 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / May 2007Is this a significant Rx change for 2 years?
All, Every few years my distance vision gets a bit worse, and I usually get a new set of glasses with stronger Rx. I am 24, and thus far there is no sign that my vision is going to stabilize. Im a bit worried that if things keep going like this, I will eventually not be able to correct my vision. My previous Rx (from 2 years ago): OD: -2.25 (sphere), -2.00 (cyl), 114 (axis) OS: -1.50 (sphere), -2.00 (cyl), 077 (axis) My new Rx: OD: -3.75 (sphere), -1.75 (cyl), 119 (axis) OS: -2.75 (sphere), -1.75 (cyl), 081 (axis) Does the above change seem significant for a 2 year timeframe? Thanks, Relax, your vision will stabilize in a few years. I had the same changes from seventeen thru twenty eight. The only way you won't be able to be corrected is if you poke your eyes out. At your age, it is not a significant change. > Relax, your vision will stabilize in a few years. I had the same > changes from seventeen thru twenty eight. The only way you won't be > able to be corrected is if you poke your eyes out. > At your age, it is not a significant change. How do you know it will stabilize? How old are you and how long have you been stabilized? On May 2, 9:25 pm, cda...@directflatscreen.tv wrote: > How do you know it will stabilize? Experience. >How old are you and how long have > you been stabilized? Mid forties and since I was about twenty eight. On May 2, 8:13 pm, bugman1...@gmail.com wrote: > All, > Every few years my distance vision gets a bit worse, and I usually get > a new set of glasses with stronger Rx. I am 24, and thus far there is > no sign that my vision is going to stabilize. Im a bit worried that > if things keep going like this, I will eventually not be able to > correct my vision. Not an unusual change for 2 years, though more common in younger people. No need to worry that you will not be able to correct your vision. You have a moderate prescription, many people have prescriptions two to five times stronger than yours and still have perfect 20/20 vision corrected. Some people have prescriptions up to -20 and still have good vision. No one goes blind from increasing refractive error. Dr Judy > My previous Rx (from 2 years ago): > OD: -2.25 (sphere), -2.00 (cyl), 114 (axis) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Thanks, >On May 2, 8:13 pm, bugman1...@gmail.com wrote: >> All, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Not an unusual change for 2 years, though more common in younger >people. Judy, If I had a client like the above, and I suspected that their exam might not have been as comprehensive as it should have been, should I consider recommending a visit with a corneal specialist? Thanks Robert Martellaro ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Optician/Owner Roberts Optical Wauwatosa Wi. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself." - Richard Feynman > If I had a client like the above, and I suspected that their exam might not have > been as comprehensive as it should have been, should I consider recommending a > visit with a corneal specialist? Given that there was no change in cyl and only a change in myopia, I would not suspect a corneal problem. If he complained of blurred vision with the new Rx, you could send for a second opinion with an optometrist you trust, but I don't think a corneal specialist is called for. Dr Judy >> If I had a client like the above, and I suspected that their exam might not have >> been as comprehensive as it should have been, should I consider recommending a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Dr Judy Good to know. I don't see many twenty something clients, and I was thinking that this degree of change towards more minus past the growth years might be a red flag. Regards Robert Martellaro ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Optician/Owner Roberts Optical Wauwatosa Wi. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself." - Richard Feynman > >> If I had a client like the above, and I suspected that their exam might not have > >> been as comprehensive as it should have been, should I consider recommending a [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Robert Martellaro The above posts are a prime example of the danger of internet diagnoses. People should always be examined by a qualified physician directly. You'll always get conflicting advice over the internet. On May 2, 8:13 pm, bugman1...@gmail.com wrote: > All, > Every few years my distance vision gets a bit worse, and I usually get [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Thanks, that is really not very unusual, rate of change will surely decrease. might not change anymore either. > All, > Every few years my distance vision gets a bit worse, and I usually get [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Thanks, Yeah, it is significant, though maybe not actually alarming. You'll always be able to correct your vision but still it's not great to be increasingly myopic. Do you have a family history of myopia, or do you spend a lot of time reading or using a computer? Dom > bugman1...@gmail.com wrote: > > All, [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Both parents and sides of the family wear glasses/contacts. I spend a considerable amount of time using a computer. 8+ hours a day at work, and then several more hours a day at home. I can easily average 10 hours or more a day. Well, the explains it. On May 5, 10:19 pm, bugman1...@gmail.com wrote: > > bugman1...@gmail.com wrote: > > > All, [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > - Show quoted text - On May 11, 9:10 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Well, the explains it. What, no plus prevention on the staircase ? > On May 11, 9:10 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > >> Well, the explains it. > > What, no plus prevention on the staircase ? No, but I can't avoid thinking one of the brats should have left a rollerskate there.  SignatureNicolaas. 2007 Pricelessware CD now available. 600Mb of the best of the best in Freeware. E-Mail me for details. ... There are rhythms in the world waiting for words to be written to them." > > On May 11, 9:10 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > No, but I can't avoid thinking one of the brats should have left a > rollerskate there. Or maybe they did, maybe they did. :) >Well, the explains it. (trimmed) >> > > My previous Rx (from 2 years ago): >> > > OD: -2.25 (sphere), -2.00 (cyl), 114 (axis) [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >> >> - Show quoted text - Practically, you have a long way to go before your myopia ceases to be correctable with glasses. I am now -18D or so, and beginning to find that opticians are having to work hard. I can read and drive perfectly well. (I am 44, having had glasses since 11 or earlier). Theoretically, I find this somewhat discouraging. A large modern flat panel display looks a lot less like near work than pen and paper. Consider (1) Adjustable font sizes and large screen mean that a larger working distance is possible (extreme example: computer projector!) (2) Higher contrast possible than ink on paper. (3) Back lighting means it is always well lit. I think even (especially) the cynics will agree that there is an experiment waiting to happen here. I would bet money that if you did a big enough clinical trial on the effects of substituting good modern computer display screens for pen and paper you would find a statistically significant difference in favour of the computer screen. (I would NOT bet on whether it would be practically relevant). Those magic words (statistically significant) should a good number of whichever computer screen you happened to use in the study. Now consider that the Asian tiger economies are simultaneously centres of myopia, myopia research, and electronics manufacture. Question: can anybody think of a way of demonstrating this sort of difference with an animal model? SignatureA.G.McDowell |
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.