 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / December 2004prescription, is this ok? (another)
RIGHT EYE Distant SPH T25 CYL -025 AXIS 100 LEFT EYE SPH T00 CYL -050 AXIS 68 PRISM "." Visual Acuity Uncorrected L The optician told me that I have astigmatism in my left eye but my right eye is the one I have the blurriest vision in, and also the one that clears up if I pull down on my cheek so I'm not sure? I have to go back to get glasses and contacts some time but I would appreciate your advice. Many thanks > RIGHT EYE > Distant [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Many thanks First of all, what is the advise from your optometrist? Second, do you have a problem to be solved regarding the ''some time''? Third, a more exact prescription would provide a better answer.  SignatureJan (normally Dutch spoken) > First of all, what is the advise from your optometrist? I said I wanted contacts and she said I should also get glasses for certain occasions when lenses aren't suitable. Then she said I wasn't allowed to buy contacts on the internet because they can't be held responsible if something went wrong. Lastly she told me there are two types of lenses and I said I wanted the type of contacts that required the least amount of checkups (she questioned why I would want those for some reason?). That's pretty much it. > Second, do you have a problem to be solved regarding the ''some time''? I'm booked for another appointment in a couple of weeks to get the lenses, or glasses, I can't remember! > Third, a more exact prescription would provide a better answer. Unfortunately that's all the info on the card :( >> First of all, what is the advise from your optometrist? > >I said I wanted contacts and she said I should also get glasses for >certain occasions when lenses aren't suitable. You shouldn't wear contacts in the pool (they tend to be washed off your eyeball), but then again wearing glasses in the pool isn't very satisfying either. If you work in dusty environs contacts might not be your best bet either. Most people who wear contacts *need* glasses and keep a pair around to give their eyes a break from the contacts occasionally. >Then she said I wasn't >allowed to buy contacts on the internet because they can't be held >responsible if something went wrong. It is an excellent idea to be fitted initially by someone who can LOOK at your eyeball and verify the contacts fit correctly. Not all contacts are suitable for all eyeballs, and a poorly-fitting contact will cause you no end of misery. Once you've been fitted there's no reason in the world for the prescribing party to withold your Rx except greed (and possibly state or national laws prohibiting the prescribing party from releasing your contact Rx to you). You may find that buying online costs just as much as buying locally. You may save taxes, but I've discovered that shipping adds back all that and more. > Lastly she told me there are two >types of lenses and I said I wanted the type of contacts that required >the least amount of checkups (she questioned why I would want those for >some reason?). That's pretty much it. There are lots of different types of contacts. You'll probably be fine with a basic spherical soft lens as long as it is fitted correctly. You'll need to learn about and practice good lens hygiene. >> Second, do you have a problem to be solved regarding the ''some >time''? > >I'm booked for another appointment in a couple of weeks to get the >lenses, or glasses, I can't remember! If you need an appointment to find a pair of glasses you should look for a new optician. The ones I've been dealing with as an end-user for more than 30 years are happy to have business any time - you are, after all, spending money in their shops to purchase frames and lenses. The optometrist wants and needs you to have an appointment both for refractions and contact fittings; the optician shouldn't care. >> Third, a more exact prescription would provide a better answer. > >Unfortunately that's all the info on the card :( That looks like an "exact" prescription. Your left eye is apparently fine, and it appears you have mild astigmatism and mild myopia in the right eye. Thanks for the reply. I'm very surprised at your translation of the prescription, my vision has been not very good at all for a while now. Things that other people can read in the distance I can't see at all, and that often applies to my left eye. Text on the television is often hard to read without squinting. Also when I put my sister's glasses on everything looks much clearer. When she tested me I read out the second line from the bottom, guessing a lot of it although the board was only a few meters from me. Then she slipped a lense in my eye and it didn't look much different, I guessed just a couple of letters less. Is there any chance I am being given a 'bad' prescription? Or will I be given a better test for the contacts? >Thanks for the reply. I'm very surprised at your translation of the >prescription, my vision has been not very good at all Its all subjective. My left eye is a -9.25 with a hefty astigmatism correction; my right eye isn't quite so bad at -6.75 with not so much astigmatism. I haven't been able to see anything more than about 9" from my nose for years. Squinting merely makes matters worse. From my POV your quarter-cylinder correction looks pretty minor. >When she tested me I read out the second line from the bottom, guessing >a lot of it although the board was only a few meters from me. Then she >slipped a lense in my eye and it didn't look much different, I guessed >just a couple of letters less. Is