Medical Forum / General / Vision / July 2005
High Myopia cures by rest methods
|
|
Thread rating:  |
g.gatti@agora.it - 01 Jul 2005 19:52 GMT Just wanted to let you know that I am not dead or handcuffed in prison but was working on several interesting projects and could not post as usual.
Now I have met another friend with -17 D of myopic prescription.
Although he had abandoned glasses three months earlier and started self-treatment according to Dr. Bates books, when I first met him and the cellular phone rang, he neared it at about 7 cm from his eyes to see who was calling.
I resented about this and we started a few games with the Snellen chart.
The day after, after having worked for several hours continuously with such a chart, the boy went home in Naples after having read 7/10 at 10 feet, under electric light.
Of course the vision was not continuous, but the feat was great for him.
Then I have to report that my friend who is under self-treatment curing her -23 D myopic prescription has had her first TRUE flash of PERFECT SIGHT which lasted more than three seconds.
She was able to see license plates numbers at 15 meters, but since she could see neatly the embossing of the letters, her vision was much more than that.
How you learned men explain this without having to allow the eye to return back in its normal shape by means of external muscles, I do not know.
Intersting article for you:
I thought you might be interested in this article from eMedicine. You may either click on the following link or copy and paste it into your browser.http://www.emedicine.com/oph/topic723.htmeMedicine is the leading provider of clinical medical information for medical professionals and consumers. To explore eMedicine today visit http://www.emedicine.com
Neil Brooks - 01 Jul 2005 19:57 GMT >Just wanted to let you know that I am not dead or handcuffed in prison >but was working on several interesting projects and could not post as >usual. Oh, God. It's back.
Same deal. I'm out. Though it may pain me, and test my resolve, I shan't engage this troll.
Please join me in this effort. Please allow Rishi's (and Otis's) words to echo in the cosmos, unanswered. Eventually, they /will/ go away.
If /I/ can do it, . . . .
Neil
g.gatti@agora.it - 02 Jul 2005 15:12 GMT But why do you bother?
People is getting cures.
Now another friend with CONICAL CORNEA uncorrected even by 6 dioptres of convex lens has having flashes of NORMAL SIGHT at three meters with that eye, reading the 10 line at 10 feet on the black chart. The other eye has 20/10 vision.
This guy is very much intelligent, and after a little bit of awkwardness at beginning of treatment, he started seriously to exercise his own imagination and got great progress.
DO you know what is a conical cornea?
To the other super-idiot from China (a great country with many young children, it is normal that some of them are idiots) I must tell that the link works very well.
Here is the abstract
Presbyopia: Cause and Treatment Last Updated: February 21, 2005 Rate this Article Email to a Colleague Synonyms and related keywords: vision loss, visual deficit
AUTHOR INFORMATION Section 1 of 10 Click here to go to the next section in this topic Author Information Introduction Helmholtz's Theory Of Accommodation Schachar's Theory Of Accommodation Augmentation Of Accommodative Function Comparison Of The Helmholtz Theory And The Schachar Theory Historical Perspective Of The Theories Of The Mechanism Of Accommodation Methods For Treating Presbyopia Pictures Bibliography
Author: Ronald Schachar, MD, PhD, President and CEO, Presby Corporation
Ronald Schachar, MD, PhD, is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Ophthalmology, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Medical Association, American Society of Contemporary Ophthalmology, Phi Beta Kappa, Sigma Xi, and Texas Medical Association
Editor(s): Stephen D Plager, MD, FACS, Chief, Department of Ophthalmology, Dominican Hospital; Assistant Clinical Professor, Department of Ophthalmology, Stanford University Hospital; Donald S Fong, MD, MPH, Assistant Clinical Professor of Ophthalmology, Director, Clinical Trials Research, Department of Ophthalmology, Southern California Permanente Medical Group; J James Rowsey, MD, Consulting Staff, Department of Corneal and Refractive Surgery, St Luke's Hospital; Lance L Brown, OD, MD, Ophthalmologist, Regional Eye Center, Affiliated With Freeman Hospital and St John's Hospital, Joplin, Missouri; and Hampton Roy, Sr, MD, Clinical Associate Professor, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences
Disclosure INTRODUCTION Section 2 of 10 Click here to go to the previous section in this topic Click here to go to the top of this page Click here to go to the next section in this topic Author Information Introduction Helmholtz's Theory Of Accommodation Schachar's Theory Of Accommodation Augmentation Of Accommodative Function Comparison Of The Helmholtz Theory And The Schachar Theory Historical Perspective Of The Theories Of The Mechanism Of Accommodation Methods For Treating Presbyopia Pictures Bibliography
The scleral expansion band procedure for the surgical reversal of presbyopia (SRP) is a new technique. The scleral expansion band procedure has been developed for SRP. The effects of the scleral expansion band are based on a recently developed theory by Schachar that states that the crystalline lens is under increased equatorial zonular tension during accommodation. An understanding of demonstrable clinical effects of the scleral expansion band procedure, based upon Schachar's theory, requires a revision of historically held views concerning the mechanism of accommodation. HELMHOLTZ'S THEORY OF ACCOMMODATION Section 3 of 10 Click here to go to the previous section in this topic Click here to go to the top of this page Click here to go to the next section in this topic Author Information Introduction Helmholtz's Theory Of Accommodation Schachar's Theory Of Accommodation Augmentation Of Accommodative Function Comparison Of The Helmholtz Theory And The Schachar Theory Historical Perspective Of The Theories Of The Mechanism Of Accommodation Methods For Treating Presbyopia Pictures Bibliography
According to Helmholtz, during accommodation, when the optical power is greatest, the zonules are relaxed and the crystalline lens can shift. The lens would not be stable while reading or examining close objects. The instability of the crystalline lens during near vision did not seem physically correct. When viewing through an optical system, the higher the magnification, the more stable the system needs to be.
