 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / January 2005Forcing glasses on a cross-eyed child...
Hello, I asked about cross-eyed syndrome before the holidays and would like to repeat by appreciation for all the input. May I ask a related question? My 2 year, 10 month daughter is very very inquisitive and stubborn. Frankly I like her this way. Her left eye tilts inward and she appears to have a cross-eyed syndrome. The doctor is considering surgery. But this decision waits the outcome of a CAT scan in a few days. Until then, my daughter must wear glasses... yeah!, right! She absolutely refuses. So my wife and I have taken to bribing her: no playdough, no TV, no cookies, unless she wears the glasses. this pains me, and I am wondering if this whole escaped is worth it. The doctor says we must assess if the glasses can correct the problem. But I am wondering if this is the case for families in HMO's. Namley: is there another method to determine the extend of the cross-eyed and if surgery can fix it pronto without having to make her wear glasses? I am beginning to look upon this situation of making her wear glasses as torture to this young independent little girl. And I hate what it is doing to her. I am willing to make arequest of the HMO, or even pay out of pocket, just to get to the answers as quickly as possible. Thanks, Tom You might want to consider contact lenses. Many of the newer materials can be worn for many consecutive nights without removal. Of course, the parents will have to be shown how to put the lenses on and off and how to take care of them. nipidoc PS: No, she's not too young. The youngest contact lens patient I've ever fit was 9 days old. You do need to someone who has worked with infants before. Usually one of the medical schools or schools of optometry. > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Thanks, > Tom PS: If glasses or contact lenses correct the problem, I would NOT do the surgery. nipidoc Hello, I wanted to follow-up from home to my original post. I am not asking for advice on what to do to correct the problem: glasses vs. contacts I am asking if there are expedited means to find out what the problem is... means that do not necessarily require glasses. For if the CAT scan proves another issue then it appears there would have been no need to subject the girl to glasses. That is what I am trying to ascertain... namely: is the glasses-route a convenience of an HMO that dissuades a more vigorous and expedited inquiry? Tom > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Thanks, > Tom > I am asking if there are expedited means to find out what the problem > is... > means that do not necessarily require glasses. It's fairly simple. Do glasses enable her to "fuse" properly so she can learn stereo vision? If so, surgery is probably ill-advised, and contacts are a reasonable compromise. I don't know what the CAT scan will do to settle this question. -MT > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Thanks, > Tom A fairly large percentage of children whose eye(s) turn inward have farsighted prescriptions, and respond well to eyeglasses. Surgery would seem ill-advised if the eyeglasses correct the problem. I'm not sure how successful strabismus surgery can be in the presence of accommodative esotropia where eyeglasses have never been tried. At the end of the day, there will still exist a significant uncorrected farsightedness that will hinder the results. I regret that you would think of eyeglasses as torture. They have served us well for centuries. If she is significantly farsighted, and her eyes turn in, then eyeglasses are universally prescribed before doing surgery. DrG > I regret that you would think of eyeglasses as torture. They have served > us well for centuries. If she is significantly farsighted, and her eyes > turn in, then eyeglasses are universally prescribed before doing surgery. Sorry I can't provide any answers to the OP's questions. My first thought upon reading the post was that this is almost more of a parenting problem than a vision problem. Kids around this age (3) can be very difficult. It might be useful to communicate with other parents who have had to get their kids used to glasses. I would suggest the newsgroup misc.kids, with a very specific title (because I know they used to get a lot of traffic), like "Glasses for 3YO", and a request as to whether there are any more specific groups to post to.  SignatureDan Abel Sonoma State University AIS dabel@sonic.net Another place to look for parenting help would be the Yahoo group ann-list, "support group for people affected by nystagmus ". If they don't have it immediately available, ask the group for help. There are many parents helping eachother with their children's nystagmus and they can be quite chatty. > > I regret that you would think of eyeglasses as torture. They have served > > us well for centuries. If she is significantly farsighted, and her eyes [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > like "Glasses for 3YO", and a request as to whether there are any more > specific groups to post to. > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Thanks, > Tom A fairly large percentage of children whose eye(s) turn inward have farsighted prescriptions, and respond well to eyeglasses. Surgery would seem ill-advised if the eyeglasses correct the problem. I'm not sure how successful strabismus surgery can be in the presence of accommodative esotropia where eyeglasses have never been tried. At the end of the day, there will still exist a significant uncorrected farsightedness that will hinder the results. I regret that you would think of eyeglasses as torture. They have served us well for centuries. If she is significantly farsighted, and her eyes turn in, then eyeglasses are universally prescribed before doing surgery. DrG > A fairly large percentage of children whose eye(s) turn inward have > farsighted prescriptions, and respond well to eyeglasses. Surgery [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > and her eyes turn in, then eyeglasses are universally prescribed > before doing surgery. A couple of thoughts: 1) Sounds like an Atropinized refraction would be important here, no? 2) If accommodative esotropia due to high farsightedness /is/ the issue with Mr. Impelluso's daughter, would she be well served with: a) A prescription close to full cycloplegic, and/or b) bifocals (to minimize need for accommodation while reading)? 