Rayner Reviews 3

Definitely do “NOT” recommend Rayner Rayone EMV Lens. My surgeon opt for this lens without notifying me first. After a reasonable amount of time the best visual acuity was 20/30, very swimmy. This lens was only FDA approved approx. 6 months ago. Had to replace with a Bausch & Lomb, not very nice.

Prescribed by GP for hay fever awful system scratched my eye with sharp plastic where you have to snap it off.
Definitely not appropriate especially for older people .

After a cataract diagnosis requiring intraocular lens (IOL) implantation, I underwent surgeries in the end of 2018 on both eyes for the implantation of Rayner RayOne trifocal IOLs.

Shortly after, I felt some discomfort in my right eye, but I understood that this was natural due to the adjustment of the trifocal lenses over time. However, the discomfort did not improve, and in early 2022, my vision in my right eye began to blur, progressively worsening to the point of having difficulty in driving, reading, watching TV or using a computer, along with severe headaches, dizziness, and balance problems.

I consulted three different doctors to obtain independent diagnoses of the cause of the blurred vision. Since there were no post-surgical problems with my left eye, a defective lens in my right eye was suspected. After a series of tests, this suspicion was confirmed by my ophthalmologist and I would have to undergo risky surgery, with the possibility of vision loss, to remove the defective Rayner trifocal lens.

Before undergoing surgery, however, I repeatedly tried to contact Rayner representatives in Brazil (Adapt Ltda) to clarify the correct procedure to be adopted in this case, but unfortunately I received no response. This led me to send an email to Rayner in the UK detailing my concerns and questions. Rayner UK's response offered no guidance or support for my problem, stating that the company could not comment on individual cases or provide medical advice directly to the public. They only referred me to an article addressing "Intraocular Lens Opacification" suggesting that the calcification of my right lens may have been caused by diabetes or chemotherapy, but I never had such health conditions. Furthermore, in cases of health issues, both the left and right lenses should become opaque, not only one.

In June 2023, I underwent surgery to remove the defective Rayner IOL. The surgery, paid for by me and without any support from Adapt or Rayner, was successful (even though the doctor was not able to remove completely the defective lens and part of it still remains on my right eye). Subsequently, the Rayner company, which had been missing until then, contacted my ophthalmologist requesting my authorization for the collection and investigation of the cause of the lens opacification. I agreed to lend my lens, imagining that I would get answers to my problem.

The defective Rayner lens was collected in July 2023 by an Adapt employee. Two months later, in September 2023, having received no news about the analysis of my lens, I contacted Rayner UK by email. Rayner mentioned that the lens was still in Brazil and that the analyses on the defective lens would be carried out in a third-party laboratory in the UK, as Rayner did not have the capacity to perform such analyses on the lens. Additionally, contrary to what we had agreed before, they informed me that the analyses would not attempt to pinpoint the cause of the lens opacification, meaning they would not provide the reason for the lens opacification.

Had I known that Rayner would not attempt to find out the reason of opacification, I would not have wasted my time sending the defective lens to them. Therefore, I requested Rayner to immediately return the lens, as I had decided to arrange a laboratory myself to find out the reason for the Rayner lens opacification. Rayner completely ignored my request.

It was only 4 months later, in November 2023, that Rayner UK responded to me saying that the lens would only be returned upon the request of the clinic which implanted the defective lens in my eye in 2018. According to them, I am not the owner of the lens, although I had paid for it, I had it implanted and extracted from my eye, and I had authorized it to be sent to Rayner for analysis.

Also in November 2023, my ophthalmologist received the results of the analysis of the lens opacification, indicating that "the cause cannot be established from the evidence and information available."

Since the reports, written by Rayner themselves, will never determine the cause of the opacification (or any problems you may have), they will never be responsible for any problems you may have with their lenses.

In short, my experience with Rayner's product and support was deeply disappointing. I have faced significant health (until now) and financial implications to a Rayner defective lens, and I expected more transparency and genuine efforts to promptly and effectively address the problem.

The lens is still in Rayner's possession, and I have given up on retrieving it, realizing it would be impossible. If you intend to use Rayner IOL lenses, please bear in mind that no support will be provided to you in the event of a defective product. If you still decide to use a Rayner lens, I wish you good luck.