Ophthalmology & Optometry/Crystalens for Cataracts
I am 75 yrs. in reasonably good condition. I was extremely nearsighted from childhood, and had successful lasik 25 years ago. My vision has deteriorated in the last five years, and is very bothersome now. My cataracts have worsened and I was examined yesterday by my surgeon. He told me I was a candidate for only the monofocal lens which is covered by Medicare, or the Crystalens due to a mild development of maculiar degeneration. I understand there is additional expense which I must cover, and a possibility that I could still require reading glasses.
My question is, should I go for the Crystalens despite the money, or settle for the monofocal lens? How great is the chance that the Crystalens will "malfunction" as I have been reading in reviews?
I have used Crystalens in the past and none of my patients have complained. However, a thorough counseling is best.
Crystalens mimics your natural lens. the only issue that I have faced is that patients start losing the ability to focus as they age even if they have this lens. hence, over years, it ends us acting like a monofocal lens wherein you need some help for reading with reading or near glasses.
However, the Zeiss Multifocal and the more recent Trifocal lenses have far better outcomes.
You may want to discuss this with your surgeon..
As you age, do remember that almost all urgent work being near, you will be completely dependent on reading glasses if you choose the monofocal ones.
The multifocal or trifocal give you good near vision. However, if you are not averse to using reading glasses for all near tasks, it is not wrong to choose the monofocal.
the difference in costs is something that you have to work out.
I always tell the patient to also count what they would spend on for reading glasses over the years.
Hope this information helps,
Anand Shroff, MS Ophthal