Archives -

Cataract Removal Surgery

hoya id single vision review

Adapted from The visual effects of intraocular colored filters; Canon FL 55mm f1. If you look very closely there is some slight movement to open the blades. Can you direct me on what specifically to buy to cover these 2 areas … Protect retina and sleep. The serial numbers range from - so mine, with serial no. It is hence not an "automatic" lens. In a Cochrane review, Keay et al examined the evidence for reductions in adverse events through pre-operative medical testing, and estimated the average cost of performing routine medical testing.

Laser Power, Photons, How Much Light?, Beam Profile

I then tried a 1. No study reported the proportion of participants with a reduction in the number of medications used after surgery, but 2 studies found the mean number of medications used post-operatively at 1 year was about 1 less in the combined surgery group than the cataract surgery alone group MD The Asahiflex IIA above came with a leather case which likely explains the fact that it is in better shape. Sears sold the new Asahi Pentax as the Tower 26 camera. The camera comes with the leather case in good condition except for a tear all along the bottom. Glare testing measures the effect of simulated glare on vision function.

None of us seem to suffer from light sensitively. I do notice that my sons can have trouble going to sleep at night if they have been on their school chrome books or tablets at home. Can you direct me on what specifically to buy to cover these 2 areas … Protect retina and sleep. I got Prevencia prescription glasses for my first prescription have astigmatism and they made me dizzy and nauseous.

Kept seeing blueish artifacts. But note also that there are many other reasons for dizziness, including: Especially with high astigmatism and progressive wearers. Judging from the feedback I get and from my personal experience this negative side effect is entirely subjective. The only way to really know if a tint will work for you has been to try it.

In this article you can read about the three options you have for trying different tints. You may refer to this table — the filters you find close to Gunnars above or below have similar spectral transmission properties, while those that are further away differ more. The bad news for all those who need blue blockers with prescription which is not the most common is that the choices are very few. Thank you for the reply. I believe I have photophobia, and I commonly experience migraine with auras.

One of my biggest triggers of my auras is my cell phone. There have been many times as soon as I pick up my phone, and the screen turns on, a visual aura sets in. What is your recommendations for a phone screen filter? This article suggests the alternatives you have to figure out what filter might work best for you.

Also, check out irlen. I am a programmer and i play video games the rest of the day. Which eye glasses do you recommend to me? The more issues you have with blue light see this link to find out , more of it you want to block.

Gunnars might be a good option for you. Anyhow, I also recommend you see the article on best blue blocking glasses. Is Hoya a good choice? You might find the answer to your question in the latest post on Best blue blockers in style and light filter specs. Hoya BlueControl is a coating that reflects blue light. Blue blocking capacity is minimal, but that may be enough depending on what your problem is and how sensitive you are to blue light.

Take a look and if you have more questions, do let me know! My optometrist hardly spent anytime with me after reviewing my opti-map so this is all new ground for me. I VERY much appreciate your site and would like to know your opinion as I am a little confused from what I have read here so far. My optometrist office made no mention at all of the choice: My Optometrist is recommending these progressive lens: I have already started the key supplements so please I would appreciate your help plus here are a few of my questions from what I read above:.

This color made me? Thank-you very much for posting. That said, there appears to be significant evidence that macular pigment MP has to do with Macular Degeneration: In terms of 2 , which is what you are after with blue light filtering glasses, my best guess is that a spectral transmission of anti-AMD glasses should resemble spectral transmission of MP the cryatalline lens seems to be less of an issue — it tends to become yellow with age, such that it absorbs more HEV light, not less like MP.

Macular pigment and age related macular degeneration; Hence, your glasses should absorb filter blue light significantly between nm and particularly so around nm. Although, such a spectral absorption curve may also be due to other MP functions that are not related to macular degeneration, for example vision quality.

Besides, it probably depends. Quickly to some of your questions: But the lens will look tinted probably yellowish , not clear. I just remembered one more thing you might find useful: This therapeutic tints leaflet gives an indication of what spectral transmission BPI, a leading company for lens tinting equipment and supplies recommends for Macular Degeneration treatment. See top four spectrograms — second and fourth probably meant for sunglasses.

I decided to take zeiss duravision blue protect or crizal prevencia. But after reading the issues explained by foggy eyes related to reflection of UV from back of the glass into the eyes i am really confused about which glasses to buy.

