Medical Forum / General / Vision / December 2005
I went to the ophthamologist yesterday and here is what I learned from my eye test
|
|
Thread rating:  |
acemanvx@yahoo.com - 29 Dec 2005 17:14 GMT I am back from the ophthamologist! I will tell you everything that happened in order.
I went to an eye exam room and tried on trial lenses. For my left eye I found that -5 was all I needed. -5.5 didnt help things any and -6 actually started to give me hyperopic blur. -4.5 was only a tiny bit blurry. For the right eye it was trickier but a -4.5 lense seemed to give the clearest vision but the BCVA wasnt as good as my left eye. I also tried a -4 and a -1 cylindar and it appeared to work as well as the -4.5 lense. I then placed minus lenses over my -4.25 glasses and -.75 and -1 both appeared to give me the best vision. The right eye didnt benefit much from more minus. I tried other minuses as well and for fun I tried -20, whoa! so blurry! Then I tried +20 and superman blur! I then put two +20 lenses together and looked thru them and I could barely see my own arm! Two +20 lenses plus my -5 simulates -45 diopters but with 1.8x magnification, something a real -45 wont have.
The lady(optician?) then confirmed with a machine that my distance glasses were indeed -4.25 First she tested my distance vision in each eye. First the right and I saw all of the 20/50 line and I believe 2 of the 20/40 line although I admit I kind of guessed. The left eye saw all of the 20/50 as well and none of the 20/40. Then I looked with both eyes and got all of the 20/40 line minus one or two. She put down 20/40 OU, I mentioned I am between 20/40 and 20/50 with those -4.25 glasses and she and my dad agreed. It was one of those projector eyecharts and the room was 20 feet long and the chart projected onto a square frame hanging on the wall. No mirrors needed. She also used a near chart and held it like 10 inches from my eyes. I mentioned I had presbyopia and that this was too close to see clearly with my glasses(which werent even full power!). I read the 20/50 line and she wrote that down too(for near vision).
I went back to wait for my turn for more testing. I then went into the other eye exam room and given numbing drops so I can get a glucoma test with reduced discomfort. The drops burned somewhat for half a minute and I said wait till they take effect so he waited a minute then proceeded to do the tests.
Next came the cyclopegia. He used cyclogyl, also known as cyclopentolate. I expressed concern with this conflicting with the numbing drops I got earlier but he said the two act seperately and have absolutely no relationship with each other. I believe he inserted 2 drops in each eye then said come back in an hour where its effects will take on. I went to the bathroom to look in the mirror and sure enough my pupils had started to dilate! Soon they were absolutely huge! I noticed lights were overly bright and there was glare around the bathroom light! When we went outside, I was blinded by the light and couldnt even keep my eyes open! My mom came and handed me her sunglasses which helped immensely but I was still extremely senestive!
After an hour and a half I returned and the ophthamologist's assisant looked into my eyes, holding a minus lense in front and said my myopia went down half a diopter. I then requested to look thru a phororaptor and see which minus power I now needed. The ophthamologist says he doesnt believe in doing that under cyclopegia because my pupils are now huge among other factors and the results wouldnt matter. He looked into my dilated eyes with a bright little light(that hurt!) then looked holding a +90(!!!) diopter lense for magnification! The lense was about half inch and so thick it was nearly sphere! Anyway my eyes are just fine. No cateracts, no diseases, no glucoma, no pathalogies. Just I have lots of myopia. He did say come back next week and he will give me a manifast refraction so I can update my records and pescription.
I asked him some questions and got answers. Heres the answers: He agrees alot of people, more than 25% cant be corrected to 20/20. He doesnt believe in eye exercises, not even to improve pseudomyopia. He belives some people are happier being undercorrected, especially with presbyopia because full power glasses gives headache, eyestrain and will make your eyes worse. He also agrees I have presbyopia, something "not very common" at my age of 23.
I will ask the ophthamologist several questions when I return.
1. What factors determine BCVA? High order aberrations appear to be the most talked about factor and may be true in my case.
