Sorry, I forgot to mention, my son has no squint with this condition.
LG - 13 Jul 2006 22:45 GMT
I would also be prepared to travel with my son to London or within 2
hours drive if anybody knows where I might find an expert in this field.
Dom - 14 Jul 2006 11:22 GMT
> I would also be prepared to travel with my son to London or within 2
> hours drive if anybody knows where I might find an expert in this field.
Can't vouch for any particular individual on this link but I'd imagine
that most of them would be comfortable to take on your son's case:
http://www.babo.co.uk/memberlist.html
I agree with the other posters that full-time glasses, or better still
contact lenses, in conjunction with patching is well worth trying. Maybe
wearing the specs(CLs) for a month or so initially to get a baseline
before starting patching.
Don't feel too guilty about not realising your son had this problem as
you weren't the first parent and won't be the last to assume that
everything's OK in the absence of any signs or symptoms. As long as your
son doesn't dream of being a RAF fighter pilot or opening bat for the
English cricket team, it won't affect his life too much. More people
than you might realise are amblyopic. Apart from the immediate actions
already discussed, the best thing you can do for him in the medium term
is to be aware of eye protection for sports, kids games, and other
potentially hazardous situations.
Dom
LG - 14 Jul 2006 13:01 GMT
. Apart from the immediate actions
> already discussed, the best thing you can do for him in the medium term
> is to be aware of eye protection for sports, kids games, and other
> potentially hazardous situations.
>
> Dom
Thanks for the kind words; well I have bought him protective sports
goggles last week so I have done something right.
Many thanks for the link - it will be very useful. Do you think a
behavioural optomotrist is better than an opthalmologist and/or
orthoptist in my son's case? I don't really understand the difference.
Dom - 14 Jul 2006 15:05 GMT
> . Apart from the immediate actions
>> already discussed, the best thing you can do for him in the medium term
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> behavioural optomotrist is better than an opthalmologist and/or
> orthoptist in my son's case? I don't really understand the difference.
It's a huge oversimplification with many exceptions, but optometrists
specialise in vision, and ophthalmologists specialise in medical
conditions of the eyes.
For your son I think it's not so important whether optometrist vs.
ophthalmologist, but that whoever you see has a special interest in kids
vision and has experience in amblyopia treatment. Each profession has
some members who are great with kids and others who admit that they'd
rather not see any kids in their practice at all.
Dom
LG - 14 Jul 2006 16:25 GMT
> It's a huge oversimplification with many exceptions, but optometrists
> specialise in vision, and ophthalmologists specialise in medical
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> some members who are great with kids and others who admit that they'd
> rather not see any kids in their practice at all.
Thanks Dom for clearing that one up - you've been really helpful!
On 7/13/06 2:39 PM, in article
1152826751.089325.283830@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com, "LG"
<lesley@goetz.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
> My son, aged 11, has only recently (in the last 2 weeks) been diagnosed
> with Amblyopia. He has excellent (6/4.5) vision in his left eye but is
[quoted text clipped - 45 lines]
> with -2.5 astigmatism correction. His actual longsightedness I am told
> is actually +5.00. His good eye prescription is plano.) Many thanks.
Amblyopia diagnosis is based on the best corrected vision. The amblyopic eye
here is 6/12 (or 20/40 in US terms). The other eye is about 20/15.
This does not constitute bad amblyopia, and may explain his relatively good
stereo vision. If the eye was 20/100 or 20/200, the stereo would be much
worse.
The latest studies on amblyopia (see the PEDIG study reports in
ophthalmology) in kids even up to age 17 show that some improvement can be
obtained in the older age group. His age of 11 is still at the younger end
of the previously "unpatchable" ages range. Ie: we didn't used to patch over
age 8. Now most of us go to age 10, and I have patched an 11 year old with
good outcome. Of course, if the amblyopia is severe, the chances are
smaller. But if starting with a 20/20 eye, I think he may have a reasonable
chance of improvement. Since it has been this long, waiting a couple of
months to see if there is some change just with the lasses alone is probably
OK. Patching does not HAVE to start ASAP. I would not wait too long (more
than 6 months) however.
Atropine penalization may be useful here, because the amblyopia is not
severe, and getting an 11 year old to patch is hard. At least the atropine
can give him some treatment while in school, etc., and you could add patch
at home after school. It will take a longer time that in younger kids, but
you have to stay on it and watch. If no change is 6 months of
atropine/patch, tehn I'd probably give up. But if it is improving, then keep
it up until there is no more evidence of gain for at least several months.
In any case, the people who told you flat-out he cannot be treated are
probably mistaken. I don't have many contacts in England, but I do know
David Taylor in London, a well-known pediatric ophthalmologist.
David Robins, MD
Board certified Ophthalmologist
Pediatric ophthalmology and adult strabismus subspecialty
LG - 14 Jul 2006 16:41 GMT
> This does not constitute bad amblyopia, and may explain his relatively good
> stereo vision. If the eye was 20/100 or 20/200, the stereo would be much
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> probably mistaken. I don't have many contacts in England, but I do know
> David Taylor in London, a well-known pediatric ophthalmologist.
Thanks David, this has all been so reassuring to hear!