According to Helmholtz's hypothesis, since the equatorial diameter increases with age (ie, since the crystalline lens equator is getting closer to the ciliary muscle), the zonules should relax. As one ages, the power of the crystalline lens should increase while viewing distant objects in the accommodated state. One should become more myopic and the crystalline lens should become unstable, but in fact, one becomes slightly hyperopic and the crystalline lens remains stable. Helmholtz's theory also is not consistent with the decrease in spherical aberration that occurs during accommodation.
Helmholtz attributes the universal linear decrease in the amplitude of accommodation with age to hardening of the crystalline lens. No tissue in the body uniformly hardens in a linear fashion with age. During cataract extraction, it commonly is observed that crystalline lenses have different degrees of hardness and no uniform loss of water content of the crystalline lens with age has been demonstrated. Even in those cataracts that have a hard nucleus, the cortex is soft. SCHACHAR'S THEORY OF ACCOMMODATION Section 4 of 10 Click here to go to the previous section in this topic Click here to go to the top of this page Click here to go to the next section in this topic Author Information Introduction Helmholtz's Theory Of Accommodation Schachar's Theory Of Accommodation Augmentation Of Accommodative Function Comparison Of The Helmholtz Theory And The Schachar Theory Historical Perspective Of The Theories Of The Mechanism Of Accommodation Methods For Treating Presbyopia Pictures Bibliography
An outward equatorial displacement of the crystalline lens produces central steepening. This counterintuitive phenomenon is demonstrated readily by pulling on the equator of a biconvex air-filled Mylar balloon and observing that the reflections from the center of the balloon become smaller, or minify, (see Picture 2), and the reflections from its periphery enlarge (see Picture 3).
The equatorial displacement of the crystalline lens occurs as a result of increased tension on the equatorial zonules (see Picture 4), produced by contraction of the anterior radial muscle fibers of the ciliary muscle (see Picture 5, Picture 6). Since an active force is involved in accommodation, the amount of force that the ciliary muscle can apply is dependent on how much the ciliary muscle is stretched.
The crystalline lens is of ectodermal origin and continues to grow throughout life. Except for the progressive myope, the dimensions of the scleral shell do not change significantly after 13 years. The distance between the ciliary muscle and the equator of the lens decreases throughout life. Therefore, the effective force that the ciliary muscle can apply to the lens equator is reduced in a linear fashion with age. The amplitude of accommodation decreases linearly with age resulting in presbyopia and is a consequence of normal lens growth.
Quick Find Author Information Introduction Helmholtz's Theory Of Accommodation Schachar's Theory Of Accommodation Augmentation Of Accommodative Function Comparison Of The Helmholtz Theory And The Schachar Theory Historical Perspective Of The Theories Of The Mechanism Of Accommodation Methods For Treating Presbyopia Pictures Bibliography
Click for related images.
Continuing Education CME available for this topic. Click here to take this CME.
Patient Education Click here for patient education.
AUGMENTATION OF ACCOMMODATIVE FUNCTION Section 5 of 10 Click here to go to the previous section in this topic Click here to go to the top of this page Click here to go to the next section in this topic Author Information Introduction Helmholtz's Theory Of Accommodation Schachar's Theory Of Accommodation Augmentation Of Accommodative Function Comparison Of The Helmholtz Theory And The Schachar Theory Historical Perspective Of The Theories Of The Mechanism Of Accommodation Methods For Treating Presbyopia Pictures Bibliography
Any procedure that increases the distance between the lens equator and the ciliary muscle should reverse presbyopia. In the mid 1980s, scleral expansion was performed based on these concepts by making multiple incisions in the sclera over the ciliary muscle. The scleral incisions produced accommodative amplitude increases of only +1.25 diopters (D) in young presbyopes and the effect regressed. Fukuska independently confirmed these observations and predictions.
In 1992, the first scleral expansion band procedure was performed using a plastic polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) circular band sutured to the sclera (see Picture 6). The results were dramatic. Presbyopic patients had as much as 10 D of accommodation. Since that time, the scleral expansion band procedure has been modified and improved, so that now a separate PMMA segment is placed in each of the 4 oblique quadrants of the eye (see Picture 8, Picture 9).
To date, the worldwide experience with the scleral expansion band procedure for the SRP involves more than 500 eyes with a range of accommodative recovery of 1.3-7 D with a mean of 3.25 D. In general, the response has been favorable with no change in distance refraction, best-corrected visual acuity, or axial length. Common adverse effects that resolve in 6-8 weeks include subconjunctival hemorrhage, transient astigmatism, fluctuating near vision, and dry eyes. COMPARISON OF THE HELMHOLTZ THEORY AND THE SCHACHAR THEORY Section 6 of 10 Click here to go to the previous section in this topic Click here to go to the top of this page Click here to go to the next section in this topic Author Information Introduction Helmholtz's Theory Of Accommodation Schachar's Theory Of Accommodation Augmentation Of Accommodative Function Comparison Of The Helmholtz Theory And The Schachar Theory Historical Perspective Of The Theories Of The Mechanism Of Accommodation Methods For Treating Presbyopia Pictures Bibliography
The Schachar theory of accommodation has met considerable reaction and discussion, especially from those subscribing to the Helmholtz theory. Many past experiments have been published that are in disagreement with Schachar's conclusions that the crystalline lens diameter increases during accommodation. A careful examination of these experiments reveals that a systematic error exists. Movement occurs between the imaging device and the eye. Measurement of the thickness of the cornea in the accommodated and unaccommodated states of these experiments reveals a change in corneal thickness. Since corneal curvature and corneal thickness do not change during accommodation, these experiments are flawed and cannot be used to reveal the mechanism of accommodation.
