 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / April 2005Changes in eye size?
The Times newspaper published a general knowledge quiz the other day. To the question what part of the human body never changes its size after birth the answer was given as the eye. Can this be true? Robin Parsons Dear Robin, Did they supply any "science" to support their statement? The natural eye at birst can have a range of refractive states running from approximately zero to about plus 9 diopters. (Gaussian distribution.) If the natural eye did not change its "shape" then these eyes would remain in this "situation". They do not. The eye from birth to maturity changes by about 30 percent. Hardly in agreement with your "report" or its ASSUMPTIONS. Best, Otis Engineer > The Times newspaper published a general knowledge quiz the other day. > To the question what part of the human body never changes its size > after birth the answer was given as the eye. > Can this be true? > Robin Parsons You should explain how a girl of 28 who has a story of glasses since 5 years and -23 D prescription can see 10/20 indoors in a good light, although in flashes. Please explain. Thanks. Dear Rishi, Robin likes to "churn" these "news groups". He has no interest on working towards a "better solution". Since you have mentioned this woman's history, maybe you could ask her to obtain her records -- where she gradually, got deeper, and deeper into myopia. She is very lucky she did not get a detached retina by this point. What is her age? About 30? Best, Otis Engineer >What is her age? About 30? You might be able to derive this from the context of Rishi's statement: >You should explain how a girl of 28 who has a story of glasses since 5 >years and -23 D prescription can see 10/20 indoors in a good light, >although in flashes. . . . or . . . you might not.... Your eyes playing tricks on you, there, BestOtisEngineer? Too much plus?? > What is her age? About 30? She was born in 1977, started with glasses at 5, contact lenses at 9. Year after year the prescription aggravated until -18 one eye, -23 the other. One year ago, no doctor would visit her, they were fed up, said "go away, we cannot do nothing for you". Interesting? >> The Times newspaper published a general knowledge quiz the other day. >> To the question what part of the human body never changes its size [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >years and -23 D prescription can see 10/20 indoors in a good light, >although in flashes. I have. You're an unabashed liar. Prove me wrong. If you have the truth on your side, it should be easy. I'll wait here. Dear Rishi, Sorry I missed her age -- 28. -23 diopters is a very high "prescription". Most kids have a refractive status of from -1/2 to +2 diopters at age 4. (PROVIDED no on taught them to read at age 3.) Given, that, and the probable fact that she receiveid her first (over-prescribed minus), at age 5, her "down" rate would have been about -1.0 diopter per year. For a child prescribed a "minus" at age 5, the "down" rate is -1/2 diopter per year. So, after 20 years, most people winde up at betwee -5 to -10. Her reconds would be of inerest -- simply to confirm these scientific facts. Best, Otis Engineer >So, after 20 years, most people winde up >at betwee -5 to -10. > > Not true. If you look at the distribution of refractive errors, most people wind up emmetropic or slightly hyperopic. Among myopes, most people end up with what some are calling "school myopia", between -2.00 and -3.00, exactly what you would expect from the emmetropization process for a person who spends an inordinate amount of time focused at near, or a "normal" adaptation. People from -5.00 to -10.00 are considered "high myopes", and they seem to suffer from a structural weakness in the eye that greatly increases their risk for retinal detachment and somewhat increases their risk for glaucoma. I consider high myopia to be an abnormal, or "diseased" state. Thankfully, it's not what "most people winde up" with. w.stacy, o.d. > detachment and somewhat increases their risk for glaucoma. I consider > high myopia to be an abnormal, or "diseased" state. Thankfully, it's not > what "most people winde up" with. Yes, and the facts are that you are clueless even more in this field of "abnormal" cases. You being a doctor and a scientist by profession should welcome this kind of cases and treat them at your best. Instead, you push them away as abnormal. This shows your criminal background. This is for the record. The girl will cure herself. I don't know if it will take one month or one year or ten years. The progress she has made in three months is very encouraging. She has read your messages and feels uneasy to write here because she is afraid of your comments, harsh comments, disrespectful and unscientific. She is also a scientist in profession, so she could talk with you at the same level. She has a C.V. of great respect in her field. I may be a bufoon, with no respect in my field, but my field exists not, I am creating it, so no problem of being a bufoon. In proportion to the changes in size that occur with every other part of our body as we grow, the eyes do not change much. However, they do increase in size somewhat. This is a part of the normal emmetropization mechanism that operates in growing children. This misstatement that the eyes don't grow is a commonly-found anecdote that keeps getting republished even though its scientifically incorrect. A lot of my patients have read it somewhere as well. ------------- > The Times newspaper published a general knowledge quiz the other day. > To the question what part of the human body never changes its size > after birth the answer was given as the eye. > Can this be true? > Robin Parsons > The Times newspaper published a general knowledge quiz the other day. > To the question what part of the human body never changes its size > after birth the answer was given as the eye. > Can this be true? > Robin Parsons It changes less than any other structure, but it does change. One reference measured 1.7 mm of change over five years, starting with a group of 200+ between age 2-6. Axial length reaches 95% of its adult maximum around age 10-11, which is a typical age of onset for myopia. -MT |
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.