In my good eye, I have one of the multi-focal lenses. I see fine for distance.
About 3 weeks after my implant, I could read without glasses in bright light. I am now 2 years post-op and my vision in my good eye continues to deteriorate. I now require both good light and reading glasses. I sometimes use my Dazor lamp with magnifier to make things really easy to see.
I had horrible near-sightedness. My best vision was about 4 inches from my nose. Now, there is no "best vision." Mostly, I see "pretty good."
I know that part of my problem is that I have to rely on my good eye for everything. I have a substantial loss of vision due to retinal damage in my left eye --- I still get binocular vision from that eye, but not much else.
I wish that I had gotten more information about the multi-focal lens before opting for it.
elaine
There are quite a few messages hidden within this post for those who are considering a multi-focal lens implant.
I am going to comment about the multifocals. That means: Alcon ReStor, Allergan ReZoom, and Abbott Tecnis multifocal. These comments do not apply to the CrystalLens because that is an accommodating implant and not a multifocal. (The CrystalLens has other limitations, but let's not get into that.) This is gonna get a little technical, but I think that TUGGERs are a pretty bright group.
1. Contrast sensitivity - basically, this refers to the ability to discriminate subtle shades of grey (shades of contrast). In a normal eye, if you are looking at a distant target, a very high percentage (for simplicity, let's say 100%) of the available light that is entering the eye is being used to focus on that distant target. The same goes for near vision - in a normal eye, when you are reading, a very high percentage of the available light is being used for that near task. Now, here's the rub: multifocal lens implants need to split the incoming light in order to simultaneously produce a distant image and a near image. So, for simplicity, this means that an eye with a multifocal implant gets 50% of the available light for the distant image and 50% for the near image. In a bright light situation, and if the eye is normal (no retinal or optic nerve disease), that will generally work fine - 50% of the available light is likely to be sufficient to read. However, when lighting is low, this reduces contrast. (We're all familiar with this. That's why it's harder to read that restaurant menu in that dimly lit romantic restaurant). So if you've got a multifocal implant, that eye already has lost a good percentage of the available light for reading because it is being used for the distant image. This is likely to exaggerate any difficulty distinguishing contrast in low light.
As the poster says: "About 3 weeks after my implant, I could read without glasses in bright light." Translation: bright light is a high contrast situation, allowing reading without glasses. However, in dim light, people with a multifocal implant may very well need reading glasses because of the reduced contrast.
2. There are 2 more important messages in that post: "I know that part of my problem is that I have to rely on my good eye for everything. I have a substantial loss of vision due to retinal damage in my left eye --- I still get binocular vision from that eye, but not much else."
Multifocal implants will work best if you have them in both eyes. It's as if you get a "boost" from the combined vision of both eyes. If you are monocular (only one good eye), please be cautious about getting a multifocal.
Also, if you have retinal disease (such as macular degeneration) or optic nerve disease (such as glaucoma), your eye already has reduced contrast sensitivity because of your underlying eye disease. You will sustain a greater loss of contrast sensitivity if a multifocal implant is placed, so you may not be the best candidate for a multifocal. If retinal disease later progresses in an eye with a multifocal, contrast sensitivity decreases further.