The recent experiments by Glasser and Kaufman are similarly flawed. Although they placed sutures in the cornea as a reference point, neither the sutures, nor the corneal Purkinje images, subtract out of the overlain accommodated and unaccommodated images, demonstrating that eye movement occurred between the imaging device and the eye. They stated that the small amount of eye movement observed in their experiments cannot account for the changes in the crystalline lens size and configuration during Edinger Westphal or pharmacologic stimulation; however, they offer no controls to prove that this statement is true.
Interestingly, when they fixated the lateral rectus, so that eye movement was reduced, they observed that the crystalline lens equator moved toward the sclera, with anterior and posterior zonular relaxation. They state that the movement of the crystalline lens equator toward the temporal sclera is caused by lateral translation of the crystalline lens. This is mechanically impossible. Since the crystalline lens is denser than water and vitreous, when the anterior and posterior zonules are relaxed, the crystalline lens equator can only move toward the temporal sclera by an active generated force (eg, by the pull of the equatorial zonules).
The importance of eye movement relative to the imaging device is exemplified by MRI studies performed on accommodating patients by Strenk et al. An MRI image of the patient's eye during accommodation revealed that the eye is turned nasally and that a change in the configuration of the orbital bones occurred. Therefore, both the head and eye moved during accommodation.
Measurement of the transverse diameter of the globe, the corneal diameter, and the equatorial diameter of the crystalline lens in the unaccommodated and accommodated states, demonstrate that all these measurements decrease during accommodation. This means that the image plane of the eye in the unaccommodated and accommodated states was not the same. Their observations are due to artifact, and any conclusion that they make concerning the mechanism of accommodation from this MRI study is not valid. For example, they conclude that the equatorial diameter of the crystalline lens does not increase with age. Their conclusion is contrary to actual histologic measurements.
Linear and nonlinear finite element mathematical analyses have been performed on the human crystalline lens. Nonlinear finite element analysis is used routinely to reliably predict reality. The mathematical analysis demonstrates that only equatorial stretching of the equator of the crystalline lens by the equatorial zonules can produce the clinically observed increase in central optical power accompanied by a decrease in spherical aberration.
Scanning electron microscopy has shown the following 3 types of zonules: anterior, posterior, and equatorial. The equatorial zonules act similar to a skeletal muscle tendon and are the components that transduce the force of the ciliary muscle to change the focal power of the crystalline lens. The anterior and posterior zonules are tense during distance vision and relax during accommodation. The anterior and posterior zonules act similar to the ligaments of skeletal joints and are stabilizing components, predominately for distance vision.
Since only the anterior and posterior zonules can be visualized with a slit lamp in vivo during accommodation, it is understandable how incorrect deductions have been made. Investigators have demonstrated that the crystalline lens is stable and gravity does not affect the amplitude of accommodation. The equatorial zonules have a separate and distinct insertion into the ciliary body. The crystalline lens remains stable because the anterior zonules maintain the same position on the anterior crystalline lens surface even though the crystalline lens equator is enlarging with increasing age.
In vivo measurements of the position of the crystalline lens equator of young human research subjects during pharmacologically controlled accommodation using high-frequency, high-resolution anterior segment ultrasound revealed that the crystalline lens moves toward the sclera during accommodation. The mean movement was 6.8±1 mm/D. This amount of equatorial movement during accommodation was consistent with the prediction of the nonlinear finite element mode and demonstrated that accommodation is a small displacement phenomenon (ie, <5% change occurs in the equatorial diameter of the crystalline lens during accommodation).
The small amount of equatorial crystalline lens movement explains the problems and the systemic errors that have occurred during previous experiments that try to determine the position of the crystalline lens equator during accommodation. Eye movements are much larger than the movement of the crystalline lens equator; therefore, proper controls are essential to interpret any measurements.
Table 1. Comparison of the Helmholtz Theory and the Schachar Theory Test Helmholtz Schachar Observation Small displacement equatorial stretching of the biconvex deformable lens Decrease in central optical power Large increases in central optical power Large increases in central optical power Effect of gravity on the amplitude of accommodation Yes No No Effect of accommodation on spherical aberration Increase Decrease Decrease Change in refraction following presbyopia Myopic Hyperopic Hyperopic Anterior disinsertion of the ciliary muscle Myopic Hyperopic Hyperopic Change in the circular muscle fibers following presbyopia Atrophy Hypertrophy Hypertrophy Change in the anterior radial muscle fibers following presbyopia Little or no effect Atrophy
Atrophy Theory has widespread and new applications No Yes
1. Profile of the ocean tides 2. Effect of a magnetic field on a magnetic fluid 3. The shape of normal spiral galaxies The effect of tight 12-o'clock position cataract wound sutures on the central curvature of the cornea The cornea flattens in the vertical meridian (against the rule astigmatism) The cornea steepens in the vertical meridian (with the rule astigmatism) The cornea steepens in the vertical meridian (with the rule astigmatism)
For the first time, the theory has predicted methods to surgically reverse presbyopia, to produce a single element variable focus lens that can have rapid large optical power changes from small equatorial displacement, and to treat and to prevent ocular hypertension and primary open-angle glaucoma. The continued challenge will be to perform properly controlled experiments and to see how this theory will provide new tools and better methods for improving the visual performance of patients. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF THE THEORIES OF THE MECHANISM OF ACCOMMODATION Section 7 of 10 Click here to go to the previous section in this topic Click here to go to the top of this page Click here to go to the next section in this topic Author Information Introduction Helmholtz's Theory Of Accommodation Schachar's Theory Of Accommodation Augmentation Of Accommodative Function Comparison Of The Helmholtz Theory And The Schachar Theory Historical Perspective Of The Theories Of The Mechanism Of Accommodation Methods For Treating Presbyopia Pictures Bibliography
The healthy, young human (<40 y) or young primate eye can rapidly focus on near and distant objects (ie, it can change focus or accommodate). The mechanism by which the eye can accomplish this amazing task has been speculated upon for centuries. Initially, it was suggested that the eye was divinely created; therefore, it did not follow known physical laws of optics.
