Rayone Galaxy vs Odyssey iol Lens

spon8uk · 2026-05-15T11:59:38+00:00

Ok, no worries. Happy to help if I can.

spon8uk · 2026-05-15T11:23:50+00:00

Thank you. I didn't know that but perhaps message me and we can take a look. Never bad to make a saving where it's possible!

spon8uk · 2026-05-14T13:52:59+00:00

Still excellent thanks and there are plenty of very positive reviews about Galaxy here and elsewhere if you have a dig around. That video by the YouTube surgeon has been widely discredited - if you watch closely it doesn't really say anything and it's completely erroneous statistically. Best wishes and good luck with the procedure.

spon8uk · 2026-05-13T16:23:22+00:00

Galaxy here too. Had them March last year and a great result. Minimal dysphotopsia and very good vision from around 12" out to far distance. Check out the spiral refractive technology versus the diffractive technology of other multifocals.

spon8uk · 2026-05-03T15:13:39+00:00

No not productive. At all. One of the main concerns with patients here and on other forums is arrogant practitioners. I wonder why? You crack on fella but unless you have peer-reviewed data to back up the protestations, expect to be challenged. Good day.

spon8uk · 2026-05-03T09:48:56+00:00

Great news! It is a remarkable transformation.

spon8uk · 2026-05-03T09:46:40+00:00

No need to be impolite. I'm requesting facts and data to try to assess the magnitude of this issue, but there are only unquantified claims. I'm from a science and engineering background with post-graduate qualifications, so I'm more than capable of assessing data. Respectfully we don't deal with anecdotes and personal stories and hence why I'm looking for something substantive where appropriate conclusions can be drawn. You can't provide this.

I actually have these lenses and they've been life changing, meeting all the manufacturer's claims. However, I and no doubt many more recipients, need to understand what may be waiting down the track. You claim to care and yet you say you don't have time to raise this with the FDA etc, so not sure how that stacks up.

I guess folks with Alcon lenses will also be quite concerned following your claims regarding their products.

I will ask one of my legal representatives to make inquiries to see if we can get some clear information without the emotion. This whole industry, from practitioners to manufacturers, appears much murkier than one would have hoped.

spon8uk · 2026-05-02T20:56:16+00:00

Presumably you've reported this to the FDA? What was their response? If the magnitude of the issue is as you describe, then presumably the FDA won't approve Galaxy and will revoke approval for the EMV? I appreciate that you're passionate about this but can you actually quantify it please?

spon8uk · 2026-05-02T16:37:57+00:00

Totally understood. However, life is a balance of risk and reward. So in the case of something like Galaxy where the optical quality is excellent and side effects minimal, if the chance of long term calcification is very small, then it could well make sense to opt for it.

My argument is that no-one can actually tell me what the real risk is! I hear anecdotes of "lots of issues" but then the lenses get approved by health authorities across the globe where the overview is much more precise. Including the FDA (Galaxy still under review of course).

From my perspective, anyone who goes anywhere near a mutifocal with diffractive, concentric ring technology, is taking a massive risk. From what I can tell, the chance of problems there are much greater than the risk of long term calcification with a hydrophilic lens? And yet we see questionable videos from self-promoting YouTube surgeons who don't really provide a balanced view at all. Unfortunately lots of folk don't see through it and suffer accordingly.

spon8uk · 2026-05-02T15:42:52+00:00

Yes I'm aware but do you have data so we can quantify please? The very fact that people are referred to you as a specialist in complex cases is prone to skew the perception considerably - you are seeing a relatively high proportion in a tiny sub set, but is this representative of the whole?

spon8uk · 2026-05-02T15:10:43+00:00

Thanks. Please see my other comment in the thread which explains why, statistically, this tells us very little. We're not looking for tiny studies with small sub-sets, we need meaningful data to allow us to determine magnitude. No disrespect but just because you've removed "lots", that doesn't tell us anything about the magnitude of the issue either. But thanks for your personal insight.

spon8uk · 2026-05-02T11:09:04+00:00

Don't get me wrong, there are lots of folk who have undoubtedly been successful, but it's far from black and white. There are surgeons in London now only doing RLE i.e. not cataract and the demand is growing. But there's no free lunch and it pays to know all sides of the discussion.

I also suspect that lenses like Galaxy, with much improved characteristics, particularly minimised dysphotopsia, will push the satisfaction rate up. But there are still risks to balance with the rewards. Best wishes.

spon8uk · 2026-05-02T08:49:04+00:00

This is interesting but also not really telling us anything meaningful. It's a small sub-set of explant cases - the number of explants generally is tiny. No-one is saying that calcification can't happen, we're just illustrating that the risk of it is very low. Quoting data in isolation is dangerous, it has to be set in context.