there any chance I am being given a >'bad' prescription? Or will I be given a better test for the contacts? Sure - because you're not being honest when you read the chart. If you can't see what you're being asked to read then say so. The point isn't to impress the optometrist with your eagle eye, it is to GET THE PROBLEM CORRECTED. If you lie about what you can and cannot see how do you expect the optometrist to do that with any degree of accuracy? When you go back for whatever it is you can't remember you're going back for, ask for a refraction check. If the optometrist balks at doing it after you explain your concerns you should find a new optometrist. > Sure - because you're not being honest when you read the chart. If > you can't see what you're being asked to read then say so. The point > isn't to impress the optometrist with your eagle eye, it is to GET THE > PROBLEM CORRECTED. If you lie about what you can and cannot see how > do you expect the optometrist to do that with any degree of accuracy? I did actually say I could guess them when she asked me to to read the line out (the first time anyway) and she said it was fine. I thought the test was done by the optometrist checking you are reading the right letters out? >>When she tested me I read out the second line from the bottom, guessing >>a lot of it although the board was only a few meters from me. Then she [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > PROBLEM CORRECTED. If you lie about what you can and cannot see how > do you expect the optometrist to do that with any degree of accuracy? There's a difference between lying and guessing. Guessing during the eye test is fine for most optometrists because if you are guessing the letters correctly then chances are you can actually see them. I always encourage my patients to guess because in general most people are too willing to give up and stop reading when in fact they can actually discern the next line down. Dom >There's a difference between lying and guessing. Guessing during the eye >test is fine for most optometrists because if you are guessing the >letters correctly then chances are you can actually see them. There is also a difference between "seeing" and "seeing well". After 30+ years with the same ophthamology practice (which has been using the same charts the entire time) I don't need to guess, or even look at the charts any more to know what is on them, so theoretically I can walk out with a "miraculously cured" note for the DMV. If you're seeing poorly during an exam you do yourself no favors by agreeing that you're seeing well when you aren't. You simply aggrevate yourself and the optician who makes your spectacles when you must go back in a few months with a corrected Rx. > >There's a difference between lying and guessing. Guessing during the eye > >test is fine for most optometrists because if you are guessing the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > aggrevate yourself and the optician who makes your spectacles when you > must go back in a few months with a corrected Rx. Well if you have learnt the eye chart and are pretending to read it but in fact reciting it from memory, then you aren't 'guessing' at all, you are misleading your doctor and obviously this is of no help to either party. I don't think this is what the OP was talking about though. My point was that if you have a genuine guess at a difficult line and get at least some of them right, the optometrist or doctor will know that you can only just see them, and will therefore have a better idea of just exactly what you can and can't see. We can tell if a patient is guessing or reading confidently. If you only read lines that are easy to read and stop when it starts to get hard, you are not truely measuring visual acuity. Other optometrists or doctors out there might ask their patients not to guess, that's up to them. Regards Dom > > Dom <dmw69NO@SPAM.tpg.com.au> spewed forth : > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > misleading your doctor and obviously this is of no help to either party. I > don't think this is what the OP was talking about though. You sound like the patient is deliberately cheating in some way, which is probably not the case. If you have already memorized the damn chart ask to use the non-literate one, which requires you to tell which way the E is pointing. Seems like a much better way of doing it, but what do I know, I'm just a patient. > My point was that if you have a genuine guess at a difficult line and get at > least some of them right, the optometrist or doctor will know that you can [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > optometrists or doctors out there might ask their patients not to guess, > that's up to them. I want to be able to read stuff EASILY, not get a good grade on my eye test by squinting and doing eye gymnastics. Why should we have to strain to read something? SignatureCheers, Bev MSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMS FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION. It comes bundled with the software. > I want to be able to read stuff EASILY, not get a good grade on my eye > test by squinting and doing eye gymnastics. Why should we have to > strain to read something? Choosing the best lens combination (1-or-2) is distinctly separate from measuring VA. The one-or-two process could be done with meaningless marks of varied sizes. We'd simply ask which lens makes the marks more distinct, or are the two lenses the same? Once the best lenses are chosen, then it's time to measure VA, by finding a 50% probability level - the point where you miss half