Start with full time glasses and see how he does. I think part time
patching of the good eye might be helpful, even at his age, but just
when doing things where he doesn't need sharp vision (like tv watching),
but only when wearing his Rx!
Consider a contact lens as soon as he seriously wants them.
w.stacy, o.d.
>> My son, aged 11, has only recently (in the last 2 weeks) been diagnosed
>> with Amblyopia.
I agree with Dr. Stacy. Full time correction and part-time patching,
contacts (likely just the right eye) as soon as he's able.
I think it's important to know how well your son sees in stereo. It's very
likely, since he has no squint, that he can appreciate a 3-D movie or a
stereogram. Stereo vision (stereopsis) is pretty tolerant of the blur of
amblyopia. Most of these kids (20/40 best corrected) have better than 100
arc-seconds of stereo.
Most practitioners would agree it's going to be hard to improve the
corrected acuity. But you owe it to yourself to google "Stereo Sue." Stereo
vision is more "recoverable" than amblyopic blur, so I think it's important
that he wear correction for the right eye, whether or not the best corrected
acuity improves over time.
As such, it may be less important to patch him (treating amblyopia while
hindering stereo vision) and more important to give him good binocular
vision and let him use it in real space. Sports like tennis or even
billiards will exercise and train stereo vision. Video games would not.
Video monitors can be made to simulate stereo, and "used under a doctor's
supervision" for a considerable fee, but I'm not convinced the "therapy"
environment is any better than real-world, real-stereo life.
Stereo Sue said she cried, standing in the middle of the first snowstorm
after "learning" to see in stereo. Her optometrist, Dr. Theresa Ruggiero,
reportedly began with a "brock string", a simple yard-long string with three
colored beads. I'm not yet convinced it takes a lot of special training or
apparatus.
-MT, OD
>> 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.
LG - 14 Jul 2006 07:55 GMT
> I think it's important to know how well your son sees in stereo.
I have tested my son with magic eye 3D pictures and he can see them
both with and without his glasses. I presume this must be an indication
of stereo vision since you can't see them with only one eye. I am
amazed he can see them with only 20% vision in the poor eye. Do you
think practicisng with them regularly will help his vision?
Mark A - 14 Jul 2006 08:19 GMT
> I have tested my son with magic eye 3D pictures and he can see them
> both with and without his glasses. I presume this must be an indication
> of stereo vision since you can't see them with only one eye. I am
> amazed he can see them with only 20% vision in the poor eye. Do you
> think practicisng with them regularly will help his vision?
As someone who has amblyopia, I can tell you that even with a fairly severe
case (20/200+ in bad eye), some stereo vision is present.
When performing certain eye exercises past a certain age, there may be a
risk of causing your child to be cross-eyed or other similar condition . I
am not saying that 11 years is past that age (since I am not qualified to
say), but I would only do what a licensed professional (OD or MD) told me
was OK for my child. I also would not take advise from someone who has not
personally examined my child and is able to monitor his progress.
Mike Tyner - 14 Jul 2006 13:49 GMT
> I have tested my son with magic eye 3D pictures and he can see them
> both with and without his glasses. I presume this must be an indication
> of stereo vision since you can't see them with only one eye.
It sure is, and it's a very good sign.
> I am
> amazed he can see them with only 20% vision in the poor eye.
I think you've misinterpreted the numbers. The "percent" scale can be
confusing. You're hearing "20% vision" where I'm pretty sure they mean "20%
reduction." Big difference.
> Do you
> think practicisng with them regularly will help his vision?
Welllll... yes but so would any other real-life task involving stereo
vision.
-MT
LG - 14 Jul 2006 14:13 GMT
> > I am
> > amazed he can see them with only 20% vision in the poor eye.
>
> I think you've misinterpreted the numbers. The "percent" scale can be
> confusing. You're hearing "20% vision" where I'm pretty sure they mean "20%
> reduction." Big difference.
Oh, Ok...I was told his vision without glasses was 6/30 (or 20%) and
6/12 (or 50%) without. Now I am more confused!
Mike Tyner - 14 Jul 2006 14:53 GMT
> Oh, Ok...I was told his vision without glasses was 6/30 (or 20%) and
> 6/12 (or 50%) without. Now I am more confused!
The Snellen fraction (6/12) doesn't translate to a percentage of visual
ability.
A person without glasses could easily be 6/1200 and still be perfectly
healthy, so the "6/30" is only an indication that he's farsighted.
The 6/12 is significant because it indicates the state of his physiology,
when the farsightedness is corrected.
In the US, "percent" measures of vision are only used by lawyers and
beurocrats. Pull up this link:
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/disability/professionals/bluebook/2.00-SpecialSens
esandSpeech-Adult.htm
for a description of visual _disability_ based on snellen acuity. Scroll way
down to a table under section 2.09 and you'll see that 6/12 corrected vision
is considered "85% visual efficiency" by our Social Security administration.
-MT
LG - 14 Jul 2006 16:22 GMT
> The Snellen fraction (6/12) doesn't translate to a percentage of visual
> ability.
I think my optician was trying to simplify the results for me by
quoting them as percentages. I went back to her to get the actual VA
results after doing the research on the internet. I'll just stick to
the VA results from now on!
> Pull up this link:
> http://www.socialsecurity.gov/disability/professionals/bluebook/2.00-SpecialSens
esandSpeech-Adult.htm
> for a description of visual _disability_ based on snellen acuity. Scroll way
> down to a table under section 2.09 and you'll see that 6/12 corrected vision
> is considered "85% visual efficiency" by our Social Security administration.
Does the 85% mean he has 85% vision (after correction) in the poor eye
working alone or in both eyes working together?