 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / January 2007Questions about recent prescription
I've been wearing the same pair of prescription glasses for the past 5 years and have noticed no real significant changes in that time. When examined by an O.D. in December 2001 I was prescribed the following which I still wear to this day: SPH. CYL. AXIS O.D. -225 -75 105 O.S. -250 -75 095 In December 2005 I went to a different O.D. for a way overdue exam. He prescribed: SPH. CYL. AXIS O.D. -2.50 -1.25 095 O.S. -2.50 -1.00 085 This doctor told me that the changes were pretty minor and that I would only notice a slight difference. So I passed on getting new lenses at that time. Then 7 months later, in July 2006 I was exposed to a fiber optic cable at work. My co-worker plugged in the other end of the cable while I was removing the protective covering on the other end. At most I was exposed for maybe a second or two and wasn't seeing spots or anything so I figured there was no damage. I did however go to an M.D. for a precautionary exam and thankfully there was no damage done. At that same time I also asked the doctor for an eye exam. This doctor prescribed: SPH. CYL. AXIS O.D. -350 1.00 15 O.S. -375 1.25 04 Now I'll admit I have no clue as to what these numbers mean but this third prescription just looks way out of line considering I haven't noticed any major changes in my vision even with 5 year old glasses. Is this kind of change possible within the span of only 7 months from the previous exam? Also, I've been recently shopping around for a new pair of glasses that are preferably frameless. At a few places where I've shown my latest prescription I have been told that it is a pretty high prescription and that the thickness of the lenses may be a problem for frameless glasses. So do I trust the prescription by the M.D. or should I just go back to an O.D. and get another exam? Thanks Dear G17, Go back to the OD for another refractive check. Otis > I've been wearing the same pair of prescription glasses for the past 5 > years and have noticed no real significant changes in that time. When [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > Thanks Disregard what our resident quack said. The m.d. Rx is almost identical to the second o.d. Rx, just written in a different format. w.stacy, o.d. > I've been wearing the same pair of prescription glasses for the past 5 > years and have noticed no real significant changes in that time. When [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > Thanks snip... > Now I'll admit I have no clue as to what these numbers mean but this > third prescription just looks way out of line considering I haven't [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > So do I trust the prescription by the M.D. or should I just go back to > an O.D. and get another exam? As an eyeglasses wearer I would agree that's a pretty big prescription change. If it were me I'd want to make sure it was correct before investing in new lenses and frames. > As an eyeglasses wearer I would agree that's a pretty big prescription > change. If it were me I'd want to make sure it was correct before investing > in new lenses and frames. O.D. -350 1.00 15 O.S. -375 1.25 04 The above, which is written in + cyl format, translates directly to R. -2.50 -1.00 x 105 L. -2.50 -1.25 x 94 which is not so much different from either of the o.d. Rxs: SPH. CYL. AXIS O.D. -225 -75 105 O.S. -250 -75 095 In December 2005 I went to a different O.D. for a way overdue exam. He prescribed: SPH. CYL. AXIS O.D. -2.50 -1.25 095 O.S. -2.50 -1.00 085 > O.D. -350 1.00 15 > O.S. -375 1.25 04 [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > O.D. -2.50 -1.25 095 > O.S. -2.50 -1.00 085 I would use the original Rx with the minus cyl format for the OD. There are many idiot dispensers who will assume the cyl should have had a minus sign and get it wrong. >O.D. -350 1.00 15 >O.S. -375 1.25 04 [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >O.D. -2.50 -1.25 095 >O.S. -2.50 -1.00 085 This makes things much clearer now. I did not realize prescriptions could be made into two different formats. Thanks for the help everyone. > I've been wearing the same pair of prescription glasses for the past 5 > years and have noticed no real significant changes in that time. When [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Is this kind of change possible within the span of only 7 months from > the previous exam? For some reason, probably historical, ODs write prescriptions with minus cylinder, and MDs write them with positive. There is an easy translation which somebody else already posted. If you have this filled, make sure the optician understands that it was written by an MD. > For some reason, probably historical, ODs write prescriptions with minus > cylinder, and MDs write them with positive. There is an easy > translation which somebody else already posted. If you have this > filled, make sure the optician understands that it was written by an MD. Almost, but not quite. It is partly historical, but many m.d.s write in - cyl just as some o.d.s write in + cyl. It's mostly to do with the kind of phoropter or refractor in their exam room. The older style of + cyl refractors actually have + cyl lenses in the toric lens wheel, and it's easier for the doc to just write off the machine rather than convert. Labs almost always convert to - cyl form because that's how most modern lens grinding is done. There are still some + cyl lens machines around (these grind the cyl on the FRONT (convex or +) surface whereas most modern lenses have the cyl on the BACK (concave or -) surface. One other reason some docs actually prefer the older method is that certain IOL calculations seem easier for them. Can't remember why, but I'm pretty sure it's true. w.stacy, o.d. > > For some reason, probably historical, ODs write prescriptions with minus > > cylinder, and MDs write them with positive. There is an easy > > translation which somebody else already posted. If you have this > > filled, make sure the optician understands that it was written by an MD. > > Almost, but not quite. It was an oversimplification. Why my old OD wrote my contact lens prescription with plus cyl and my glasses prescription with minus is beyond me. Why my old OD wrote my contact lens > prescription with plus cyl and my glasses prescription with minus is > beyond me. Now there's a mystery, since no CLs that I know of are specified that way. The only thing I can think of he has an old +cyl refractor in his CL exam room and is too lazy to do the conversion... > Why my old OD wrote my contact lens > > prescription with plus cyl and my glasses prescription with minus is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > way. The only thing I can think of he has an old +cyl refractor in his > CL exam room and is too lazy to do the conversion... I was mistaken. The box says the power is +1.75 and the cyl is -1.75. I am plano in both eyes, so I don't know what that means. > I was mistaken. The box says the power is +1.75 and the cyl is -1.75. > I am plano in both eyes, so I don't know what that means. It means the contact lens will have a power of +1.75 along whatever axis is specified, and 0.00 along the meridian that is at right angle to the axis. If you are 0.00 in both eyes with no astigmatism, these contact lenses are not yours, and I'd wonder why you have contacts at all. > > I was mistaken. The box says the power is +1.75 and the cyl is -1.75. > > I am plano in both eyes, so I don't know what that means. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > axis. If you are 0.00 in both eyes with no astigmatism, these contact > lenses are not yours, and I'd wonder why you have contacts at all. I have astigmatism. Here is my prescription from last October: OD +.25 +1.50 130 OS PL +.25 60 add of 2.25 OK then that CL is for the right eye, and the axis on it should be about 40 + or - 10 degrees or so, no? He is overcorrecting your astigmatism, with which I disagree. I'm wondering if you wouldn't be happier with a pair of glasses: R + 1.75 - 1.50 x 40 L + 0.25 - 0.25 x 150 add +2.25 in some kind of bifocal, trifocal or progressive. Why would you want to mess with contacts? If you really want to be free of glasses, you might try a +2.50 - 1.25 x 40 or so toric soft lens on that right eye, for a decent monovision deal, unless the corrected acuity on either eye is not up to par (20/20 or close to it), in which case don't bother. w.stacy, o.d. >>>I was mistaken. The box says the power is +1.75 and the cyl is -1.75. >>>I am plano in both eyes, so I don't know what that means. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > add of 2.25 > OK then that CL is for the right eye, and the axis on it should be about > 40 + or - 10 degrees or so, no? He is overcorrecting your astigmatism, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > acuity on either eye is not up to par (20/20 or close to it), in which > case don't bother. You hit the nail on the head. I'm not bothering. I've had a retinal detachment in the right eye, and have lost vision. I only use my left eye. I last used my contact in October. I wore it infrequently for the last three years. It just doesn't help my vision. I have 20/20 vision in the left eye. I am heavily dependent on OTC reading glasses (I have IOLs in both eyes). I plan to try the contact again sometime in the next few months. I have glasses. My cataract surgeries were five years apart. I used contacts in between. I was plano in the right eye, and -10 in the left. Glasses were not a plan. I only use my left > eye. I last used my contact in October. I wore it infrequently for the > last three years. It just doesn't help my vision. I have 20/20 vision [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I plan to try the contact again sometime in the next few months. I have > glasses. I'm very puzzled as to why you would try it. It's not going to help, and might make things worse. > My cataract surgeries were five years apart. I used contacts in > between. I was plano in the right eye, and -10 in the left. Glasses > were not a plan. But now they should be. If you've only got one good eye, you need to protect it with a good pair of general wear glasses. Preferably in Trivex. You cannot affort to loose you left eye to an accident. Contacts should not be a plan. w.stacy, o.d. > I only use my left > > eye. I last used my contact in October. I wore it infrequently for the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I'm very puzzled as to why you would try it. It's not going to help, > and might make things worse. If I just wear it for one day, will it hurt? > > My cataract surgeries were five years apart. I used contacts in > > between. I was plano in the right eye, and -10 in the left. Glasses [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You cannot affort to loose you left eye to an accident. Contacts should > not be a plan. Contacts are not really a plan, just to try again. I should wear glasses, but I don't. I watched a demonstration on the campus I used to work at a few years ago. They were going to demolish some tvs. They were huge old clunkers and the students had some sledge hammers. I was horrified. One student (who I knew) wore lab glasses. The others had no glasses. > Contacts are not really a plan, just to try again. I should wear > glasses, but I don't. Here's the new plan: Throw out the contacts, case and all solutions, and never think about them again. And get a nice pair of Trivex lenses, either in a ft-28 bifocal or an ECP progressive, and wear them full time. > I watched a demonstration on the campus I used to work at a few years > ago. They were going to demolish some tvs. They were huge old clunkers > and the students had some sledge hammers. I was horrified. One student > (who I knew) wore lab glasses. The others had no glasses. Can you imagine getting into a car wreck with all that glass flying and having your only good eye unprotected? Gives me the creeps just thinking that you are. Think of it like having unprotected sex with the campus tramp. You might not catch something, but why risk it? > > Contacts are not really a plan, just to try again. I should wear > > glasses, but I don't. > > Here's the new plan: Throw out the contacts, case and all solutions, I only have one contact (it was a six pack originally). > and never think about them again. And get a nice pair of Trivex lenses, > either in a ft-28 bifocal or an ECP progressive, and wear them full time. Thanks for your concern. You are the fourth eye professional to suggest this. I should do this. I wore glasses for 35 years. I didn't like them. > > I watched a demonstration on the campus I used to work at a few years > > ago. They were going to demolish some tvs. They were huge old clunkers [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > thinking that you are. Think of it like having unprotected sex with the > campus tramp. You might not catch something, but why risk it? I just watched. I was at least a hundred feet away. I wasn't getting anywhere near that stuff. But those students wielding the sledge hammers were only a few feet away. I thought about calling the police. |
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
|
©2009 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.