Is is really beneficial to buy blue light coating from these brands? Please help and give some suggestions. Duravision blue protect and Crizal Prevencia block blue light in the same way: So with either you run into the same problem, but note that it happens only when the light is comming from behind you. You might want to check the post on Best blue blockers , before deciding. Another one that might help you make your decision is on How to pick best blue light filter for your light sensitivity problem.

It is surprising to me that big lens manufacturers like Zeiss and Essilor did not take this into account in developing these coatings. For regular AR coatings, having the AR on both sides is good as it reduces reflections, making the lenses much clearer to see through.

My guess is that they simply missed the bad aspects of having the blue block AR on the back. Hopefully they will correct the issue. I should add that the 2 blue block AR coatings that I offer are front surface only. They recommend adding a Crizal AR coating. All Crizal AR coatings are dual sided coatings. I recently got Zeiss blue-filtering lenses for my computer glasses. Moreover, at least one optician has expressed concerns that lenses that filter blue light reflect more UV light into the eye from behind the wearer, meaning the UV light hits the back of the coated lens and reflects back into the eye.

He has a convincing video on youtube that shows this. So far still no great solution to the problem of computer vision syndrome. I feel that the real culprit is the screen itself and that manufacturers should be forced to address this major health issue, since extensive exposure to computer screens is required of millions of workers and students.

In this day and age many people cannot simply opt out of dangerous screen exposure. Recent studies are uncovering young people in the twenties with macular degeneration! Now, in most cases, the lenses are polycarbonate or a high index material and those materials filter UV to nm. The combination of the coating and the lens material do protect your eyes from UV and the most damaging blue light.

Blue block tinted lenses work by absorbing blue light to varying degrees and the tint colors can provide greater contrast or dampening of glare. They also change the screen colors you are looking at. I think that for most computer users, the blue block AR coatings are a great solution. Issues related to glare, brightness, and insomnia may be better addressed by blue block tinted lenses. A disclaimer of sorts, I am an Optician with about 30 years experience in the optical field and I own ReadingGlassesEtc.

I have been working on ways to simplify this complicated topic. I had to get used to an astigmatism correction at the same time. The optometrist who is expressing concern about increased UV reflection from behind the glasses is William Stacy in Caifornia.

His website is http: Noviolens was developed to absorb all of the UV and much of the HEV, while reflecting very little of either. In the forum thread I believe he states somewhere that Zeiss removed the blue-filtering coating from the back of the lens after realizing it was reflecting UV light into the eye not sure about that.

His youtube video showing the UV problem is at https: I would love to hear your assessment of this issue. Apparently the central question here is whether the back of the lens has the blue-block coating. Stacy suggesed in the above mentioned optiboard discussion: Sure, blue coming from in front of the wearer is reflected back towards the source from BOTH surfaces.

It is, therefore, important to distinguish between lenses with blue-reflect coating and lenses that absorb blue light: Blue light is absorbed not reflected whether it is comming from the front or the back of the lens. Luckily, the difference is easy to detect quite obvious in the video , so careful when buying: Stacy suggests which blue protective coating brands have this issue: If you ever get a chance to see a pair, try them on and face away from the sun.

I have been an Optician for 30 years. I have been researching and developing my own line of blue filtering glasses and I have consulted with research physicists, optometrists, and ophthalmologists in developing these products.

We have many very happy customers. There are several things that concern me about how many people view blue light and blue block products. Some people have other vision and health issues that may or may not be related to blue light.

For example, certain types of medication can have an effect on light sensitivity. Diabetes, high blood pressure, even pregnancy, can have an effect on vision and light sensitivity. Certain lens tints can address vision issues related to health problems like brain trauma for example, that have little to do with blue light specifically.

No post-operative complication was reported. These researchers identified a second potentially relevant study of immediate versus delayed cataract surgery in 54 people with ARMD. Results for the study were not yet available, but may be eligible for future updates of this review. The authors concluded that at this time, it is not possible to draw reliable conclusions from the available data to determine whether cataract surgery is beneficial or harmful in people with ARMD.