In 1619, Scheiner, a Jesuit priest, proved that accommodation occurred as a result of a change in the optical power of the eye and that the eye obeyed the laws of optics. His experiment easily is duplicated and consists of making 2 vertical pinholes in a card, which are separated by less than the diameter of the pupil of the eye. The observer looks through both holes simultaneously and focuses on a needle held perpendicular to the plane of the holes. When focusing on the needle, it will appear single; however, if the observer focuses on a more distant or near object, the needle will appear doubled. This simple elegant experiment demonstrates that the eye functions as an optical system.
The explanation of Scheiner's experiment is demonstrated in Picture 10. Consider a point source of light as the object. A convex lens converges the rays of light to a point. By placing a card containing 2 holes between the point source and the convex lens, only 2 rays are brought to a focus. If the power of the convex lens is changed, then the 2 rays are brought to a focus at a different distance. The point source appears doubled at all other distances. If the card has 3 or 4 holes, the point source will triple or quadruple.
Some of the most famous philosophers and scientists were interested in how the eye accommodates. In 1611, Kepler and others thought the crystalline lens moved forward and backward. In 1677, Descartes suggested that the shape of the crystalline lens changed. In 1742, Lobe postulated that the shape of the cornea changed. Sturm and Listing believed that the eye elongated.
In 1801, Thomas Young, using ingenious experiments, provided evidence that accommodation occurs as a result of changes in shape of the crystalline lens. He had very prominent eyes. Without anesthesia (which had not been discovered yet) he placed a caliper, that had rings attached to each side, around his eye. With his eye rotated nasally, he placed 1 ring on his cornea and the other ring over his macula. He could see a circular entopic ring induced by the ring on his macula. As he changed his point of focus, the entopic ring did not change size. This proved that the eye does not elongate during accommodation.
Next, he calculated the amount the cornea would have to move forward to account for his accommodative amplitude. Using candles and a front surface mirror engraved with a scale, he did not observe any corneal movement as he changed his point of focus. He further proved that the radius of curvature of the cornea does not play a role in accommodation. He attached a convex lens possessing the optical power of the cornea to the bottom of an eyecup. He filled the eyecup with saline and placed it over his cornea (the forerunner of contact lenses). The saline in contact with the cornea eliminated the refractive power of the cornea; yet, he was still able to fully accommodate.
Young demonstrated that accommodation did not occur in aphakes. He realized that accommodation had to result from a change in position or shape of the crystalline lens. He was convinced that accommodation could not occur because of forward or backward movement of the crystalline lens. He calculated that the crystalline lens would have to move 10 mm to account for his amplitude of accommodation. This would be impossible.
Young observed that spherical aberration decreased during accommodation. He concluded that accommodation occurs as a result of a change in shape of the crystalline lens. Since the ciliary body had not been discovered yet, he postulated that the change in shape of the crystalline lens is induced by a muscular mechanism within the crystalline lens.
In 1823, Purkinje noted the reflected images of a candle from the anterior and posterior crystalline lens surfaces. In 1849, Langenbeck was able to observe in a patient that the Purkinje image from the anterior surface of the crystalline lens became smaller during accommodation by using a candle and a magnifying glass. He correctly concluded that the anterior surface of the crystalline lens becomes more convex during accommodation. He proposed that the ciliary muscle, which had been discovered independently by Bruecke and Bowman in 1847, squeezes the crystalline lens.
In 1851, Cramer followed up on Langenbeck's observation and improved on it by making a device that incorporated a telescope to allow accurate observations of the Purkinje images during accommodation. He observed that the anterior surface of the crystalline lens became more convex, but the posterior surface did not change shape.
In 1855, Helmholtz improved on the Cramer device by placing crossed glass plates between the patient's eye and the telescope, so that the Purkinje images were doubled and could be measured more accurately. In addition to observing that the anterior and posterior surfaces of the crystalline lens became more convex, he noted that the lens became thicker during accommodation. He hypothesized that the ciliary muscle relaxes during accommodation allowing the lens to become more spherical under the influence of its own elasticity. According to his hypothesis, the equatorial diameter of the lens should decrease as it becomes more spherical during accommodation. He postulated that presbyopia, the loss of accommodation with age, occurred as a result of lens sclerosis (ie, loss of elasticity of the lens with age).
In 1864, Donders studied the change of the amplitude of accommodation with age. He found that the amplitude of accommodation declined in a linear fashion with age. This decline occurs universally and predictably. If patients are corrected properly for distance vision, their age can be determined within 1.5 years by measuring their amplitude of accommodation. Donders also observed that patients become slightly hyperopic when they become presbyopic.
In 1901, Tscherning examined the curvature changes of the anterior crystalline lens surface by observing the changes in the Purkinje images when 4 lights are used as objects. He placed the lights so that 2 formed reflected images from the central anterior surface and 2 formed reflected images from the peripheral anterior surface of the crystalline lens. He observed that the central images moved closer together during accommodation, while the peripheral images moved further apart. He concluded that the crystalline lens was becoming more convex centrally but was becoming flatter in the periphery during accommodation. This was consistent with Young's observation that the spherical aberration of the eye decreases during accommodation.
Helmholtz's theory did not explain the peripheral flattening of the crystalline lens without additional assumptions. For example, the iris constricts during accommodation and it was imputed to produce the peripheral flattening of the crystalline lens. However, von Graefe had demonstrated accommodation in a patient with a total iridectomy.
