We have had the Izon technology almost a year and have learned a great deal. Proper patient selection is crucial - If there are not a significant amount of moderate or high aberrations on the readout, the patient may not notice much of a difference from standard ophthalmic lenses. We re-read patients who are purchasing the Izon lenses 3 times and compare the readings as we find variations from map to map differ enough to reduce the performance of lenses made from first readings only. The multifocal corridor is more narrow than many of the high-end progressives we sell day to day and taking a patient out of one of these and putting them in an Izon multifocal sometimes results in complaints of reading areas that are too small. When patients like them, they REALLY like them.

Our office brought in Izon 2 years ago. Like all new products the initial hype was great. This year in particular we have become aware of other brands of High Definition lens that are better than Izon, less expensive and faster delivery time. We are Currently looking at Shamir's Entry level progressive "Element".

Sharon,
Would love to have a conversation with you about this offline on this topic. Basically, all these products take a different approach and some may be better suited for some patients and not others. The Izon is quite different from how Shamir approaches it but I have no experience with the Shamir lens. I found while some people like the Izon progressive, the narrow corridor creates some problems. The single vision works well when there are very high aberration levels based on the izon reading, but you can't count on the prescription it spits out. Thoughts?

I have had the Izon for a year, and patients have across the board liked the lenses. Many appreciate that we have the technology, even if they don't get the lenses. Some, if they don't want to roll out the dollars for the izons will compromise to one of our premium PALs, rather than the cheapest one. Adaptation to the PAL has not been a big problem. Also, I routinely change the Rx. Typically I will compare the Marco autorefractor, Izon, and manifest refraction and come up with something that makes sense. Consistancy - just had a patient recently that had the scan a year ago, and on this year's scans the HOA's looked identical, some minor change in the Rx =/- 0.25 and couple degrees axis. We routinely do three scans on each eye, more if necessary, to get the best result. If they came in bifocal and trifocals I might sell more, those seem to be the people with the high abberrations.

Even if the abberrations are "in the green", I show the headlights with glare photos on the monitor. If the patient identifies with that kind of glare, then the patient will notice benefits in the lenses. (got a hug once!) I tell patients it's like the difference between regular TV and HDTV, a bit better resolution and comfort.

I have had more positive comments from patients with the Izons than from other digitally surfaced lenses

Thanks Dr. Jon - we have similar experience, although problems with the narrow corridor on the progressive.

Find I need to take 2-3 readings; sometimes it works better to pick the reading that most closely mirrors my refraction spec Rx. Other times it works better to pick the two aberration maps out of three that are closest and average them. I find that you can't prescribe directly from the Izon machine - big mistake.