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.

Need interpreter for scientific language

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Lilajane Frascarelli - 18 Jul 2005 00:54 GMT
Is there someplace where I can get information on what my ophthalmologist is
telling me in language that I can understand?  She is supposedly very good
at cataract treatment and glaucoma treatment, and has a pleasant
personality.  However, when she talks to me about what she proposes to do in
replacing the cataract she will take out in early August she leaves me
behind and I can't get her to tell me in terms that I can understand.

I have been near-sighted for 68 years (no doubt for 7 years before that,
too, but I was 7 years old when I found out about it) and am perfectly
satisfied to be so, wearing glasses,  for most of the things that I do.
However, I do need to be able to drive (my husband's health is a little
unstable) at least part of the time, so must be able to see well enough at a
distance to do that.  At the moment my ophthalmologist says that the reason
my distance vision is so poor is due to the cataracts in both eyes.

Most of my life is indoors, using the computer, sewing machine, reading, but
also reading music (I am a professional violinist).  I don't mind wearing
glasses to do any of that--or anything else, for that matter--as long as it
makes it possible for me to SEE well enough to do  it.

One reason I have been reluctant to have the cataract operation is that as
it is now, if I need to see something really small--tiny type, a very small
screw, stitches that need to be ripped, etc., --I can take off my glasses
and see perfectly well to do it by putting the object about 6 inches from my
face.  At concerts I can read the program in a very dim light if I can take
off my glasses and get the program about 5-6 inches from my eyes.

At home, when I have sewing problems I have tried using a magnifying glass,
but it does not help nearly as much as just taking off my glasses and
getting the thing, whatever it is, very close to my eye.

Dr. W says she will make me a minus 2, whatever that is.  When I ask her to
explain I get more technical stuff that is way over my head.  I gather that
I will be seeing enough at a driving distance, and perhaps at a normal
reading distance.  Will I lose the ability to see very small things up
close?  Every time I have resolved that I MUST have the cataract removed I
have an episode at home where I need to see something tiny up close and
taking off the glasses does the trick.

I am perfectly willing to wear glasses for both near and far if I can get a
pair (bifocals, no doubt) that allow me to see up close (REALLY close) as
well as at a distance.

Any pointers to explanations of technical specifications translated into LAY
terms would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance for your advice.

Lj. F.


Wooly - 18 Jul 2005 02:13 GMT
>Is there someplace where I can get information on what my ophthalmologist is
>telling me in language that I can understand?  She is supposedly very good
>at cataract treatment and glaucoma treatment, and has a pleasant
>personality.  However, when she talks to me about what she proposes to do in
>replacing the cataract she will take out in early August she leaves me
>behind and I can't get her to tell me in terms that I can understand.

Yes - ask your ophthalmologist to explain to you in plain English
exactly what it is she's proposing to do to your eyeball(s).  If she
can't do it mayhap you should find a different doc.

+++++++++++++

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...
Repeating Rifle - 18 Jul 2005 02:49 GMT
On 7/17/05 4:54 PM, in article BF006801.17EDB%afrascar@nycap.rr.com,

> Dr. W says she will make me a minus 2, whatever that is.  When I ask her to
> explain I get more technical stuff that is way over my head.  I gather that
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> have an episode at home where I need to see something tiny up close and
> taking off the glasses does the trick.

I think what she means is that you will see clearly at a distance of half a
meter (1/2 (from the reciprocal 2 in minus 2) meter) without any glasses.
That is about 20 inches. Bifocals will let you see clearly at two distances.
Prescriptions for driving distance and reading distance are typical. There
are many devices that you can use for close work after the operation. I have
a head band holding multiple flipping lenses.

I am not a health professional.

Bill
Dr Judy - 18 Jul 2005 04:00 GMT
> Is there someplace where I can get information on what my ophthalmologist
> is
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
>
> Dr. W says she will make me a minus 2, whatever that is.