Tscherning postulated that during accommodation the ciliary muscle exerted tension on the crystalline lens, pressing the crystalline lens against the anterior vitreous. The resistance of the vitreous transmitted sufficient force to effect central bulging of the anterior surface of the crystalline lens. His theory predicts that the central thickness should decrease during accommodation. He did not accept Helmholtz's measurements of increasing crystalline lens thickness with accommodation. Tscherning thought that presbyopia was the result of enlargement of the crystalline lens nucleus. All subsequent theories Gullstrand (1911), Fincham (1937) used Helmholtz's hypothesis that the zonules are relaxed during accommodation. Helmholtz's hypothesis and subsequent modifications attribute presbyopia to sclerosis of the crystalline lens stroma or capsule, atrophy of the ciliary muscle, or stiffening of the ciliary muscle attachments.
Based on these theories for the mechanism of accommodation, the amplitude of accommodation could be increased only by softening the lens stroma and/or capsule, rejuvenating the ciliary muscle by somehow reversing ciliary muscle atrophy, or reversing ciliary body fibrosis. Since none of these methods are clinically possible there has been no surgical therapy for increasing the amplitude of accommodation and reversing the symptoms of presbyopia. METHODS FOR TREATING PRESBYOPIA Section 8 of 10 Click here to go to the previous section in this topic Click here to go to the top of this page Click here to go to the next section in this topic Author Information Introduction Helmholtz's Theory Of Accommodation Schachar's Theory Of Accommodation Augmentation Of Accommodative Function Comparison Of The Helmholtz Theory And The Schachar Theory Historical Perspective Of The Theories Of The Mechanism Of Accommodation Methods For Treating Presbyopia Pictures Bibliography
Presbyopia initially was treated with near vision optical aids using magnifying lenses, reading glasses, and monocles. Patients were constantly removing reading glasses and losing them because the reading glasses interfere with vision at all other distances. Benjamin Franklin fused the distance lens with the near reading lens to give us bifocals that were later modified to trifocals. The problem with these reading aids is that they only allow sharp near vision at a given distance and the near visual field is limited by the lens. Patients must learn to rotate their eyes downward when reading with bifocals instead of rotating their head. It usually takes 2-3 weeks for patients to get used to wearing bifocals. Trifocals can even be more of a problem for many patients.
To avoid the problems of bifocals and trifocals, bifocal contact lenses have been developed. The bifocal contact lenses generally have been unsuccessful because the distance and near powers of the contact lens must be crowded into an area that can barely cover the pupil. The patient must learn how to shift the contact lens and to ignore the distant or near image according to the visual task.
Multifocal glasses and multifocal contact lenses also are generally not satisfactory. Multifocal lenses produce multiple images at various focal points. Light reflected or emitted by an object must be dispersed by the multifocal lens over all the focal points. Therefore, the intensity at any given focal point will be reduced and the contrast sensitivity diminished. To avoid prismatic effects, the visual field of a multifocal lens is reduced. In addition, the patient must learn to select the appropriate image.
The problems with bifocal and multifocal contact lenses forecast the problems that have, and will continue to occur, with attempts at making a bifocal or multifocal cornea using LASIK, or using intracorneal lenses, or phakic intraocular lenses.
Monovision as a treatment for presbyopia generally is accepted by fewer than 30% of the population. The loss of stereopsis and learning to ignore a blurry image from one half of the binocular visual field easily accounts for the patient's distress with monovision.
Summary
Treatments for presbyopia have not been very good because the physiological mechanism of the crystalline lens has not been restored. The Schachar theory of accommodation states the following:
1. Increased equatorial zonular tension occurs during accommodation.
2. Presbyopia is due to a decrease in the effective working distance of the ciliary muscle as a result of normal crystalline lens growth.
Based on this theory the accommodative amplitude of presbyopes can be increased.
Any technique that increases the effective working distance of the ciliary muscle, the distance between the ciliary muscle and the crystalline lens equator, increases the amplitude of accommodation physiologically. Table 2. Comparison of Methods for Treating Presbyopia
Focus at Multiple Near Distances
Full Clear Visual Field
Reversible
Large Range of Correction
Effect Regresses
Normal Stereopsis
Negative Cosmetic Implications
Physiological
Involves a Surgical Technique
Halos at Night
Potential for Serious Complications
Reading glasses
No
No
Yes
Yes
N/A
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
None
Bifocals glasses
No
No
Yes
Yes
N/A
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
None
Trifocals glasses
No
No
Yes
Yes
N/A
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
None
Monovision
No
No
Yes
Yes
N/A
No
No
No
No
No
None
Multifocals glasses
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
N/A
Yes
No
No
No
No
None
Bifocal contacts
No
No
Yes
Yes
N/A
Yes
No
No
No
No
Minimal
Multifocal contacts
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
N/A
Yes
No
No
No
No
Minimal
Intracorneal lenses
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Significant
Intracorneal multifocal lenses
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Significant
Phakic intraocular lenses