2. What is the difference between presbyopia and accomodative dysfunction?
3. Whats your stance on contact lenses, including RGP and orthoK?
4. If someone asked you if he should consider laser refractive surgury, whats your stance and opinion on this?
5. What amount of magnification does this +90 diopter lense give? I am also very curious the effects of placing that in front of your eye since your eyeball is about +60 diopters, that lense would cause an image to focus way in front of your retina, in fact the focus point would be outside your eyeball! How high can plus lenses get and would the focus come in front of the plus lense itself if high enough?
6. How high can myopia get? I have heard a few reports of -100s on the internet and of one guy who was a -96 then a year later he progressed to -104!
7. I will think of more questions. Any of you have stuff I should ask him?
Neil Brooks - 29 Dec 2005 17:33 GMT > I am back from the ophthamologist! I will tell you > everything that happened in order. Sigh. A bit of judicious editing is rarely a bad thing.
[caffeinated yakking snipped]
>7. I will think of more questions. Any of you have stuff I should ask >him? Ace-
Maybe you could limit your questions to actual, meritorious, relevant questions that have to do with *your* two eyes.
Also, I think the Internet is a better place for satisfying yourself concerning academic issues. The ophthalmologist is the appropriate person to talk to about issues that would inform an actual course of treatment (e.g., Ortho-K, refractive surgery, etc.).
The doc is likely to be more responsive to you if you are respectful of his/her time.
 Signature Live simply so that others may simply live
acemanvx@yahoo.com - 29 Dec 2005 17:35 GMT Oh I almost forgot to mention this. The ophthamologist said I can test my myopia by doing the near point test. Measure how far you can see clearly and this is your diopters. If you can see from 20cm you are a -5, if 25cm, you are a -4, and so on. Its accurate to determine the changes in my myopia. This is something I already knew but I bet many people didnt!
I also want to mention things became clearer with my -4.25 glasses while I was cyclopegized. I also want to mention the cyclopegia was incomplete since I could still see well enough from near to read with those -4.25 glasses. I measured +1.25 diopters of accomodative amplitude under cyclopegia as opposed to +2.5 diopters normally. Therefore I have reason to believe I got more than -.5 diopters pseudomyopia. I may have more like -1.5 diopters of pseudomyopia. At least I am satisfied in knowing not all my myopia is real. I will countinue to work on vision improvement to resolve all my pseudomyopia.
Mike Tyner - 29 Dec 2005 17:49 GMT > pseudomyopia. I may have more like -1.5 diopters of pseudomyopia. At > least I am satisfied in knowing not all my myopia is real. This is usually the case when young adults appear to have "presbyopia."
-MT
William Stacy - 30 Dec 2005 17:12 GMT I also want to mention the cyclopegia was
> incomplete since I could still see well enough from near to read with > those -4.25 glasses. I measured +1.25 diopters of accomodative > amplitude under cyclopegia You were not accommodating through the cycloplegia, you are just undercorrected by 1.25 D. You were fully cyclopeged, that's for sure.
Dan Abel - 29 Dec 2005 19:48 GMT > >7. I will think of more questions. Any of you have stuff I should ask > >him?
> Maybe you could limit your questions to actual, meritorious, relevant > questions that have to do with *your* two eyes.
> Also, I think the Internet is a better place for satisfying yourself > concerning academic issues. Yeah. I really wasn't impressed with the idea of asking a newsgroup if they have any questions for *his* doctor! I have my own doctor. And if I have general questions I'll ask them here or do a Google.
 Signature Dan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA
William Stacy - 29 Dec 2005 19:55 GMT >[caffeinated yakking snipped] > The 14 year old abberrated "presbyope" from hell.
The doc might have to schedule more than 30 minutes?
Dick Adams - 29 Dec 2005 20:15 GMT > The 14 year old abberrated "presbyope" from hell. > The doc might have to schedule more than 30 minutes? It does not seem that you are being very supportive. Here is a kid who seems to have a real vision problem. Certainly he does not understand it, nor communicate about it very well.
Wouldn't you be interested to find out more about it, even if you can't figure it out right away?
Or is this group, ostensibly offering advice to ordinary people, here more truly for the purpose of sassing them?
-- Dicky
William Stacy - 29 Dec 2005 21:28 GMT "It does not seem that you are being very supportive."