the letters. It's only when you start missing letters that the limit is recognized. -MT >Its all subjective. My left eye is a -9.25 with a hefty astigmatism >correction; my right eye isn't quite so bad at -6.75 with not so much >astigmatism. If you don't mind, I'm just a little curious -- How do you deal with such severe myopia? Do you use progressive lenses? Do you have two pairs of bifocals? Or maybe you are still young, so you haven't had to deal with presbyopia yet? I am -4.5 and that's trouble enough! :-( So far no presbyopia but I'm not yet 40. I knit and read and do other mundane things, with the work at arm's length I can see it with no problem. When I need to *see* something I simply take my spex off and put my nose right down on whatever it is. Most folks in my family have early cataracts, so I'm praying to all the little pagan godlets that I too am so blessed - I should be able to get by with dimestore readers after cataract surgery :) >If you don't mind, I'm just a little curious -- How do you deal with >such severe myopia? Do you use progressive lenses? Do you have two >pairs of bifocals? Or maybe you are still young, so you haven't had >to deal with presbyopia yet? I am -4.5 and that's trouble enough! :-( > RIGHT EYE > Distant [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Many thanks Could the 'T' characters after each SPH be a '+' sign? This would make a bit more sense. Also, are there any decimal points anywhere in the numbers immediately after the 'T's (i.e. in the 25 or the 00)? You have a small amount of astigmatism in both eyes, but slightly more in the left. Looks like your left eye would be worse for long distance vision. Which eye is worse for your close reading vision is hard to say, and it depends on your age too. There are plenty of people with eyes like yours who don't bother with glasses and aren't even aware they have a problem. So your eyes aren't too bad overall. Contacts for a prescription like yours may be more trouble than they're worth. This is all assuming I've interpreted those 'T's correctly! Dom > Could the 'T' characters after each SPH be a '+' sign? This would make a > bit more sense. Also, are there any decimal points anywhere in the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > There are plenty of people with eyes like yours who don't bother with > glasses and aren't even aware they have a problem. So your eyes aren't > too bad overall. Contacts for a prescription like yours may be more [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Dom Looking at it again I think they are -1's (the minuses are actually above the 1's so it looks like T's). So it might actually be.. RIGHT EYE Distant SPH -125 CYL -025 AXIS 100 LEFT EYE SPH -100 CYL -050 AXIS 68 PRISM "." There aren't any decimals though. My right eye actually seems worse for both near and distant. Does this make more sense? Thanks >Looking at it again I think they are -1's (the minuses are actually >above the 1's so it looks like T's). [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >There aren't any decimals though. I can triple guarantee that you are not -100 or you would be walking into walls frequently! :-) I'm sure there's an "implied" decimal point so it's -1.25 right and -1.00 left. That would be consistent with your previous description of what your vision is like. >My right eye actually seems worse for both near and distant. >Does this make more sense? The -1.25 relative to the -1.00 explains why your right eye is worse than your left for distance. The astigmatism correction seems to be a bit greater in the left eye though so I can't exlain why your right eye is also worse for near vision. I'm not any kind of an eye doctor though so treat my comments accordingly... Thanks Joe. > Looking at it again I think they are -1's (the minuses are actually > above the 1's so it looks like T's). [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > My right eye actually seems worse for both near and distant. > Does this make more sense? Why should it seems worse for the right eye, are you simply go for numbers? What do you want to ask anyway? Your question still makes no sense at all to me. SignatureJan (normally Dutch spoken) > Looking at it again I think they are -1's (the minuses are actually > above the 1's so it looks like T's). [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Thanks A-ha, that makes a LOT more sense! So you're mildly short-sighted, with just a little bit of astigmatism. You may detect a slight difference between your two eyes, but really the correcting lens required is fairly similar, especially when compared to some other glasses wearers out there. If you do perceive a big difference between them, it may be that there is some other issue going on which we can only guess at. Going by the prescription given, glasses and/or contacts would certainly help you see far away (driving/TV, etc) but wouldn't really help very much for reading close up. Regards Dom > A-ha, that makes a LOT more sense! > So you're mildly short-sighted, with just a little bit of astigmatism. You [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Regards > Dom Thanks Dom, you are the man! One final question, will they give me another test for the lenses (seeing as (I think) the card doesn't have the contact lense power on it)? > One final question, will they give me another test for the lenses > (seeing as (I think) the card doesn't have the contact lense power on > it)? Yep they have to check for other things besides the power of the contacts so it's normally a separate check.
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.