thinner or thicker. As it stiffens with age, it doesn't flex any
more.

O.K. So the major trick is finding ways to re-attach the
muscles once you produce a lens capsule which has just the right degree
of flex in it.

Cataracts are when the lens material develops opaque areas.

At first discoloration (which sneaks up on you so you don't
notice) and then more and more opaque. I was surprised that it did not
present as total loss of images in some areas. Instead, it fattened the
lens, thus shifting the focus much closer (10" instead of sharp at near
infinity). Right now, my right eye is back to sharp at infinity, and
the left eye is fairly sharp at about 10" -- and noticeably yellower.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---