If you are seeing clearly at near at 5 to 6 inches, you currently are more
likely about -6.

For most people, -2 will allow for reading normal print without glasses at
16 to 18 inches.  If you actually need to see things clearly at 5 inches (
as opposed to being forced to use that distance because further away is
blurry), then you will need to tell Dr W to make you more nearsighted than
that.

When I ask her to
> explain I get more technical stuff that is way over my head.  I gather
> that
> I will be seeing enough at a driving distance, and perhaps at a normal
> reading distance.  Will I lose the ability to see very small things up
> close?

If she leaves you at -2 you will need to use glasses to drive and will be
able to read without glasses.

Every time I have resolved that I MUST have the cataract removed I
> have an episode at home where I need to see something tiny up close and
> taking off the glasses does the trick.

Do you currently use bifocals or progressives?  If not, that is the reason
you need to take your glasses off to see clearly.

> I am perfectly willing to wear glasses for both near and far if I can get
> a
> pair (bifocals, no doubt) that allow me to see up close (REALLY close) as
> well as at a distance.

If you really need to see very tiny things a lot, then you could ask Dr W to
make you -3 or -4 instead of -2 -- be sure to tell her that you want to be
able to see tiny things at 8 to 10 inches without glasses.  There is no
reason why she couldn't do that.

Dr Judy

> Any pointers to explanations of technical specifications translated into
> LAY
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Lj. F.
William Stacy - 18 Jul 2005 05:32 GMT
> Most of my life is indoors, using the computer, sewing machine, reading, but
> also reading music (I am a professional violinist).  I don't mind wearing
> glasses to do any of that--or anything else, for that matter--as long as it
> makes it possible for me to SEE well enough to do  it.

OK now here's a few coincidences. My sister is a professional violinist,
and I've been myopic most of my life and had cataract surgeries 7 months
ago. I'm also an optometrist who spends most of his time doing close work.

> One reason I have been reluctant to have the cataract operation is that as
> it is now, if I need to see something really small--tiny type, a very small
> screw, stitches that need to be ripped, etc., --I can take off my glasses
> and see perfectly well to do it by putting the object about 6 inches from my
> face.  At concerts I can read the program in a very dim light if I can take
> off my glasses and get the program about 5-6 inches from my eyes.

So you are quite near sighted, like I was.  In planning for your
surgeries, you might want to give that up, well most of it.  You can
always get a pair of +4 readers for those times when you'd now take off
your glasses to see the tiny stuff. You have to admit, those times do
not constitute most of your day.  If they did, you might want to opt for
staying that myopic.

> At home, when I have sewing problems I have tried using a magnifying glass,
> but it does not help nearly as much as just taking off my glasses and
> getting the thing, whatever it is, very close to my eye.

Things WILL be different, and those same magnifiers will work fine post-op.

> Dr. W says she will make me a minus 2, whatever that is.  When I ask her to
> explain I get more technical stuff that is way over my head.

I wouldn't do that, but well, it's your choice, and no matter what you
choose, you'll be far better off than you now are.

 I gather that
> I will be seeing enough at a driving distance, and perhaps at a normal
> reading distance.  Will I lose the ability to see very small things up
> close?  Every time I have resolved that I MUST have the cataract removed I
> have an episode at home where I need to see something tiny up close and
> taking off the glasses does the trick.

See above.  I'm assuming you also have an early cataract developing in
the other eye, right?  When you find out how easy the surgery is and how
well you see post-op you'll no doubt want the other eye done ASAP so
you'll have a matched pair.

> I am perfectly willing to wear glasses for both near and far if I can get a
> pair (bifocals, no doubt) that allow me to see up close (REALLY close) as
> well as at a distance.

You *could* do that, but I wouldn't.

> Any pointers to explanations of technical specifications translated into LAY
> terms would be greatly appreciated.

