Interested in the real world experience with this IOL. I have implanted about 50-70 of these IOLs, many of them in a monovision format. My impressions have been mixed. In many cases the IOL did not appear to give any additional intermediate vision compared to the Alcon SN60WF. I was able to compare because many of my patients have the Alcon lens in one eye and the RayOne in the other. The extended depth of focus that one seems to get from this IOL is hit or miss and probably depends on a lot of other factors. The problem arises in how to plan for monovision. I was attracted by the concept of aiming for -1.25 in the non-dominant eye and achieving 20/40+ for distance and j1-2 for near. I would say that I definitely have some patients who have achieved this and are quite happy with the result. However, I also have many who did not. Because of this I have stopped aiming for that kind of target in patients who really want uncorrected reading. I am finding that I have to go with perhaps -1.75 in the non-dominant eye . If I had to venture a guess I would guesstimate that RayOne is providing a roughly 0.5D bump in extended depth of focus compared to Alcon's Sn60wf. The other issue is that I think in some cases the IOL is ejected a little too rapidly for my comfort zone and I think in one or two cases it may have compromised some zonules when it popped out.
Interesting. I've read that the Rayner EMV lens also gives some hyperopia add. Have you found this to be the case? If this is true, would you say your patients have an easier time neural adapting to your new -1.75 offset than they would, say, in a mono-focal scenario?
Interested in the real world experience with this IOL. I have implanted about 50-70 of these IOLs, many of them in a monovision format. My impressions have been mixed. In many cases the IOL did not appear to give any additional intermediate vision compared to the Alcon SN60WF. I was able to compare because many of my patients have the Alcon lens in one eye and the RayOne in the other. The extended depth of focus that one seems to get from this IOL is hit or miss and probably depends on a lot of other factors. The problem arises in how to plan for monovision. I was attracted by the concept of aiming for -1.25 in the non-dominant eye and achieving 20/40+ for distance and j1-2 for near. I would say that I definitely have some patients who have achieved this and are quite happy with the result. However, I also have many who did not. Because of this I have stopped aiming for that kind of target in patients who really want uncorrected reading. I am finding that I have to go with perhaps -1.75 in the non-dominant eye . If I had to venture a guess I would guesstimate that RayOne is providing a roughly 0.5D bump in extended depth of focus compared to Alcon's Sn60wf. The other issue is that I think in some cases the IOL is ejected a little too rapidly for my comfort zone and I think in one or two cases it may have compromised some zonules when it popped out.
Interesting. I've read that the Rayner EMV lens also gives some hyperopia add. Have you found this to be the case? If this is true, would you say your patients have an easier time neural adapting to your new -1.75 offset than they would, say, in a mono-focal scenario?
Rayoan is a very bad lens. I do not recommend it to anyone.