 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / February 2005Will eyedrops to reduce intraocular pressure improve myopia?
Penny for your thoughts... > Penny for your thoughts... Yes! My patent on the drops will make me a huge fortune, and I'll be retired to my private island in the Caribbean, surrounded by legions of worshipers in plano sunglasses. --LB, O.D. >> Penny for your thoughts... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > --LB, O.D. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=14740545 I guess once IOP has stabilised, by the eye having increased in size, it might be too late to reverse myopia. >>> Penny for your thoughts... >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I guess once IOP has stabilised, by the eye having increased in size, it > might be too late to reverse myopia. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=14693759 This one debunks any association whatsoever. Dear Andrew, Subject: Tests using atropine (drops) to determine the effect on the refractive status of the eye. There was a study conducted by on researcher who used a "drop" in one eye -- and not the other. (i.e., the atropinze paralyzed "accommodation") The result was that the eye (in which accommodation was "prevented") stablized, and the other eye continued into myopia at a rate of about -;3/4 diopter per year. (One eye relative to the other.) I do not have the "text" of the study, but that is what I recall. Best, Otis Engineer This posting is an automatic reply to any sci.med.vision newsgroup thread that is receiving comments from a person named "Otis", "Otis Brown", "otisbrown@pa.net" or "Otis, Engineer". Otis is not an expert in any field of vision. His medical and eyecare training is nil. In addition, Otis continually misquotes people in his posts. He drops the names of doctors whom he falsely claims to be associated with. He has been caught in out-and-out lies. He has given people incorrect medical advise. Sadly, his behavior suggests he may have psychological problems that compel him to argue against people just for the sake of causing an argument. Otis is what is known in internet newsgroup lingo as a "troll". Do not reply to his postings-- it just takes up bandwidth and storage space that should be reserved for meaningful topics. It also just fulfils his sick psychological needs. No one means to suppress the honest opinions of others. This message is only meant to forewarn anyone who might misconstrue Otis as a trained eyecare expert. Don't waste your time with Otis. Please see the weekly posting "welcome to sci.med.vision" which usually appears on Mondays, for information on how to filter out Otis' posts so that you may be able to participate in worthwhile discussions in this forum. > The result was that the eye (in which accommodation was > "prevented") stablized, and the other eye continued [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I do not have the "text" of the study, but that > is what I recall. That's the problem with relying on limited recall of limited understanding. Pirenzipine does not significantly interfere with accommodation, but it slows myopia about as well as atropine. BOTH are significantly more effective than plus lenses. Google "muscarinic receptors" and you'll see that there are different types of "atropine" receptors all over the body. -MT Dear Andrew, This report does not discuss IOP, so you will have to draw your own conclusions. This IOP is an "intermediate" step. The real question concerns the "prevention" of nearsighedness using "drops". Report: Bedrossian, R. H., "The Effect of Atropine on Myopia", Annals of Ophthalmology", 3 (8): 890-899 (In this study of myopia development, accommodation is one eye was prevented with atropine, while the other eye was not. Result: The atropinized eye stablized, while the not-atropinized eye progressed into myopia.) Hope this partly answers your question. Best, Otis Engineer [ You can "skip" the warning "borad-side". This is a published scientific report. Andrew can draw his own conclusions. OSB] > This IOP is an "intermediate" step. The real question > concerns the "prevention" of nearsighedness using > "drops". Otis tries to redefine all topics so he can start his biased diatribe again. Reader Beware!! And so-- This posting is an automatic reply to any sci.med.vision newsgroup thread that is receiving comments from a person named "Otis", "Otis Brown", "otisbrown@pa.net" or "Otis, Engineer". Otis is not an expert in any field of vision. His medical and eyecare training is nil. He is a proponent of a myopia prevention technique that is unproven. In addition, Otis continually misquotes people in his posts. He drops the names of doctors whom he falsely claims to be associated with. He has been caught in out-and-out lies. He has given people incorrect medical advise. Sadly, his behavior suggests he may have psychological problems that compel him to argue against people just for the sake of causing an argument. Otis is what is known in internet newsgroup lingo as a "troll". Do not reply to his postings-- it just takes up bandwidth and storage space that should be reserved for meaningful topics. It also just fulfils his sick psychological needs. No one means to suppress the honest opinions of others. This message is only meant to forewarn anyone who might misconstrue Otis as a trained eyecare expert. For anyone who is interested in understanding the current state of scientific/medical research on myopia prevention, I offer the following link: http://annals.edu.sg/pdf200401/V33N1p4.pdf. If you have other topics you wish to discuss, there are experts here who will usually help you. Don't waste your time with Otis. Please see the weekly posting "welcome to sci.med.vision" which usually appears on Mondays, for information on how to filter out Otis' posts so that you may be able to participate in worthwhile discussions in this forum. >>> Penny for your thoughts... >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I guess once IOP has stabilised, by the eye having increased in size, it > might be too late to reverse myopia. The article you posted in no way implys IOP is a cause of myopia. The study is very suspect anyway, as refractive error was measured by non cylcoplegic autorefraction, which is notorious for over estimating myopia in non presbyopes. If the idea was to suggest that high IOP caused enlongation of the eye, the study should have used ultrasound scans to measure eye length. Dr Judy |
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.