 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Medicine - Vision Forum » cataract IOLs that transmit UV... |
|
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Mike Tyner... |
 Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 1:54 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Liz" <fraternobombus at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote
[quote:23a10ce883]My concern is that wavelengths from 380 - 400 are damaging to the
retina, and that many IOLs let most of this light through. If I were
to get any of those IOLs, I'd probably need UVA-blocking spectacles
outdoors, even during overcast conditions when the sun is not out and
when regular sunglasses would be too dark.
[/quote:23a10ce883]
My concern is you might be overestimating the difficulty of putting on
sunglasses when you go outside.
[quote:23a10ce883]I have no idea what such glasses would look like, or cost, or where to
find them.
[/quote:23a10ce883]
Brown or gray drugstore clip-ons would do just fine. A gradient tint, or
photoreactive lenses in prescription bifocals would be more convenient. A
wide-brimmed hat would help. Say.. you could wear a burqa...
[quote:23a10ce883]Anyone?
[/quote:23a10ce883]
Just my take - there's so many better things to worry about; get some
sunglasses and a wide-brim hat, and move that worry to somewhere between
breaking a hip and getting hit by lightning.
-MT |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Liz... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 2:51 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
OK, y'all, laugh.
When you're done, explain to me why, if researchers are so concerned
about the health effects of short-wave light that they are putting out
papers like crazy on blocking visible blue, and seriously debating the
merits of IOLs that block light through 410-420 nm (and up), why I
shouldn't be concerned about an IOL that doesn't block much over 380
nm.
thanks,
Liz
(stressed and crabby) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| The Real Bev... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 3:52 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Mike Tyner wrote:
[quote:d873dc2a53]"Liz" <fraternobombus at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote
My concern is that wavelengths from 380 - 400 are damaging to the
retina, and that many IOLs let most of this light through. If I were
to get any of those IOLs, I'd probably need UVA-blocking spectacles
outdoors, even during overcast conditions when the sun is not out and
when regular sunglasses would be too dark.
[/quote:d873dc2a53]
Polarized sunglasses are frequently lighter than non-polarized sunglasses.
They also make certain windows look really pretty. VW bug rear windows, for one.
[quote:d873dc2a53]My concern is you might be overestimating the difficulty of putting on
sunglasses when you go outside.
[/quote:d873dc2a53]
If that's a serious comment, I apologize for laughing.
[quote:d873dc2a53]I have no idea what such glasses would look like, or cost, or where to
find them.
Brown or gray drugstore clip-ons would do just fine. A gradient tint, or
photoreactive lenses in prescription bifocals would be more convenient. A
wide-brimmed hat would help. Say.. you could wear a burqa...
Anyone?
Just my take - there's so many better things to worry about; get some
sunglasses and a wide-brim hat, and move that worry to somewhere between
breaking a hip and getting hit by lightning.
[/quote:d873dc2a53]
People who need that advice are incapable of taking it :-(
--
Cheers, Bev
*****************************************************
Nothing is so stupid that you can't find somebody who
did it at least once if you look hard enough. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Liz... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 4:05 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Sorry I was so crabby.
I spoke today with a PhD at one of the lens-tinting places. Was
relieved to talk numbers and practicality with someone who feels
normal about that. This was a big change from the marketing hype and
stonewalling I'd been getting from the lens companies.
[quote:a426fed858]An IOL is a relatively irrevocable thing -- if you make the wrong decision
you'll probably have to stick with it. At this point, it's not clear to you or
anybody else what the right decision is. However, we all know that sunglases
are cheap (unless you're stupid), easily-replaceable, and allow you to make an
irrevocable decision not now, but later.
I missed the first post; do you have to do this NOW?
[/quote:a426fed858]
I do. I'm going blind. I guess cataracts are still a far cry from
real problems like AMD or detached retina, which I hope to avoid.
The alternate to clear + glasses is a silicone IOL, but doctors don't
like those.
cheers,
Liz
[quote:a426fed858]"...so she told me it was either her or the ham radio, over."
[/quote:a426fed858]
(Love it!) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| The Real Bev... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:08 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Liz wrote:
[quote:ec63542644]OK, y'all, laugh.
When you're done, explain to me why, if researchers are so concerned
about the health effects of short-wave light that they are putting out
papers like crazy on blocking visible blue, and seriously debating the
merits of IOLs that block light through 410-420 nm (and up), why I
shouldn't be concerned about an IOL that doesn't block much over 380
nm.
thanks,
Liz
(stressed and crabby)
[/quote:ec63542644]
An IOL is a relatively irrevocable thing -- if you make the wrong decision
you'll probably have to stick with it. At this point, it's not clear to you or
anybody else what the right decision is. However, we all know that sunglases
are cheap (unless you're stupid), easily-replaceable, and allow you to make an
irrevocable decision not now, but later.
I missed the first post; do you have to do this NOW? If not, buy some
sunglasses and wait for further developments.
--
Cheers, Bev
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"...so she told me it was either her or the ham radio, over." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Dr Judy... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 2:17 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 16, 1:45 pm, Liz <fraternobom... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote:deff0caa75]Sorry, I wasn't coherent. You're right, I hate the yellow.
1) Most of the yellow ones do block UV (defined by Liz as "<10% at
400nm"  .