Physicians will have to make practice decisions based on best clinical judgment until controlled trials are conducted and their findings published. It would be valuable for future research to investigate prospective RCTs comparing cataract surgery to no surgery in patients with ARMD to better evaluate whether cataract surgery is beneficial or harmful in this group. However ethical considerations need to be addressed when delaying a potentially beneficial treatment and it may not be feasible to conduct a long-term study where surgery is withheld from the control group.

Utilization of pre-existing, standardized systems for grading cataract and ARMD and measuring outcomes visual acuity, change in visual acuity, worsening of AMD and quality of life measures should be encouraged. The Alcon AcrySof Natural UV and blue light filtering acrylic foldable multi-piece posterior chamber lenses are optical implants for the replacement of the human crystalline lens in the visual correction of aphakia in adult patients following cataract surgery.

YAG laser capsulotomy rates. This retrospective study included 4, eyes of 4, cataract patients who underwent phacoemulsification and IOL implantation between January and January by the same surgeon at 1 clinic; 4 different IOLs were assessed.

The outcome parameter was the incidence of Nd: YAG laser posterior capsulotomies. YAG laser posterior capsulotomy was performed in 3. The mean follow-up time was 84 months for all of the IOL groups. There was no difference between the long-term PCO rates when 1- and 3-piece acrylic hydrophobic IOLs were compared or when IOLs made of the same material but with different haptic angles were compared. The lens design 1-piece versus 3-piece and varying haptic angles did not affect the PCO rate.

Near vision, however, still requires additional refractive power, usually in the form of reading glasses. Multiple optic multi-focal IOLs are available which claim to allow good vision at a range of distances.

It is unclear whether this benefit outweighs the optical compromises inherent in multi-focal IOLs. These researchers did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. Both unilateral and bilateral implantation trials were included. They also considered trials comparing multi-focal IOLs with "monovision" whereby 1 eye was corrected for distance vision and 1 eye corrected for near vision.

These researchers used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The authors concluded that multi-focal IOLs were effective at improving near vision relative to mono-focal IOLs although there was uncertainty as to the size of the effect. They also noted that whether that improvement outweighed the adverse effects of multi-focal IOLs, such as glare and haloes, would vary between people; and motivation to achieve spectacle independence was likely to be the deciding factor.

Zhang and colleagues stated that cataract and glaucoma are leading causes of blindness worldwide, and their co-existence is common in elderly people. Glaucoma surgery can accelerate cataract progression, and performing both surgeries may increase the rate of post-operative complications and compromise the success of either surgery. However, cataract surgery may independently lower intra-ocular pressure IOP , which may allow for greater IOP control among patients with co-existing cataract and glaucoma.

The decision between undergoing combined glaucoma and cataract surgery versus cataract surgery alone is complex. Therefore, it is important to compare the effectiveness of these 2 interventions to aid clinicians and patients in choosing the better treatment approach. In a Cochrane review, these investigators evaluated the relative safety and effectiveness of combined surgery versus cataract surgery phacoemulsification alone for co-existing cataract and glaucoma.

The secondary objectives included cost-analyses for different surgical techniques for co-existing cataract and glaucoma. They did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. They last searched the electronic databases on October 3, They checked the reference lists of the included trials to identify further relevant trials.

These researchers used the Science Citation Index to search for references to publications that cited the studies included in the review. They also contacted investigators and experts in the field to identify additional trials. The authors included RCTs of participants who had open-angle, pseudoexfoliative, or pigmentary glaucoma and age-related cataract. The comparison of interest was combined cataract surgery phacoemulsification and any type of glaucoma surgery versus cataract surgery phacoemulsification alone.

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, collected data, and judged risk of bias for included studies. They used standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration.

These investigators included 9 RCTs, with a total of participants eyes , and follow-up periods ranging from 12 to 30 months; 7 trials were conducted in Europe, 1 in Canada and South Africa, and 1 in the United States. These researchers graded the overall quality of the evidence as low due to observed inconsistency in study results, imprecision in effect estimates, and risks of bias in the included studies.

Glaucoma surgery type varied among the studies: All of these studies found a statistically significant greater decrease in mean IOP post-operatively in the combined surgery group compared with cataract surgery alone; the MD was No study reported the proportion of participants with a reduction in the number of medications used after surgery, but 2 studies found the mean number of medications used post-operatively at 1 year was about 1 less in the combined surgery group than the cataract surgery alone group MD None of the studies reported the mean change in visual acuity or visual fields.