Hello... It appears someone made a wrong turn...
You have arrived at
sci.med.vision
NOT
alt.support.myopia
Please sound your ship's bell as you depart.
Goodbye and Good Luck
Ann - 31 Dec 2005 00:26 GMT >"It does not seem that you are being very supportive." > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Goodbye and Good Luck When you do your work, do you care for the people you work with or do you just see them as eyes that need fixing? I'm guessing the latter because you sure as hell don't have a clue about the former.
Ann
Neil Brooks - 31 Dec 2005 00:31 GMT >>"It does not seem that you are being very supportive." >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Ann Wow, Ann.
Are we missing a bit of context here, or what. I've watched Bill Stacy post to this forum on and off for many years. I don't think you could have done a poorer job of characterizing him if you tried.
Bad gifts for Christmas??
 Signature Live simply so that others may simply live
Ann - 31 Dec 2005 01:28 GMT >>>"It does not seem that you are being very supportive." >>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > >Bad gifts for Christmas?? No, you can't read people well either. I wasn't attempting to characterise anyone. Responding to one post isn't a characterisation.
This group has gone bad.. weird how this one and another mundane sounding group has gone bad at the same time.. but that's usenet..
Neil Brooks - 31 Dec 2005 01:43 GMT >>>>"It does not seem that you are being very supportive." >>>> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >This group has gone bad.. weird how this one and another mundane >sounding group has gone bad at the same time.. but that's usenet.. I felt a little badly after my post. I over-reacted. I'm giving the few remaining docs who dare to visit this forum a good deal of slack. The net loons have scared most of them off.
I apologize if I snapped, electronically, at you.
Housecleaning on s.m.v. is simple in theory, though not easy in practice.
 Signature Live simply so that others may simply live
Mike Tyner - 31 Dec 2005 00:41 GMT > When you do your work, do you care for the people you work with or do > you just see them as eyes that need fixing? I'm guessing the latter > because you sure as hell don't have a clue about the former. <sarcasm> Actually we see them as bottomless wallets, shelling out for visit after visit to monitor our unproven myopia treatment techniques. </sarcasm>
-MT
Dan Abel - 31 Dec 2005 01:52 GMT > > You have arrived at > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > > alt.support.myopia
> When you do your work, do you care for the people you work with or do > you just see them as eyes that need fixing? I'm guessing the latter > because you sure as hell don't have a clue about the former. I don't know how closely you have been following all these threads, but when I give out free advice, and people don't listen, and then they tell *me* how to do my job when they have no clue and admit to it, then it is time to switch the subject.
When somebody is doing their "work", things are different. They are getting paid for it, and they put up with a lot more crap.
 Signature Dan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA
Ann - 31 Dec 2005 02:11 GMT >> > You have arrived at >> > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >When somebody is doing their "work", things are different. They are >getting paid for it, and they put up with a lot more crap. I know.. but I work with a certain group of people and when I see people with similar difficulties being treated badly on usenet I don't like it. I suppose others don't recognise what they see but I see it so plainly and I can't do anything except not look which is not a satisfactory answer.
I guess that's too cryptic!
Dan Abel - 29 Dec 2005 22:07 GMT > > The 14 year old abberrated "presbyope" from hell. > > The doc might have to schedule more than 30 minutes? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Wouldn't you be interested to find out more about it, even if you > can't figure it out right away? Let me quote from the original post in this thread:
"3. Whats your stance on contact lenses, including RGP and orthoK?
4. If someone asked you if he should consider laser refractive surgury, whats your stance and opinion on this?
5. What amount of magnification does this +90 diopter lense give? I am also very curious the effects of placing that in front of your eye since your eyeball is about +60 diopters, that lense would cause an image to focus way in front of your retina, in fact the focus point would be outside your eyeball! How high can plus lenses get and would the focus come in front of the plus lense itself if high enough?
6. How high can myopia get? I have heard a few reports of -100s on the internet and of one guy who was a -96 then a year later he progressed to -104!
7. I will think of more questions. Any of you have stuff I should ask him?"
You'll notice I snipped #1 and #2. That's because they were about Ace. The rest of these aren't. Perhaps you are correct, and it is just poor communication. Perhaps he meant that he was going to ask, "What should *I* do?", but that isn't what they say.