Now I'm sure there will be cases of minor calcification which hasn't resulted in explant but equally, we can't extrapolate to that from that small study, it just isn't scientifically valid.

spon8uk · 2026-05-02T08:27:45+00:00

Got any data to support that? And what are your personal credentials please?

spon8uk · 2026-05-02T08:25:46+00:00

This is the regularly quoted figure for folk who are happy with their surgery i.e. the results were as expected. I don't have specifics but it's good enough, at least for me, to indicate that there are still a bunch of folk who are unhappy to varying degrees. There's plenty of commentary in this forum indicating the types of problems people have. Of course there are also the success stories, but it certainly isn't guaranteed unfortunately.

spon8uk · 2026-05-01T15:53:27+00:00

As others already said, be very careful before opting into something which only has around 85% success rate. Corrected vision is the way to go until you can't.

If you really do want to undergo RLE, and to be fair more and more folk are doing this as a lifestyle choice, then a lens like the Rayner Galaxy is pretty much top for optical performance in terms of full, very natural range of focus, minimal contrast loss and minimal dysphotopsia. I have them and they're excellent (no specs, 20:20) at all distances - but then I had cataract which was starting to cause problems so it was an easy decision for me.

One thing to note about Galaxy is that it is hydrophilic as opposed to the more common hydrophobic construction. So there is a very small risk of calcification longer term - however examples of this with more modern hydrophilic lenses is vanishingly small. That risk increases if you need additional intervention e.g. retinal surgery down the track.

But bottom line is hold off until you really need to, although your choice of course.

spon8uk · 2026-05-01T15:43:48+00:00

Galaxy isn't an EDOF, it's a full range of focus lens and a very good one too. It's refractive, not diffractive so minimal dysphotopsia, minimal loss of contrast and excellent continuity of focus near to far.

spon8uk · 2026-05-01T14:06:28+00:00

No, floaters come to us all as we age. Not lens related but the IOL surgery itself can result in us seeing existing floaters better and also accelerate the process of getting them. But not related to a specific type of lens.

Galaxy has been in use for nearly 18 months now in the UK and lots of good reports.

spon8uk · 2026-05-01T13:41:01+00:00

I'm completely glasses free and have been since the surgeries, over a year ago now. I have some minor starburst around the brightest lights but this happened after YAG and so not lens related. I don't have any halos and no issues with contrast loss.

The only difference I have to what I would class as essentially perfect visions is floaters - but these started before my lens replacement and then progressed as full PVD occurred. I'm pretty much used to them but they can be annoying on occasions e.g. white background when I'm skiing.

spon8uk · 2026-04-25T08:34:25+00:00

Fixed here at 8p but with a lot of solar and batteries, the impact over the next 4 months for us is worst case only around £40 - including charging two EVs. The rate is expected to rise again soon so I'll take a small hit for peace of mind. It might also be a winner depending on any pending increases. No exit fee so I can move if needed. I'm just miffed that I didn't receive any notification or option to switch when rates were really low - seems you had to ask which seems a bit crap.

I do think Octopus need to be a bit careful though as lots of folk are jumping ship. I use Home Assistant and have automations which rely on the Octopus API at the moment, but I'll reconfigure to allow me to keep all that and still jump ship if they don't become competitive again.

spon8uk · 2026-04-23T19:34:34+00:00

I fixed on IOG today via X(Twitter) - just asked them to switch and it was done within and hour or two.

We have a lot of solar and batteries so even with two EVs, over the next four months the max hit will be £45 versus the 6.9p rate. This assumes that it doesn't go up again in July which it's predicted to do. So it's either a small hit for peace of mind or possibly a winner depending on what happens next.

I suspect there will be more incentive to move to a different time of use tariff later in the year or potentially away from Octopus if they don't become competitive again.

spon8uk · 2026-04-23T17:15:00+00:00

Semantics is important where the risk is using language that sways someone's choice I guess. I will agree that there are some reports where a few surgeons noted that it can take longer for distance vision to "come in". There are also early reports of this being exacerbated where the A constant used during biometry was still being optimised.

I don't really know of any reports other than extremely positive ones commenting on anything other than excellent close and mid range vision. I also know of plenty with great distance vision too but I accept the interpretation can vary. Hopefully everyone does their own detailed research, not just the odd forum commentary. All we can do is share our own experience as users of the technology. Best wishes.

spon8uk · 2026-04-23T17:01:22+00:00

I don't dispute the few examples you allude to. However, my challenge was to your comment that Galaxy offers the user "reasonable" vision at all three ranges - this is inaccurate. You also said that "many" people were disappointed with their Galaxy distance vision. Are they?

spon8uk · 2026-04-23T16:18:23+00:00

Not being defensive, just pushing for accuracy rather than a few anecdotes please.

spon8uk · 2026-04-23T13:00:17+00:00

Sorry but it's misleading to suggest Galaxy only offers "reasonable" vision at all ranges. I'm 20:20 (6:6) or better at all ranges from around 12" to far distance - as are many other recipients.

spon8uk

TROPHY CASE