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Significant
Phakic multifocal intraocular Lenses
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Significant
LASIK produced bifocal cornea
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Significant
LASIK produced multifocal cornea
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Significant
Scleral incisions
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Minimal
Scleral expansion band
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Minimal PICTURES Section 9 of 10 Click here to go to the previous section in this topic Click here to go to the top of this page Click here to go to the next section in this topic Author Information Introduction Helmholtz's Theory Of Accommodation Schachar's Theory Of Accommodation Augmentation Of Accommodative Function Comparison Of The Helmholtz Theory And The Schachar Theory Historical Perspective Of The Theories Of The Mechanism Of Accommodation Methods For Treating Presbyopia Pictures Bibliography
Caption: Picture 1. Keratoconjunctivitis, Atopic Click to see larger picture Click to see detailView Full Size Image Click to ZoomeMedicine Zoom View (Interactive!) Picture Type: Image Caption: Picture 2. Reflection in the center of the balloon Click to see larger picture Click to see detailView Full Size Image Click to ZoomeMedicine Zoom View (Interactive!) Picture Type: Image Caption: Picture 3. Reflection in the periphery of the balloon Click to see larger picture Click to see detailView Full Size Image Click to ZoomeMedicine Zoom View (Interactive!) Picture Type: Image Caption: Picture 4. In the unaccommodated state, all the zonules are under tension (a). According to the Schachar theory, in the accommodated state, the equatorial zonules are under increased tension, and the anterior and posterior zonules are relaxed (b). Click to see larger picture Click to see detailView Full Size Image Click to ZoomeMedicine Zoom View (Interactive!) Picture Type: Image Caption: Picture 5. Schema of the configuration of the eye in the unaccommodated state. Click to see larger picture Click to see detailView Full Size Image Click to ZoomeMedicine Zoom View (Interactive!) Picture Type: Image Caption: Picture 6. Schema of the configuration of the ciliary body in the accommodated state according to the Schachar theory. Click to see larger picture Click to see detailView Full Size Image Click to ZoomeMedicine Zoom View (Interactive!) Picture Type: Image Caption: Picture 7. Polymethyl methacrylate band Click to see larger picture Click to see detailView Full Size Image Click to ZoomeMedicine Zoom View (Interactive!) Picture Type: Image Caption: Picture 8. Incisions for placement of the polymethyl methacrylate band Click to see larger picture Click to see detailView Full Size Image Click to ZoomeMedicine Zoom View (Interactive!) Picture Type: Image Caption: Picture 9. Placement of the polymethyl methacrylate band Click to see larger picture Click to see detailView Full Size Image Click to ZoomeMedicine Zoom View (Interactive!) Picture Type: Image Caption: Picture 10. Scheiner's experiment Click to see larger picture Click to see detailView Full Size Image Click to ZoomeMedicine Zoom View (Interactive!) Picture Type: Graph BIBLIOGRAPHY Section 10 of 10 Click here to go to the previous section in this topic Click here to go to the top of this page Author Information Introduction Helmholtz's Theory Of Accommodation Schachar's Theory Of Accommodation Augmentation Of Accommodative Function Comparison Of The Helmholtz Theory And The Schachar Theory Historical Perspective Of The Theories Of The Mechanism Of Accommodation Methods For Treating Presbyopia Pictures Bibliography
* Atchison DA: Accommodation and presbyopia. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1995 Jul; 15(4): 255-72[Medline]. * Bowman: Lectures on the Parts concerned in the Operations of the Eye. London: 1849:62. * Brown N: The shape of the lens equator. Exp Eye Res 1974 Dec; 19(6): 571-6[Medline]. * Brucke: Arch Anat Physiol wiss Med. 1846:370. * Coulombre JL, Coulombre AJ: Lens development. IV. Size, shape, and orientation. Invest Ophthalmol 1969 Jun; 8(3): 251-7[Medline]. * Cramer N: Lancet. Vol 1. 1851:529. * Descartes R: Traite de l'homme. Paris: 1677. * Donders FC: Accommodation and refraction of the eye. The New Society. London: 1864:204-215. * Duke-Elder S, Waybar KC: Anatomy of the visual system. In: Duke-Elder, ed. System of Ophthalmology. Vol 2. London: Henry Kimpton; 1962:80-1. * Farnsworth PN, Shyne SE: Anterior zonular shifts with age. Exp Eye Res 1979 Mar; 28(3): 291-7[Medline]. * Fincham EF: Mechanism of accommodation. Br J Ophthalmol 1937; 8: 5-80. * Fincham EF: The mechanism of accommodation. Br J Ophthalmol [suppl] 1937; 8: 1-80. * Fukasaku H: Silicone expansion plug implant surgery for presbyopia. In: Am Soc of Cataract Refractive Surg Symposium. Boston, Ma: 2000. * Fukasaku H: Surgical Correction of Presbyopia. ASCRS Meeting Seattle, WA; April 1999. * Glasser A, Kaufman PL: The mechanism of accommodation in primates. Ophthalmology 1999 May; 106(5): 863-72[Medline]. * Glasser A, Kaufman PL: Letter to the editor. Ophthalmology 2000; 107: 626. * Gordon AR, Siegman MJ: Mechanical properties of smooth muscle. I. Length-tension and force- velocity relations. Am J Physiol 1971 Nov; 221(5): 1243-9[Medline]. * Gullstrand A: Einfurhrung in d. Methoden d. Dioptrik d. Auges d. Menschen. Leipzig 1911. * Ivanoff A: On the influence of accommodation on spherical aberration in the human eye: an attempt to interpret night myopia. J Opt Soc Am 1947; 37: 730-1. * Kepler: Dioprice. Augsburg: 1611. * Kleinman NJ, Worgul BV: Lens. In: Tasman W, ed. Duane's Foundations of Clinical Ophthalmology. Vol 1. Philadelphia: 1994. * Koomen M, Tousey R, Scolnik R: The spherical aberration of the eye. J Opt Soc Am 1949; 39: 370-6. * Langenbeck K: Opthal. Gottingen 1849. * Levy NS: The mechanism of accommodation in primates. Ophthalmology 2000 Apr; 107(4): 625-6[Medline]. * Levy NS: Letter to the editor. Comparing MRI's with Movement Artifact. In: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000; Available at http://www.iovs.org[Full Text]. * Lim SJ, Kang SJ, Kim HB: Analysis of zonular-free zone and lens size in relation to axial length of eye with age. J Cataract Refract Surg 1998 Mar; 24(3): 390-6[Medline]. * Listing: Wagner's Handworterbuch d. Physiiologie. Braunschweig 1853; 4: 498. * Lobe: Dissertatio de ocula humano. Vol 119. 