Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Vision / July 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Couching

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Robert Kopp - 13 Jul 2005 17:54 GMT
This is something I am not considering: the insertion of a needle into the
eye to displace a cataract. Nevertheless, in poor countries it continues
to be practiced, and the results are better than I would have guessed. A
follow-up study appears below:

Methods: In Wura Hausa, a community of approximately 12,000 inhabitants
near Yola, Adamawa State, in the southern part of north eastern Nigeria,
during a ten-day period in December 1994 a retrospective study took place.
The data were collected in co-operation with the traditional healers
themselves. Consecutive patients of a traditional eye centre who had been
treated for cataract by couching were interviewed and examined.

Results: Forty-two (65%) of the 65 eyes examined showed a corrected visual
acuity between 20/20 and 20/40. Sixteen eyes (25%) showed a corrected
visual acuity between 20/40 and 20/200. The median refractive correction
for optimal vision was + 10.0 D (range -2.00 to + 13.00 D). There was
neither observed evidence of an invasive technique having been performed
nor evidence of infectious consequences.

Signature

Robert T. Kopp
http://analytic.tripod.com/

Mike Tyner - 13 Jul 2005 19:07 GMT
> Results: Forty-two (65%) of the 65 eyes examined showed a corrected visual
> acuity between 20/20 and 20/40. Sixteen eyes (25%) showed a corrected
> visual acuity between 20/40 and 20/200. The median refractive correction
> for optimal vision was + 10.0 D (range -2.00 to + 13.00 D). There was
> neither observed evidence of an invasive technique having been performed
> nor evidence of infectious consequences.

Subluxation (couching) goes way back in history. It's a reasonable bet when
life expectancies aren't long.

IIRC, the problem is that years later, those displaced lenses turn soft and
soupy and then the capsule ruptures, spilling allergenic, degenerate
proteins into the vitreous. The immune response would be intense, with
endophthalmitis and inflammatory glaucoma leaving a scarred mess -if they
survived the septicemia, cellulitis etc.

-MT
William Stacy - 13 Jul 2005 19:32 GMT
Not to mention the challenge of wearing (or even getting fitted with, in
that environment) aphakic glasses or contacts over +10.00.  I'm sure not
missing Welsh 4-drop lenses...

w.stacy, o.d., showing his age again.

>>Results: Forty-two (65%) of the 65 eyes examined showed a corrected visual
>>acuity between 20/20 and 20/40. Sixteen eyes (25%) showed a corrected
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> -MT
Dr Judy - 13 Jul 2005 23:18 GMT
> This is something I am not considering: the insertion of a needle into the
> eye to displace a cataract. Nevertheless, in poor countries it continues
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> neither observed evidence of an invasive technique having been performed
> nor evidence of infectious consequences.

The big problem here is the "corrected acuity".  Usually countries that
don't have access to surgery also don't have access to glasses.   An aphake
without glasses does not have good vision.

Dr Judy
 
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.