However, 6 studies reported no significant differences in visual acuity and 2 studies reported no significant differences in visual fields between the 2 intervention groups post-operatively data not analyzable. The effect of combined surgery versus cataract surgery alone on the need for re-operation to control IOP at 1 year was uncertain RR 1.

Also uncertain was whether eyes in the combined surgery group required more interventions for surgical complications than those in the cataract surgery alone group RR 1. No study reported any vision-related quality of life data or cost outcome. Complications were reported at 12 months 2 studies , 12 to 18 months 1 study , and 2 years 4 studies after surgery.

Due to the small number of events reported across studies and treatment groups, the difference between groups was uncertain for all reported adverse events. The authors concluded that there is low quality evidence that combined cataract and glaucoma surgery may result in better IOP control at 1 year compared with cataract surgery alone.

The evidence was uncertain in terms of complications from the surgeries. Furthermore, this Cochrane review has highlighted the lack of data regarding important measures of the patient experience, such as visual field tests, quality of life measurements, and economic outcomes after surgery, and long-term outcomes 5 years or more. They stated that additional high-quality RCTs measuring clinically meaningful and patient-important outcomes are needed to provide evidence to support treatment recommendations.

Clinical Policy Bulletin Notes. Links to various non-Aetna sites are provided for your convenience only. Aetna considers the following specialized ophthalmologic services medically necessary for the routine pre-operative work-up for cataract surgery: Subjective -The member perceives that his or her ability to carry out needed or desired activities is impaired.

The member's decision is based on the member's own assessment of visual disability e. Subjective - The member perceives that his or her ability to carry out needed or desired activities is impaired. The member's decision is based on: The loss of vision mimicking the member's complaints should be verified before the member is considered a candidate for cataract surgery. Restoration of Distance Vision Following Cataract Surgery, and Refractive Correction of Near and Intermediate Vision with Less Dependency on Eyeglasses or Contact Lenses" concluded that 1 pair of conventional eyeglasses or contact lenses furnished subsequent to each cataract surgery with insertion of an IOL is covered.

A single presbyopia-correcting IOL essentially provides what is otherwise achieved by 2 separate items: Although presbyobia-correcting IOLs may serve the same function as eyeglasses or contact lenses furnished following cataract surgery, IOLs are neither eyeglasses nor contact lenses. Therefore, the presbyopia-correcting functionality of an IOL does not fall into the benefit category and is not covered.

Any additional provider or physician services required to insert or monitor a patient receiving a presbyopia-correcting IOL are also not covered. For example, eye examinations performed to determine the refractive state of the eyes following insertion of a presbyopia-correcting IOL are non-covered McClellan, Leung and colleagues noted that cataract formation often occurs in people with uveitis. It is unclear which IOL type is optimal for use in cataract surgery for eyes with uveitis.

In a Cochrane review, these investigators summarized the effects of different IOLs on visual acuity, other visual outcomes, and quality of life in people with uveitis. They last searched the electronic databases on August 14, These researchers also performed forward and backward searching using the Science Citation Index and the reference lists of the included studies, respectively, in August They included RCTs comparing hydrophobic or hydrophilic acrylic, silicone, or poly methyl methacrylate PMMA IOLs with or without heparin-surface modification HSM , with each other, or with no treatment in adults with uveitis, for any indication, undergoing cataract surgery.

They used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Two review authors screened the search results and for included studies, assessed the risk of bias and extracted data independently. They contacted study investigators for additional information. They did not perform a meta-analysis due to variability in reporting and follow-up intervals for the primary and secondary outcomes of interest.

These researchers included 4 RCTs involving participants range of 2 to participants with uveitic cataract per trial and comparing up to 4 types of IOLs. There was substantial heterogeneity with respect to the ages of participants and etiologies of uveitis within and across studies.

The length of follow-up among the studies ranged from 1 to 24 months after cataract surgery. The studies were at low risk of selection bias, but 2 of the 4 studies did not employ masking and only 1 study included all randomized participants in the final analyses. The funding source was disclosed by investigators of the largest study professional society and not reported by the other 3.