What I ended up with on the first eye was essentially a mild amount of
myopia, about -1.00, or half what she's proposing for you.  This puts me
in great focus from about 20 inches to about 30 inches.  Great for
computing (I'm writing this without glasses), perfect for music stand
distance (-2.00 would put you in focus a bit close for comfort for music).

While I was thrilled with that result, I decided to go for max distance
on the 2nd eye (0.00, no myopia at all).  I thought I might like
watching TV without glasses, and maybe sitting on my deck enjoying the
scenery without them as well.  That's what I got and I couldn't be
happier.  I even practiced optometry the first week without glasses.
But I felt naked without them.  Plus I like the safety factor of having
glasses.  So I wear progressives in the office now, and for driving,
weed-eating, chain-sawing and the like.

I would not put a strong add in your every day glasses.  Way too
restrictive.  Save that for a pair of strong readers (they can even be
OTC over-the-counter).  If you do opt for the -2.00, you will be able to
read comfortably without glasses, but plan on wearing glasses for just
about everything else.  I don't like that idea.  You can get glasses
made for any distance you want.  It's just nice being less dependent on
glasses (they are no longer the very 1st thing I reach for when I wake up!)

This went on longer than I planned, but I think I'm in a great position
to make recommendations to you.  Feel free to e-mail me directly, or to
keep it here on s.m.v.

w.stacy, o.d.
Glenn - USAEyes.org - 18 Jul 2005 06:17 GMT
We have an encyclopedic dictionary on our website.  Click
"Communication" and then "Glossary" on the top drop down bar.

Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
USAEyes.org

"Consider and Choose With Confidence"

Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org

http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org

I am not a doctor.
Mike Tyner - 18 Jul 2005 14:26 GMT
> Dr. W says she will make me a minus 2, whatever that is.  When I ask her
> to
> explain I get more technical stuff that is way over my head.  I gather
> that

-2.00 is a good choice when you want to be able to read. 1/2.00 = 50 cm, the
distance most people hold a newspaper or use a computer.

If your glasses are now -6.00, your lenses are thick and (1/6=) 17 cm is
closer than most people want for their "habitual condition."

If you leave both eyes at -2.00, your lenses will be thinner, you can see
peas on your plate, and you can keep a $10 pair of drugstore +3.00 lenses in
your sewing basket to give you (2+3=) 5 diopters of near correction. 1/5=20
cm.

At -2.00, you won't see well enough far away to drive, but your "driving"
glasses will be about a third as thick as they are now.

-MT
Dan Abel - 18 Jul 2005 20:08 GMT
> Is there someplace where I can get information on what my ophthalmologist is
> telling me in language that I can understand?  She is supposedly very good
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> distance to do that.  At the moment my ophthalmologist says that the reason
> my distance vision is so poor is due to the cataracts in both eyes.

I have had cataract surgery in both eyes, and I also was very nearsighted
before the surgery.

I think that the issues are very complex, and that they can't be explained
in just 2 or 3 visits.  There's just too much to learn, it takes time to
process the information.  I found it very useful to talk to my
optometrist.  It wasn't that he was more knowledgeable or better at
communicating, I just needed to hear the information several times and
from more than one person.

Deciding what correction you want to have is an important decision, as
you'll have to live with it for the rest of your life.  Of course, you
will have to wear glasses part of the time, the issue is in when you will
wear glasses and when you might be able to go without.  I spend most of my
time looking at distance, so I got mine set to distance.  I can see pretty
well without glasses outside.

It might be useful to you to analyze how you spend your time during the
day.  Although it was really neat to be able to take off my glasses and
see really tiny things, I had to be honest that I didn't really spend that
much time each day doing that.  It doesn't make sense to me to have my
eyes set to do something for a few minutes each day.

However, it should be your personal preference that drives what strength
the IOL should be.  If you can convince your doctor that you understand
what you want, and what you are giving up, she should set your vision
however you want it.

Signature

Dan Abel
Sonoma State University
AIS
dabel@sonic.net

 
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.