1742. * Marshall J, Beaconsfield M, Rothery S: The anatomy and development of the human lens and zonules. Trans Ophthalmol Soc U K 1982; 102 Pt 3: 423-40[Medline]. * Neider MW, Crawford K, Kaufman PL: In vivo videography of the rhesus monkey accommodative apparatus. Age- related loss of ciliary muscle response to central stimulation. Arch Ophthalmol 1990 Jan; 108(1): 69-74[Medline]. * Purkinge: Beobachtungen u. Versuche z. Physiologie d. Sinne. Prague 1823; 2: 128. * Rafferty NS: Structure, function and pathology. In: Masel H, ed. The Ocular Lens. New York: Marcel Dekker; 1985: 2-5. * Sakabe I, Oshika T, Lim SJ: Anterior shift of zonular insertion onto the anterior surface of human crystalline lens with age. Ophthalmology 1998 Feb; 105(2): 295-9[Medline]. * Schachar RA, Anderson DA: The mechanism of ciliary muscle function. Ann Ophthalmol 1995; 27: 126-32. * Schachar RA: US Patent Numbers: 5,354,331; 5,465,737; 5,489,299; 5,503,165; 5,529,076; 5,722,952 . European and other patents pending. * Schachar RA: Cause and treatment of presbyopia with a method for increasing the amplitude of accommodation. Ann Ophthalmol 1992 Dec; 24(12): 445-7, 452[Medline]. * Schachar RA: US Patent Number 6,007,578 . European and other International Patents pending. * Schachar RA, Huang T, Huang X: Mathematic proof of Schachar's hypothesis of accommodation. Ann Ophthalmol 1993 Jan; 25(1): 5-9[Medline]. * Schachar RA, Bax A: The mechanism of human accommodation as determined by non-linear finite element analysis. (To be submitted). * Schachar RA, Cudmore DP: The effect of gravity on the amplitude of accommodation. Ann Ophthalmol 1994 May-Jun; 26(3): 65-70[Medline]. * Schachar RA: Zonular function: a new hypothesis with clinical implications. Ann Ophthalmol 1994 Mar-Apr; 26(2): 36-8[Medline]. * Schachar RA: Histology of the ciliary muscle-zonular connections. Ann Ophthalmol 1996; 28: 70-9. * Schachar RA, Tello C, Cudmore DP: In vivo increase of the human lens equatorial diameter during accommodation. Am J Physiol 1996 Sep; 271(3 Pt 2): R670-6[Medline]. * Schachar RA: Is Helmholtz's theory of accommodation correct? Ann Ophthalmol 1999; 31: 10-17. * Schachar RA, Cudmore DP, Black TD: A revolutionary variable focus lens. Ann Opthalmol 1996; 28: 11-18. * Schachar RA, Cudmore DP, Black TD, et al: Paradoxical optical power increase of a deformable lens by equatorial stretching. Ann Ophthalmol 1998; 30: 10-18. * Schachar RA: The scleral expansion band procedure for the treatment of ocular hypertension and primary open angle glaucoma. Ann Ophthalmol 2000; 32: 87-9. * Schachar RA: Pathophysiology of accommodation and presbyopia. Understanding the clinical implications. J Fla Med Assoc 1994 Apr; 81(4): 268-71[Medline]. * Scheiner: Oculus. Innsbruck: 1619. * Streeten BW: Zonular apparatus. In: Jakobiec FA, ed. Ocular Anatomy Embryology and Teratology. Philadelphia: 1982:331-53. * Strenk SA, Semmlow JL, Strenk LM: Age-related changes in human ciliary muscle and lens: a magnetic resonance imaging study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1999 May; 40(6): 1162-9[Medline]. * Sturm JC: Dissertatio de presbyopia et myopia. Altdorfi: 1697. * Tscherning M: Physiological Optics. Philadelphia, Pa: Keystone; 1904:160-89. * V Graefe: Presbyopia: Cause and Treatment. Arch Ophthalmol 1860; 7: 150. * van Alphan GWHM, Robinette BS, Marci FJ: Drug effects on ciliary muscle and choroid preparations in vitro. Arch Ophthalmol 1962; 68: 111-23. * Vanderploeg JM: Near visual acuity measurements of space shuttle crew members. Aviat Space Environ Med 1985; 57: 492. * von Helmholtz H: Uber die akommodation des auges. Albrecht von Graefes Arch Ophtalmol 1855; 1: 1-89. * Young T: On the mechanism of the eye. Philos Trans Royal Soc 1801; 92: 23-88.
NOTE: Medicine is a constantly changing science and not all therapies are clearly established. New research changes drug and treatment therapies daily. The authors, editors, and publisher of this journal have used their best efforts to provide information that is up-to-date and accurate and is generally accepted within medical standards at the time of publication. However, as medical science is constantly changing and human error is always possible, the authors, editors, and publisher or any other party involved with the publication of this article do not warrant the information in this article is accurate or complete, nor are they responsible for omissions or errors in the article or for the results of using this information. The reader should confirm the information in this article from other sources prior to use. In particular, all drug doses, indications, and contraindications should be confirmed in the package insert. FULL DISCLAIMER
Presbyopia: Cause and Treatment excerpt
© Copyright 2005, eMedicine.com, Inc. About Us | Privacy | Terms of Use | Contact Us | Advertise | Institutional Subscribers
otisbrown@pa.net - 01 Jul 2005 20:46 GMT Dear Rishi,
Subject: Bates bucked the "system".
Good to hear you are still alive and kicking.
The ODs on this site have determined that they will make no comment on:
1. The dynamic behavior of the natural eye.
2. The results of any and all experiments that prove that the natural eye "adapts" to a minus lens.
3. Any statement by anyone, "Bates supporter" or Raphaelson supporter who proposes that a negative refractive state can be prevented by ANY METHOD.