Due to heterogeneity in lens types evaluated and outcomes reported among the trials, these investigators did not combine data in a meta-analysis. In the largest study participants , the study eye of each participant was randomized to receive 1 of 4 types of IOLs: Proportions of participants with 1 or more Snellen lines of visual improvement were similar among the 4 treatment groups at 1 year' follow-up: At 1 year' follow-up, fewer eyes randomized to hydrophobic acrylic IOLs developed posterior synechiae when compared with eyes receiving silicone IOLs RR 0.

In the 4rth study 60 participants , the study eye of each participant was randomized to receive a hydrophobic or hydrophilic acrylic IOL. At 3 months, there were no statistical or clinical differences between hydrophobic and hydrophilic acrylic IOL types in the proportions of participants with 2 or more Snellen lines of visual improvement RR 1.

The effect of the lenses on posterior synechiae was uncertain at 6 months' follow-up RR 0. None of the included studies reported quality of life outcomes.

The authors concluded that based on the trials identified in this review, there is uncertainty as to which type of IOL provides the best visual and clinical outcomes in people with uveitis undergoing cataract surgery. The studies were small, not all lens materials were compared in all studies, and not all lens materials were available in all study sites.

Evidence of a superior effect of hydrophobic acrylic lenses over silicone lenses, specifically for posterior synechiae outcomes comes from a single study at a high risk of performance and detection bias. However, due to small sample sizes and heterogeneity in outcome reporting, the authors found insufficient information to assess these and other types of IOL materials for cataract surgery for eyes with uveitis.

Ong et al stated that following cataract surgery and IOL implantation, loss of accommodation or post-operative presbyopia occurs and remains a challenge. Standard mono-focal IOLs correct only distance vision; patients require spectacles for near vision. Accommodative IOLs have been designed to overcome loss of accommodation after cataract surgery.

In a Cochrane review, these investigators defined the extent to which accommodative IOLs improve unaided near visual function, in comparison with mono-focal IOLs; the extent of compromise to unaided distance visual acuity; and whether a higher rate of additional complications is associated the use of accommodative IOLs.

They last searched the electronic databases on October 10, Two authors independently screened search results, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. The age range of participants was 21 to 87 years. All studies included people who had bilateral cataracts with no pre-existing ocular pathologies. These researchers judged all studies to be at high risk of performance bias.

They graded 2 studies with high risk of detection bias and 1 study with high risk of selection bias. Better DCNVA was seen in the accommodative lens group at 12 to 18 months in the 3 trials that reported this time-point but considerable heterogeneity of effect was seen, ranging from 1.

The relative effect of the lenses on corrected distant visual acuity CDVA was less certain. At 6 months there was a standardized mean difference of At long-term follow-up there was heterogeneity of effect with month data in 2 studies showing that CDVA was better in the mono-focal group MD 0. The relative effect of the lenses on reading speed and spectacle independence was uncertain.

The average reading speed was People with accommodative lenses were more likely to be spectacle-independent but the estimate was very uncertain RR 8. People in the accommodative lens group were more likely to require laser capsulotomy Peto OR 7. Glare was reported less frequently with accommodative lenses but the relative effect of the lenses on glare was uncertain RR any glare 0.

The authors concluded that there is moderate-quality evidence that study participants who received accommodative IOLs had a small gain in near visual acuity after 6 months. There is some evidence that distance visual acuity with accommodative lenses may be worse after 12 months but due to low quality of evidence and heterogeneity of effect, the evidence for this is not clear-cut.

People receiving accommodative lenses had more PCO which may be associated with poorer distance vision. However, the effect of the lenses on PCO was uncertain. They stated that further research is needed to improve the understanding of how accommodative IOLs may affect near visual function, and whether they provide any durable gains.

Additional trials, with longer follow-up, comparing different accommodative IOLs, multi-focal IOLs and mono-focal IOLs, would help map out their relative efficacy, and associated late complications.

Research is needed on control over capsular fibrosis post-implantation. Risks of bias, heterogeneity of outcome measures and study designs used, and the dominance of one design of accommodative lens in existing trials the HumanOptics 1CU mean that these results should be interpreted with caution. They may not be applicable to other accommodative IOL designs.

Management of Functional Impairment. Clinical Practice Guideline no. American Academy of Ophthalmology. Policy statement on cataract surgery in the otherwise healthy adult second eye.