 Signature Dan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA
Dick Adams - 29 Dec 2005 23:56 GMT > Let me quote from the original post in this thread: > [ 5 of seven question Ace proposed to ask his optometrist ]
> You'll notice I snipped #1 and #2. That's because they were about Ace. > The rest of these aren't. Perhaps you are correct, and it is just poor > communication. Perhaps he meant that he was going to ask, "What should > *I* do?", but that isn't what they say. Maybe his optometrist can figure it out.
Can't figure why this thread got Dr. Stacy's fanny so far out.
-- Dicky
William Stacy - 30 Dec 2005 01:46 GMT >Can't figure why this thread got Dr. Stacy's fanny so far out. > > It wasn't this thread alone; I'm just completely tired of discussing myopia prevention. It is a proper topic for discussion here, of course, but I'm really annoyed by the incessant and mindless repetitions of archaic mantras by certain posters together with the nearly as repetitive responses from legitimate sources, which have once again come to dominate this little corner of the internet. Therefore, I've decided to completely ignore the threads that are related to this topic (excepting maybe those that come from NEW posters). So that's my new year's resolution, and maybe it will also help keep me from getting into so many little nasty exchanges with complete strangers (as well as free up some time!).
w.stacy, o.d.
Neil Brooks - 30 Dec 2005 01:51 GMT >>Can't figure why this thread got Dr. Stacy's fanny so far out. >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >so many little nasty exchanges with complete strangers (as well as free >up some time!). I keep hoping to be the lightning rod, freeing up the OD's and MD's to take good care of the legitimate posters with their legitimate concerns.
As somebody (Dr. G, perhaps) pointed out: I derive great joy out of this, though I confess that when we get as outnumbered as I feel we are these days, even I begin to grow weary of the incessant inane chatter (even my own!).
Meanwhile, if--in the alluvium--you find something sincere or interesting, feel free to jump in. If it's nothing but the usual bull$hit, though ... leave it to me. I was born for this [cracking knuckles...].
The doctors who frequent this site--as I've said many times--are really quite meritorious for their contributions here. Leave yourselves unsullied. Stay out of the mud with the likes of Dear, Sweet Uncle Otie.
I'll set the pick. Y'all just drive toward the ocular net....
Meanwhile, etch this picture into your respective minds:
http://nbeener.com/Otis_Brown_BARS.bmp
 Signature Live simply so that others may simply live
Quick - 30 Dec 2005 09:02 GMT >>> Can't figure why this thread got Dr. Stacy's fanny so >>> far out. [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > I'll set the pick. Y'all just drive toward the ocular > net.... Yes... everyone agreed to try this months ago... and the saying goes something like "don't wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty but the pigs like it".
-Quick
Dan Abel - 30 Dec 2005 09:11 GMT > > contributions here. Leave yourselves unsullied. Stay > > out of the mud with the likes of Dear, Sweet Uncle Otie. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > and the saying goes something like "don't wrestle > with pigs. You both get dirty but the pigs like it". Not to be picky, but I like:
Don't wrestle with pigs. The pig will win, you'll get dirty and the pig likes it.
Still, even though I like this and use it on newsgroups, I don't think it applies here.
 Signature Dan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA
acemanvx@yahoo.com - 30 Dec 2005 15:28 GMT This ophthmalogist happens to be a friend of ours and a really nice guy too. He did not mind the questions I asked him. Theres alot I can learn about my eyes and vision in general from him. Like for example, while unusual, 23 year olds can have presbyopia. Also alot of people dont correct to 20/20, doesnt mean theres any pathalogies, just that their optics arent perfect.
Otis, ive heard of several cases being more than -23. Ive heard two or three being in the triple digits! One of them had -104 diopters! LOL he would be your worst nightmare of abuse of minus lense! Imagine getting worse from -96 to -104 diopters in 1 year! How fast can myopia progress in a year? You said most people go down by 1/2 diopter but whats the worst case you know, Otis? As for the retina, all myopes are at increased risk and have to watch out for signs of trouble.
No one commented on the fact my cyclopentolate left +1.25 diopter residual accomodation. Should I be having NO accomodation when cycoplegized with this agent?