Medicine tends to "work" by default. You "complain" about something -- and get a resultant quick-fix.
I truly understand the "power" of this method -- and the difficulty of "bucking" this system -- but sometimes it is worth the effort.
In any event -- post what you like, and enjoy the various responses.
Best,
Otis
CHINESEMALE(age16) - 02 Jul 2005 06:26 GMT Wow it's the legendary Rishi. I remember reading some of your stuff. You're insane. But I am too. Your link doesn't work, idiot. Anyways, welcome back. It's a pleasure to meet you.
otisbrown@pa.net - 02 Jul 2005 14:34 GMT Dear Rishi and fellow "objectors",
There is a strong scientific base for "objecting" to the traditional minus lens -- put is place 400 years ago because it works "instantly".
I am certainly respectful of that fact.
But eqully, there is a small group of people, scientists, optometrists, ophthalmologists, and laymen (and Bates) who "object".
In this "objection" we should respect each other and the true difficulties of prevention.
Those difficulties suggest that we should share information, and work towards a better "solution" -- and not fight with each other as we attempt to accomplish this preventive work.
Best,
Otis
g.gatti@agora.it - 02 Jul 2005 15:13 GMT RM - 02 Jul 2005 23:02 GMT
> There is a strong scientific base for "objecting" to the > traditional minus lens Why does the best scientific evidence to date suggest that a promising treatment for myopia prevention in human to be overcorrection with minus lenses-- the opposite of what you propose, plus lenses (which by the way have been proven to NOT be effective)
> But eqully, there is a small group of people, scientists, > optometrists, ophthalmologists, and laymen (and Bates) > who "object". indeed. a very small group. apparently non of which are actually involved in vision research.
> In this "objection" we should respect each other > and the true difficulties of prevention. no-- Rishi is a wacko. just like you and Asainmale.
please post you "unscientific unmedical" drivel in alt.med.vision.improve and not here!
p.clarkii@gmail.com - 03 Jul 2005 02:28 GMT so it bothers you that noone wants to engage you in irrational conversation? you are a sick pathetic old man. what other psychological problems do you have-- do you have a fetish for young children?
Michael Samsel - 04 Jul 2005 18:47 GMT Why such hysterical ad hominem arguments when someone is posting a different view point then your own, are you unable to use reason to counter these viewpoints with which you disagree ??
> so it bothers you that noone wants to engage you in irrational > conversation? > you are a sick pathetic old man. what other psychological problems do > you have-- do you have a fetish for young children? Neil Brooks - 04 Jul 2005 20:07 GMT >Why such hysterical ad hominem arguments when someone is posting a different >view point then your own, are you unable to use reason to counter these >viewpoints with which you disagree ?? New in town, huh?
LarryDoc - 04 Jul 2005 21:26 GMT > >Why such hysterical ad hominem arguments when someone is posting a different > >view point then your own, are you unable to use reason to counter these > >viewpoints with which you disagree ?? > > New in town, huh? And by that he means that you are unaware that the ridiculous notion put forth by Otis has been carefully, scientifically, factually debunked countless times during the two and half years the zealot has been posting his trash (sometime daily!) It's not that we disagree, it's that his theory is completely wrong and easily proven so. And, conversely, he cannot prove his contention at all.
This discussion group is under the heading: sci. and med (science and medicine) and as such we participate in science-based discussion. "The Plus" is not science, is proven false and does not belong in this newsgroup.
Enough said.
Welcome to SCI.MED.Vision. Feel free to participate under that charter.
LB, O.D.
p.clarkii@gmail.com - 04 Jul 2005 23:17 GMT like the others have already mentioned, otis has been engaged in conversation over and over again for 21/2 years. we know all his arguments (which relate to chickens) and we have given him the references and links to the human studies. he refuses to discuss relevant valid scientific data, he just reposts over and over again his theory about plus lenses curing myopia.
you've just walked into the middle (really the end) of a long dialogue where everyone is sick and tired of dealing with this troll.
feel free to post anything here that you want that relates to science, or medicine, or vision, or vision research. the posters here like and tolerate rational people with various questions and opinions very well. and then there are "other" people like otis (and rishi, and asianmale) that have deeper psychological issues.
otisbrown@pa.net - 05 Jul 2005 03:30 GMT Dear Michael,
It is obvious that they lack logical, scientific arguements to support their "position" that the natural eye is "dynamic".
A rational person can accept the premise -- an argue it out by objective scientific testing.
A person protecting at "standard position" simply can not do it -- and so must resort to "ad hominem" attacks.
Prevention is indeed difficult -- but possible. But to deny it because the use of the minus lens is so easy -- is hardly the basic for a scientific argument.
Best,
Otis
Wooly - 03 Jul 2005 00:07 GMT Gatti - I had another miracle this week! I went in for my annual eyeball exam and refraction and glory be, my left eye's astigmatism has improved ever-so-slightly! My childhood eyedoctor was right - the more I wear my glasses the more my vision improves!
+++++++++++++
Reply to the list as I do not publish an email address to USENET. This practice has cut my spam by more than 95%. Of course, I did have to abandon a perfectly good email account...
Mike Tyner - 03 Jul 2005 02:27 GMT > has improved ever-so-slightly! My childhood eyedoctor > was right - the more I wear my glasses the more my vision > improves! Were you breast-fed or bottle fed?
-MT
Wooly - 03 Jul 2005 03:00 GMT >Were you breast-fed or bottle fed? I'd hazard that I was a bottle baby for reasons we won't dwell upon. Everybody in my family is myopic so I'm thinking its hereditary in my case...
+++++++++++++
Reply to the list as I do not publish an email address to USENET. This practice has cut my spam by more than 95%. Of course, I did have to abandon a perfectly good email account...
|
|
|