Hi, I had RLE in 2013, sued OE, won, kinda (they would disagree but WTF, they paid for their surgeon's costs and a number of other things and they looked really moronically stupid, greedy and downright evil at the cost hearing, but anyway). I've had lens exchange for monofocal lenses this year (Moorfields, first one went well then I tore my retina, had the second eye done and the prescription was a long way out, getting that fixed (hopefully) later this year) Anyway.
At my first trip to Moorfields I got in to a 'discussion' with Vincenzo Maurino on the subject of Lentis M-Plus MF-IOLs, and this discussion has been bothering me for almost a year now. We were so at odds on the subject of MF-IOLs we could have been talking about entirely different things. I was, frankly, incredulous at his assertions, but even more incredulous at the fact he plainly believed them, and I have to accept that he did so in good faith. So - what's going on?
I started reading some articles in a US journal on 'refractive surprises' (because i have one, apparently) and one, in particular, caught my eye.
www.reviewofophthalmology.com/article/re...ter-cataract-surgery
The quote that got my attention was this one, from a surgeon on some of the issues with MF-IOLs / RLE:
'He does not believe in waiting for neuroadaptation in premium lens patients. “I think we are dealing with a deformed lens in most cases,” he says. “Sometimes, you have to wait for the lens to regain its shape once it is placed in the eye. If you wait long enough on a multifocal patient who is complaining of waxy vision, he or she often will slowly get better.
People call that neuroadaptation, but what has really happened is that the lens has slowly regained its factory-manufactured shape. With waxy vision, I wait to see if it gets better because if it doesn’t, I’m not going to do PRK or LASIK. Instead, I’m going to take that lens out.”
Of course, for some of us that just doesn't happen. The description struck me as apt though, because of the complexity of shape of the profile a multi-focal lens.
Cutting to the chase: is the real issue for us damaged RLE patients that
either manufacturing defects in multi-focal lenses are unacceptably high or that these lenses are damaged in transit to point of implant? Because some people do in fact seem perfectly happy with MF-IOLs. And to say that others just don't get used to them is a lazy and content-free response. I do not believe the surgeon would be able to tell in advance that a lens is damaged without performing some examination that would presumably compromise sterility (somebody help me out here please).
Does anyone have or know anyone who has information on manufacturing failure rates of MF-IOLs? (Sasha?)
* I'd be very interested to know. Thanks.
__________________________
admin: *Until the industry start telling the truth and publishing true statistics (another flying pig I see) there is no reliable data available. It would help if more people reported lens problems to the MHRA by filing a Yellow Card - scroll down to 5 April post for more info
yellowcard.mhra.gov.uk/