The yellow ones are blocking some blue light as well as UV, that is
why they look yellow. I think the confusion here is that the visible
spectrum is defined as wavelengths over 380mm and UV is defined as
wavelengths under 400, so there is an overlap of blue/violet light in
both groups.
My concern is that wavelengths from 380 - 400 are damaging to the
retina, and that many IOLs let most of this light through. If I were
to get any of those IOLs, I'd probably need UVA-blocking spectacles
outdoors, even during overcast conditions when the sun is not out and
when regular sunglasses would be too dark.
I have no idea what such glasses would look like, or cost, or where to
find them.
Anyone?
[/quote:deff0caa75]
If you are so concerned, then why not just get the yellow IOL?
Glasses that block 380 to 400 will be slightly yellow in colour as
well -- they have to be. Light from 380 to 400 is blue, any lens
whether IOL or spectacle that blocks it will appear somewhat yellow.
Judy |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Liz... |
| Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:11 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote:a800f47498]If you are so concerned, then why not just get the yellow IOL?
[/quote:a800f47498]
Because I do graphic arts and need my color vision. I can't afford
not to see colors that other people can see if they're looking at my
stuff.
An illustrator friend struggled with the same issue. Finally he
decided on the clear. He had the first surgery last week, and we are
waiting to see how things look when his eye has settled down.
What exactly is the issue with silicone? They are clear (or mostly
so) and block UV to 400, but most docs are not enthused about them.
I know that if I have retinal problems in future, the silicone will
make it difficult to work on the back of the eye, but I'm willing to
chance that.
However, I also get the impression that there is some other issue with
silicone IOLs - it takes a different procedure to implant them, or
there is more inflammation, or they move in the bag - or something.
Do you know?
thanks,
Liz |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Liz... |
| Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:18 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote:2cc58c35ae]If you are so concerned, then why not just get the yellow IOL?
Glasses that block 380 to 400 will be slightly yellow in colour as
well -- they have to be. Light from 380 to 400 is blue, any lens
whether IOL or spectacle that blocks it will appear somewhat yellow.
[/quote:2cc58c35ae]
I forgot to explain: the yellow IOLs block more than just 400, they
block various percentages of light from 400 through 500.
Liz D. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Liz... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 1:46 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
So what, if anything, is bad about silicone IOLs?
thanks,
Liz |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Mike Tyner... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 8:03 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Liz" <fraternobombus at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote
[quote]So what, if anything, is bad about silicone IOLs?
[/quote]
Liz I think Otis and Dr. Bates have run off anyone who knows the answer.
Pure silicone is horrid for contact lenses because it's extremely
hydrophobic - it won't wet. On the other hand, it's very flexible and
permeable to O2/CO2.
So the more silicone, the more permeable but the harder it is to wet. Many
silicone-based contacts and IOLs are "plasma-treated" to modify the surface
and make them wettable. These coatings can be fragile.
In IOLs, the environment is more stable but it has to work for 60 years. I'm
reading that epithelial cells like to migrate onto IOLs and I know many
synthetic materials interact with body chemistry over time.
Whatever we tell you, it's a question to ask your surgeon. You choose the
surgeon, and then let them choose the material and tell you why.
-MT |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Liz... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 8:03 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote]So what, if anything, is bad about silicone IOLs?
Liz I think Otis and Dr. Bates have run off anyone who knows the answer.
[/quote]
Yeah, I know. I wish there were another group like this one
(preferably a listserv with a moderator) where we could go. If you
know of it, let me know. Heaven knows I've searched Yahoo etc.
[quote]Pure silicone is horrid for contact lenses because it's extremely
hydrophobic - it won't wet. On the other hand, it's very flexible and
permeable to O2/CO2.
[/quote]
I know the acrylic IOLs are hydrophobic, too.
[quote]So the more silicone, the more permeable but the harder it is to wet. Many
silicone-based contacts and IOLs are "plasma-treated" to modify the surface
and make them wettable. These coatings can be fragile.
[/quote]
Fortunately, if a contact fails, you can remove it.
[quote]In IOLs, the environment is more stable but it has to work for 60 years. I'm
reading that epithelial cells like to migrate onto IOLs
[/quote]
Ugh - is this new? I didn't hear it.
[quote]Whatever we tell you, it's a question to ask your surgeon. You choose the
surgeon, and then let them choose the material and tell you why.
[/quote]
I've been asking them. Mike, I get a lot of ... non-answers. Like,
"that's a personal choice".
I only ask because there are no untinted, aspheric, adequately UV-
blocking lenses in acrylic. So the choice of lens affects the choice
of material.
So then one naturally wonders if there is a drawback to the material
and if maybe I should re-arrange my criteria.... if silicone is a
mess, then maybe I want acrylic - even if it's yellow, or admits UV,
or is spherical.
I'm going to see the docs again in a week. I hope to get as much info
as I can before I go in. Any more info that you can add will save a
lot of stress.
thanks,
Liz |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Mike Tyner... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 11:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Liz" <fraternobombus at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote
[quote]Any more info that you can add will save a lot of stress.
[/quote]
I'm not sure that's true. :)
-MT |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Nov 30, 2009 11:59 am
|
|