American Academy of Ophthalmology; Cataract in the adult eye. Department of Health and Human Services. Health Care Financing Administration. Friday, October 6, ; 60 American College of Eye Surgeons. Alternate Guidelines for Cataract Surgery. Guidelines for cataract practice. Abstracts of Clinical Care Guidelines. Management of functional impairment.

Incidence of retinal detachment after cataract surgery and neodynium: J Cataract Refract Surg. Medicare coverage of Nd: YAG capsulotomy would be restricted. Thornaval P, Naeser K. Refraction and anterior chamber depth before and after neodynium: YAG laser treatment for posterior capsule opacification in pseudophakic eyes: Effect of intraocular lens size on posterior capsule opacification after phaecoemulsification.

Nielsen NE, Naeser K. Epidemiology of retinal detachment following extracapsular cataract extraction: A follow-up study with an analysis of risk factors. Extracapsular cataract surgery, retinal detachment, and YAG laser posterior capsulotomy. Medicare proposal to restrict medical necessity for cataract surgery. Preoperative evaluation of the patient with visually significant cataract.

Technique, Complications, and Management. Phacoemulsification and modern cataract surgery. American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus. Intraocular lens removal patients with uveitis. YAG laser-assisted cataract surgery.

Posterior subcapsular and nuclear cataract after vitrectomy. Landmarks in the evolution of cataract surgery. Fogla R, Rao SK. Model eye for Nd: Outcomes and costs of outpatient and inpatient cataract surgery: A randomised clinical trial.

Immersion A-scan compared with partial coherence interferometry: Refractive outcome of cataract surgery using partial coherence interferometry and ultrasound biometry: Clinical feasibility study of a commercial prototype II.

Comparison of foveal thickness measured with the retinal thickness analyzer and optical coherence tomography. Reproducibility of optical biometry using partial coherence interferometry: Intraobserver and interobserver reliability. Verhulst E, Vrijghem JC. Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculations using the Zeiss IOL master. Bull Soc Belge Ophtalmol. Improved prediction of intraocular lens power using partial coherence interferometry.

Retinal thickness measurements with optical coherence tomography and the scanning retinal thickness analyzer. Comparison of immersion ultrasound biometry and partial coherence interferometry for intraocular lens calculation according to Haigis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. Preoperative evaluation for elective cataract surgery - systematic review. FDA; updated January 21, Accessed February 6, Aliso Viejo, CA; Eyeonics; FDA; updated April 18, Accessed August 5, Clinical results of the blue-light filtering AcrySof Natural foldable acrylic intraocular lens.

Fellow eye comparison between the 1CU accommodative intraocular lens and the Acrysof MA30 monofocal intraocular lens. Requirements for determining coverage of presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses that provide two distinct services for the patient: CMS; May 3, An accommodating intraocular lens replacement for patients with cataracts.

Horizon Scanning Prioritising Summary - Volume 6. Visual outcomes after accommodating intraocular lens implantation. Accommodative intraocular lenses for age-related cataracts. Issues in Emerging Health Technologies Issue Accessed June 18, Implantation of accommodating intraocular lenses for cataract. Interventional Procedure Guidance Accessed October 31, Aspheric intraocular lens selection: The evolution of refractive cataract surgery.

Visual function with bilateral implantation of monofocal and multifocal intraocular lenses: A prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial. Implantation of multifocal non-accommodative intraocular lenses during cataract surgery.

Bilder: hoya id single vision review

hoya id single vision review

Center weighted, open aperture, through the lens metering. The description states it is in great cosmetic condition but that it the aperture is stuck at f16; hence the low price. I think it is fully automatic, however, and stuck at f16 or so.

hoya id single vision review

Aliso Viejo, CA; Eyeonics;

hoya id single vision review

Congenital malformation of vitreous humor [congenital vitreous opacity]. A warranty card is included, but a manual is not. These were first introduced in Filtering blue light up to these ich will dich naher kennenlernen englisch should help you go to sleep faster if you are an evening hoya id single vision review or sleep longer if you are a morning type. An intraocular lens IOL implant is a small, clear, plastic lens vidion is used to replace the natural native lens of the eye when it has been surgically removed most often during cataract surgery. It's hoya id single vision review to determine if the fast speeds are accurate. Instead of a pentaprism, sibgle Olympus Pen F series cameras use mirrors and prisms.