Dr. Leukoma - 30 Dec 2005 15:35 GMT > This ophthmalogist happens to be a friend of ours and a really nice guy > too. He did not mind the questions I asked him. Theres alot I can learn > about my eyes and vision in general from him. Like for example, while > unusual, 23 year olds can have presbyopia. Also alot of people dont > correct to 20/20, doesnt mean theres any pathalogies, just that their > optics arent perfect. So your ophthalmologist says that a 23 year old can suffer from the same mechanism at that which causes prebyopia in a 50 year/old?
Just FYI, the cycloplegic and manifest refractions are typically the same in a 50 y/o patient. A difference of 1.25 diopters does not indicate presbyopia.
DrG
acemanvx@yahoo.com - 30 Dec 2005 15:45 GMT What I meant is I have an accomodative amplitude of +2.5 diopters but the cyclopegia reduced my ability to accomodate by +1.25 diopters. I could still accomodate but only half the amplitude. I had a near point test and was seeing 20/50 with my glasses. If I had a high accomodative amplitude I theoratically should be seeing 20/20 near point. However my accomodation is not good anymore.
acemanvx@yahoo.com - 30 Dec 2005 15:47 GMT by the way, my near point vision of 20/50 was with the card held about 10" away and that was before I got cyclopegized. It was also used with -4.25 glasses which slightly undercorrected me
Dr. Leukoma - 30 Dec 2005 16:03 GMT Sorry, Ace. I misread your original narrative, and so I went back. I see that your ophthalmologist did NOT do a cycloplegic refraction, and so the question still hasn't been settled. I almost always perform a cycloplegic refraction, when I dilate, especially if there is any question.
An accommodative amp. of 1.25 under cycloplegia indicates incomplete cycloplegia, but does NOT indicate presbyopia. If your normal amp. is low, even without cycloplegia, I would call it accommodative insufficiency, and ask you certain questions about your medical history, including childhood febrile or viral illnesses. You don't have presbyopia, and that term is not appropriate for a 25 y/o.
DrG
acemanvx@yahoo.com - 30 Dec 2005 16:39 GMT I would of thought cyclopentolate was pretty complete! I therefore have more than -.5 diopters of pseudomyopia because the incomplete cyclopegia only uncovered some of my pseudomyopia. I wouldnt be supprised if I had -1.5 diopters of pseudomyopia. My ophthamologist just said theres nothing he can do about my conditions except look into my eyes which he did and saw no pathalogies. He said my myopia and presbyopia can be corrected with glasses, preferabily I get progressive glasses. What should I tell him now? "I dont have presbyopia" when he diagnosized me with presbyopia and said I do? Am I to argue with him?
Dr. Leukoma - 30 Dec 2005 16:45 GMT If you can accommodate under cycloplegia, then the cycloplegia is incomplete, I don't care what agent was used.
We're only quibbling over terms, but the results similar. You can argue with him if you want, I don't care. Prebyopia means "old eyes." Why don't you look up accommodative insufficiency?
DrG
acemanvx@yahoo.com - 30 Dec 2005 16:58 GMT Well I went to the ophthamologist looking for answers. What is he supposed to do about my accomodative insufficiency? Does the fact I got an incomplete cycloplegia give any clues to my condition?
Neil Brooks - 30 Dec 2005 17:18 GMT >Well I went to the ophthamologist looking for answers. What is he >supposed to do about my accomodative insufficiency? Does the fact I got >an incomplete cycloplegia give any clues to my condition? Dear Ace-
Communication--by definition--is a combination of talking and *listening*.
You have exhibited mastery of half of this equation: talking.
As others have pointed out here: you ask questions--sometimes *good* questions, then summarily ignore the answers. Hmm. Why?
Old saying for you: a wise man can learn from a fool, but a fool cannot learn from a wise man.
Sounds to me like you have some pseudomyopia. Sounds to me like (again: I'm not a docotor) a drop of Homatropine might be indicated in an effort to fully cycloplege you. Sounds to me like Dr. G. is giving you good advice.....
