 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / January 2006Retained, subluxated cataract fragment
More of the eye saga. . .It's been ten weeks tomorrow since my botched cataract surgery. I consulted a retinal specialist and was told about the piece of my old lens left in the vitreous humor. If you look closely, the fragment is clearly visible through the paralyzed pupil. My question is this: how long does it take, generally, for these pieces to be reabsorbed by the body? I have downloaded several medical articles on this topic, but I have to read them with a medical dictionary right at hand, and even then, they are rough going. A little clarification, if anyone can help . . .thanks, Melinda > My question is this: how long does it take, generally, for these pieces > to be reabsorbed by the body? Who says they will reabsorb? I don't see how the body can reabsorb them without a nasty invasion of phagocytic white blood cells, which aren't normally present in vitreous. Lens fragments are commonly left on the posterior capsule after surgery. Over time they turn opaque and must be moved out of the way by laser capsulotomy. -MT On 1/2/06 1:35 AM, in article At6uf.1397$%W1.1262@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net, "Mike Tyner" <mtyner@mindspring.com> wrote: >> My question is this: how long does it take, generally, for these pieces >> to be reabsorbed by the body? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > -MT Small pieces of lens, if it is cortex, (less than 1/4 of the nucleus) can be watched, treated with steroids if necessary, but often do absorb over time. Generally well tolerated, but in some there is enough inflammation to require remvoing it. A fragment of nucleus, however, is much harder and generally won't resorb, unless it is a tiny chip,not a piece of nucleus. Generally are removed surgically. Thanks for everyone's input. . .it sounds as though I need to find out whether the fragment is nucleus or cortex to better understand whether I can afford to "watch" this thing or must have it out immediately. I say "immediately," but it's been 9 weeks since surgery as of yesterday. Melinda > On 1/2/06 1:35 AM, in article > At6uf.1397$%W1.1262@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net, "Mike Tyner" [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > unless it is a tiny chip,not a piece of nucleus. Generally are removed > surgically. > the piece of my old lens left in the vitreous humor. If you look > closely, the fragment is clearly visible through the paralyzed pupil. > My question is this: how long does it take, generally, for these pieces > to be reabsorbed by the body? I have downloaded several medical I'm just guessing here, but how long was that lens in your eye before the surgery? Why should the body suddenly decide to absorb it? It's a part of your eye even if it isn't functional anymore, and your body doesn't know to get rid of it now. I had a retinal detachment, and the doctor explained that not only does the body not recycle the blood floating around inside my eye, it actually feeds it and keeps it alive, until it deposits somewhere, causes scar tissue, and then causes another detachment!  SignatureDan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA On 1/2/06 11:06 AM, in article dabel-325A52.11061002012006@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net, "Dan Abel" <dabel@sonic.net> wrote: >> the piece of my old lens left in the vitreous humor. If you look >> closely, the fragment is clearly visible through the paralyzed pupil. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > actually feeds it and keeps it alive, until it deposits somewhere, > causes scar tissue, and then causes another detachment! Dan - Strangest explanation I have ever heard - feeds it and keeps it alive, causing scar tissue. Hemorrhages in the vitreous, anyway, do resorb - the blood breaks down and goes away. May take up to several months. Generally harmless, and the standard of care in treating moderate vitreous hemorrhages is to let it reabsorb. Sub-retianl blood may reabsorb also, but it is inflammatory, and may cause scarring. Perhaps that is what he was referring to. > On 1/2/06 11:06 AM, in article > dabel-325A52.11061002012006@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net, "Dan Abel" > <dabel@sonic.net> wrote: > > I had a retinal detachment, and the doctor explained that not only does > > the body not recycle the blood floating around inside my eye, it [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Sub-retianl blood may reabsorb also, but it is inflammatory, and may cause > scarring. Perhaps that is what he was referring to. It was a lot of years ago, and my memory fades and changes over time. I do remember that it wasn't a problem for me, whatever it was, just a potential problem. After the initial repair, my followup was mostly done by my regular OMD. There was one small problem, and he sent me to the Kaiser eye clinic in San Francisco to see a retinal specialist. She did an extensive exam, and then a laser treatment to seal things up. It was pretty funny, really. Kaiser has their own weird ways of doing things, and this was her first day on the job. SignatureDan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA > More of the eye saga. . .It's been ten weeks tomorrow since my botched > cataract surgery. I consulted a retinal specialist and was told about [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > dictionary right at hand, and even then, they are rough going. A little > clarification, if anyone can help . . .thanks, Melinda It won't "reabsorb". Get the damned thing out of there. There is no mechanism for reabsorption of a large lens fragment and it will only do harm. w.stacy, o.d. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.