Crystalens: what's the problem with accomodatable lenses

[FunnyCurrent]

---

Members do not see this ad.

My (limited) understanding of how our normal lens works (and is attached) suggests that the crystallens design is a departure from the "evolutionary" design. What's the problem? Engineering? Surgically impossible to adapt a more "natural" lens?

 

[odieoh]

My (limited) understanding of how our normal lens works (and is attached) suggests that the crystallens design is a departure from the "evolutionary" design. What's the problem? Engineering? Surgically impossible to adapt a more "natural" lens?

I don't think its a problem with adapting to a more "natural" lens, its creating one that mimics the natural lens. There have been numerous experimental lenses, including ones with dual optics that try to mimic natural accomodation.

I don't know that I would say the crystalens is a departure from anything-- the ciliary body contracts which presumably alters the lens capsule, which presumably alters the position of the optic, which presumably results in "accommodation." I think the limiting factor at this point is that the amount of accommodation achieved with the crystalens is a disappointment to some people.

 

[Visionary]

Some recent evidence suggests that the theory of presbyopia being a lens-related issue is incorrect. If true, this would explain why implanting a lens, such as the Crystalens, does not work. If the real underlying issue behind presbyopia is related to the ciliary body and zonules, they will not be able to adequately "move" the lens implant to provide accommodation.

 

[odieoh]

Some recent evidence suggests that the theory of presbyopia being a lens-related issue is incorrect. If true, this would explain why implanting a lens, such as the Crystalens, does not work. If the real underlying issue behind presbyopia is related to the ciliary body and zonules, they will not be able to adequately "move" the lens implant to provide accommodation.

Yeah, that's a debate that has gone on for a long time. I can at least make sense of the generally accepted model of presbyopia. Some of the other explanations start to get very theoretical.

 

[FunnyCurrent]

Thanks! Looks like I have a few more things I need to read about 🙂

 

[ophthope]

Some recent evidence suggests that the theory of presbyopia being a lens-related issue is incorrect. If true, this would explain why implanting a lens, such as the Crystalens, does not work. If the real underlying issue behind presbyopia is related to the ciliary body and zonules, they will not be able to adequately "move" the lens implant to provide accommodation.

Then the obvious solution is robotic eyes. Everything in front of the vitreous gets replaced with robot parts. We put robots on mars, but we still have these meatbag eyes. Get your 5H!7 together robot engineers! We ain't paying you to sit on your butts!

 

[JBurns]

No, we are paying them to make weapons that kill people -- lots of people. Morbid, no?

 

[MPMD]

Perhaps we can combine these goals? Robotic eyes that shoot lasers are long overdue.

 

[ophthope]

Perhaps we can combine these goals? Robotic eyes that shoot lasers are long overdue.

MPMD for president. Robotic laser death ray eyes 2012!