 Signature Live simply so that others may simply live
William Stacy - 30 Dec 2005 16:51 GMT You don't
> have presbyopia, and that term is not appropriate for a 25 y/o. Agreed, unless he also has progeria...
Dr. Leukoma - 30 Dec 2005 17:28 GMT Absolutely. A complete medical history would be nice. I think he says he doesn't drive, either, which makes me wonder.
DrG
otisbrown@pa.net - 30 Dec 2005 17:00 GMT Dear Ace,
Subject: Some commentry on -1/2 diopter per year, induced first by the "kids" bad reading habit, and then by an over-prescribed minus.
Ace> Otis, ive heard of several cases being more than -23. Ive heard two or three being in the triple digits! One of them had -104 diopters! LOL he
would be your worst nightmare of abuse of minus lense! Imagine getting worse from -96 to -104 diopters in 1 year! How fast can myopia progress
in a year?
Otis> The AVERAGE for the entire group of chidren wearing the minus was -1/2 diopter per year. No doubt some were going down at a much faster rate (of -1 to -1.5 diopters per year) while some at a rage of -0.25 diopters per year.
Ace> You said most people go down by 1/2 diopter but whats the worst case you know, Otis?
Otis> Probably about -1.5 diopter per year on a very young child.
Ace> As for the retina, all myopes are at increased risk and have to watch out for signs of trouble.
Otis> Absolutly. That was what I became concerned with when I was 16 years old -- and "cut back" on my over-prescribed minus. I never wanted to get "down" to -10 diopters!!!
Ace> No one commented on the fact my cyclopentolate left +1.25 diopter
residual accomodation.
Otis> It can be difficult to create a "dead" eye with a paralyzing drug. This could be the case with you.
Ace> Should I be having NO accomodation when cycoplegized with this agent?
Otis> That depends on the judgment of the man who put the "drops" in your eyes.
Best,
Otis
Neil Brooks - 30 Dec 2005 17:23 GMT >Ace> No one commented on the fact my cyclopentolate left +1.25 diopter > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Otis> That depends on the judgment of the man >who put the "drops" in your eyes. Ace: please ignore Otis. He tends to be a bit of an idiot on things like this.
It actually depends on age, gender, ciliary tone, iris color, and the strength of the cycloplegic agent instilled. *These* factors are what the doctor considers when using cycloplegia.
 Signature Live simply so that others may simply live
Dan Abel - 29 Dec 2005 22:52 GMT > The 14 year old abberrated "presbyope" from hell. > > The doc might have to schedule more than 30 minutes? My experience has been that doctors will answer a couple of "gee whiz" questions. After that, it depends on their schedule. If they have a waiting room full of patients, that's it.
Same thing with multiple subjects. At some point, it's time for a separate appointment, either with them or someone else.
Want advice on RGPs or orthoK? Make an appointment with the contact lens fitter (I'm assuming that's correct).
They are also good at redirecting and focusing. If the patient wants to find out everything the doctor knows about LASIK, then the doctor turns it around by asking if the patient is thinking about it. If not, then no talk. If Aunt Hilda is thinking about it, well she needs to make an appointment.
My HMO has a policy of one subject, one appointment. If you want to talk about three things, then you need three appointments. I've never been held to that, and I doubt that most are. Still, there are those with a laundry list of petty questions. If they have to make multiple appointments (suffering multiple waits) and pay multiple copays, then perhaps they will pare down their list.
 Signature Dan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA
otisbrown@pa.net - 30 Dec 2005 03:07 GMT Dear Ace,
Subject: Diopter measurement standard.
Re: Average refractive power of the natural eye is about 60 diopters with a "length" of about 2.4 cm.
A very strong myopia will be about -10 diopters. I have heard of -23 diopters. I think the eye would tear itself apart beyond that point.
The probability of the retina "floating" lose (i.e., detached retina) goes up rapidly much beyond -6 diopters.
As you get older, look for "flashes" of light, or "curved" lines -- when you know they are straight. Be perepared for this. Call an ophthalmologist and have this checked. The consequence of ignoring these symptons can be serious.
Best,
Otis
_______________
6. How high can myopia get? I have heard a few reports of -100s on the internet and of one guy who was a -96 then a year later he progressed to -104!
|
|
|