3) I don't remember catching this on Mr. Impelluso's original post, but it seems significant whether his daughter was /born/ with this strabismus, no? If she's a true congenital esotrope (therefore no fusion developed), it would seem that alignment is mostly a cosmetic issue. Is this right? Neil >> A fairly large percentage of children whose eye(s) turn inward have >> farsighted prescriptions, and respond well to eyeglasses. Surgery [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Neil I agree with every statement, except the one concerning bifocals for a 34 month/old child. Obviously, we don't know whether the child is an accommodative esotrope. However, we do know that the child is an esotrope, and we do know that she has been prescribed eyeglasses. I simply connected the dots. The question was one of whether the prescribing of eyeglasses was simply a bromide thrown at the child until such time as surgery could be done. DrG > Until then, my daughter must wear glasses... yeah!, right! > > She absolutely refuses. She is INTELLIGENT, great Italian stubborn female ascendant!!! It is sad that her parents are sto stupid in insisting, BRIBING HER!!! > So my wife and I have taken to bribing her: > no playdough, no TV, no cookies, unless she wears the glasses. > this pains me, and I am wondering if this whole escaped is worth it. How stupid you must become before you wake up to understand that this approach is completely wrong, and worsens the strain which is at the very base of her problem? > The doctor says we must assess if the glasses can correct the problem. They won't. > Namley: is there another method to determine the extend of the > cross-eyed and if surgery can > fix it pronto without having to make her wear glasses? All methods of surgery are just COSMETIC. This is the result of hundred of years of practice. You ask your surgeon to sign a paper to you in which he guarantees the good rfesult. he won't sign anything, because he cannot predict how the child will react to the surgery. Chances are that she will be able to produce more strain and again a strabismus. > I am beginning to look upon this situation of making her wear glasses as > torture to this young > independent little girl. And I hate what it is doing to her. Of course it is a torture. You are the torture in the first place. I have counselled you how to proceed. You do not trust me, and you do not trust your very child. What kind of father are you? You prefer to believe in the idiot doctors, instead to respect your precious child. Shame on you. As I recall, I did send you a followup asking more about your opinion. You did not respond to that. Now you do. And you do so with quite vulgar language. Unless you can rephrase what you have said, and explain why you did not respond to me personal email, that I am forced to question your dedication. FYI: here is the personal email on sent you on 12/7/04 at 5:46PM PST. Why did you not respond to that... yet respond by insulting me? HELLO! I am the dad in this case. here is a picture of my daughter one week before http://kahuna.sdsu.edu/~impellus/sofia/sofia.html PLEASE CONTACT ME AND EMAIL WHAT INFORMATION YOU MIGHT WISH!!!! Please.. I am bit anxoius Tom Impelluso (*MY* mom is from Bari and my dad is from Syracus by the way) >As I recall, I did send you a followup asking more about your opinion. >You did not respond to that. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >here is a picture of my daughter one week before >http://kahuna.sdsu.edu/~impellus/sofia/sofia.html The little boy in the picture looks hydrocephalic.. is he? J Also... the original post did say NOT to email me from the source of this email, but to: impellus@kahuna.sdsu.edu That email is here, sent on: 12/6/04 at 7:47 PST ---------------------------------------------------- Hello, May I please solicit some advice? (first a detailed background and then 2 questions) On Saturday morning, my daughter (2 years, 9 months) suddenly woke up... cross-eyed. We have been to a doctor and an opthamalogist, and will see them again in a few days, but I would like further input if it is possible, please. There are two other issues: 1) at the age of 9 months, she fell from her crib and fractured her skull. There was slight bleeding above the perineurium and beneath the skull. But all healed on its own. There was never any fainting, vomiting or any symptom. She has been fine since. 2) on friday night (night before she woke up cross-eyed), she and I were playing games staring into each other's eyes (basically, going deliberately cross-eyed. The opthamalogist said that my daughter is slightly far sighted (unlike me who is very near sighted), and the far sightedness is asymetrical. In such cases, children try to compensate (hence the cross-eyed), and that it is remotely possible that our cross-eye game the night before might have kicked it in (but that I should not feel bad, I did not cause this, and it would have happened eventually). Well the doctor wants us to get glasses for a few days, and if it all clears up... likely that was it... if not... a CAT scan. Now my wife's friend - who has good intent - has just told me: 1) It should be an MRI not a CAT scan. 2) the analysis above does not hold water... does not make sense 3) There may be damage to the sixth cranial nerve. OK... could I have some comments please. I am worrying and would like to calm down. Please do not email... I get much junk email. Please respond to the newsgroup. Or email to: impelluso@engineeringREMOVETHIS.sdsu.edu Thank you, Tom >> Until then, my daughter must wear glasses... yeah!, right! >> [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > Shame on you. 1: It is unlikely that the fall from the crib 2 years ago is what caused this. 2: Can you post the prescription for the glasses that were prescribed? 3: Ignore Rishi. He's a charlatan who continuously advocates disproven methods. He is no different than the snake oil salesmen of days gone by. 4: Consider a 2nd opinion from a different doctor. This does not seem like it's a surgical case. 5: You should consider removing the nude pictures of your daughter. nipidoc > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 104 lines] > > > > Shame on you. > 3: Ignore Rishi. He's a charlatan who continuously advocates > disproven methods. He is no different than the snake oil salesmen of > days gone by. The idiot-man who's speaking about "disproven" methods, should explain why NO PARENT who is intelligent feels happy to put eyeglasses on a child. I hope this Mr. X will prove himself intelligent and tries the only PROVEN method that works, that is, the method of central fixation. http://TheCentralFixation.com In a previous reply, I stated that farsighted prescriptions are frequently associated with a turned eye, called accommodative esotropia, for which the proper treatment is eyeglasses. Therefore, the physician who treated your daughter was following the standard of care. The physician was also following the standard of care by ordering a CAT scan. It would seem to me that close head trauma sufficient to cause damage to the sixth cranial nerve would have caused the eye to turn in at the time of the injury, and not two years later. If you are uncomfortable with the treatment, then get a second opinion. DrG > Also... the original post did say NOT to email me from the source > of this email, but to: [quoted text clipped - 113 lines] > > > > Shame on you. |
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.