FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Medicine forums » vision
Hyperopia plus amblyopia
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1 [15 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message
William Stacy
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 1177

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:48 pm    Post subject: Re: Hyperopia plus amblyopia Reply with quote

I agree with Rxing full plus, although I see this kind of "chicken"
underprescribing more from o.d.s than from omds, particularly pediatric
omds. So it begs the question, maybe they weren't so sure of their
original refraction and are "hedging" the bet. Whatever it is, I'd have
it checked a third time just to be sure. If it's +8 then +8 she gets...

w.stacy, o.d.

Dr. Leukoma wrote:

Quote:
romulus.mare@gmail.com wrote:


What should I do? Should I ignore last advice and make some glasses
with D8+?


The only downside to being over-plussed in this situation is that the
far vision will be blurry. The near vision will not. Most of the
amblyopia treatment with occlusion will involve doing close work
anyway. Besides, giving the full cycloplegic is not really
over-plussing, since it measures how much hyperopia is actually there.

DrG
Back to top
Dr. Leukoma
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 1283

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:46 am    Post subject: Re: Hyperopia plus amblyopia Reply with quote

romulus.mare@gmail.com wrote:

Quote:

What should I do? Should I ignore last advice and make some glasses
with D8+?

The only downside to being over-plussed in this situation is that the
far vision will be blurry. The near vision will not. Most of the
amblyopia treatment with occlusion will involve doing close work
anyway. Besides, giving the full cycloplegic is not really
over-plussing, since it measures how much hyperopia is actually there.

DrG
Back to top
Dr. Leukoma
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 1283

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:43 am    Post subject: Re: Hyperopia plus amblyopia Reply with quote

Except that there appears to be about 7 diopters of anisometropia in
this case.

DrG


Anon E. Muss wrote:
Quote:
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 21:15:27 -0700, "David Robins, MD"
trashadd5@bigfoot.com> wrote:

On 6/18/06 1:12 AM, in article
1150618328.003777.279320@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com,
"romulus.mare@gmail.com" <romulus.mare@gmail.com> wrote:

Finally, yesterday I took my daughter to the pediatric ophtalmologic
clinic. Very nice doctor, she took at least 30 minutes to explain
everything to me and my wife. I even did the tests myself to understand
completely.

The amblyopic eye (right eye) has corrected vision accuracy of 20/200.
The good one has 20/20.

The OD performed Worth test and my daughter could only see three dots.
She happily counted them. She should have seen 4. I could see 4 with
both eyes, 3 with left eye and 2 with right eye.

She prescribed us +5 on amblyopic eye and +1 on the good eye. Doctor
did not do another cycloplegic autorefractor, but I had previous test
results with me. She said if hyperopia is 8,5+ we need to have a bit
over half that value for diopter on that eye. So we ended up with D5+.

We also will have to occlude completely for 40 days and after that 30
more only 5-6 hours a day. Then we'll go for another consult.

I am seeking now easy (for daughter) ways to accept the occluder.

How all this sounds for you? OD said we can expect anything from no CVA
improvement to 20/30 probably in amblyopic eye. Then we need to
struggle to excercise fusion. Then if everything goes well, we'll think
about CL, glasses, operations and everything else.


I would tend to disagree with this treatment. At 20/200, there is little
stimulus for accommodation. Leaving the amblyopic eye 3.5 D underplussed is
leaving it still very blurry, not sharp on the retina. Why leave it blurry,
when the eye wants a sharp image to use, and likely won't accommodate the
additional 3.5 D ?

I would use the full cycloplegic for each, eye, cutting both the same,
perhaps 0.5 to 0.75 D less than the full plus. Only then is the eye-to-eye
difference fully accounted for, and close enough to "sharp" focus to get the
best from the patching. I don't understand the rational for going slightly
more than half of the total - I have never done that.

I also would not back off the patching until I saw the results I was looking
for. If there is no change while full-time patching, reducing it to 5-6 hrs.
just wastes additional time, in my opinion.

Have you incorporated the results of the completed ATS in your
practice? In particular, do you use part-time patching with
near-tasks for certain patients who meet the guidelines listed here:

<http://public.pedig.jaeb.org/Completed_Studies.htm#ATS2A

or do you use full-time patching exclusively for such patients?

I've been treating amblyopia for over 25 years, so I speak from experience.

FWIW, I essentially concur with Dr. Robins assessment. I think
cutting that much plus would be a mistake. This would be especially
true if she has any strabsimus and/or high AC/A ratio (accommodative
convergent strabismus).

The only possible difference is that I might, depending on her age and
other circumstances, see what happens from mere full-time spectacle
correction alone first. I almost always try full-time spectacle
correction alone first on purely optical defocus amblyopia, for at
least a short period of time, unless time is absolutely critical.

I have seen patients, even with relatively deep amblyopia like this,
go from 20/200 to 20/60 or 20/80. Additionally, patients and their
parents tolerate full-time spectacle correction more than full-time
patching. But such patients need to be extremely compliant with their
full-time on spectacle wear and follow-ups. If they aren't or can't
be, they are then moved directly to full-time patching. If they
aren't compliant with that, then they would be referred to Dr.
Robins... :)

And if you can bring a patient's amblyopic eye's vision up from 20/200
to 20/60 or 20/80, they tolerate patching better than if they were
20/200 in that eye.

And I suspect, but know of no studies to back it up, that there is
less risk of binocularity problems when spectacles alone are used to
improve vision first prior to patching.
Back to top
Meri
medicine forum beginner


Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 8:56 am    Post subject: Re: Hyperopia plus amblyopia Reply with quote

I too am a concerned mum, trying to work out the best course of action
for my son. Having shown no problems with his vision it was a complete
shock to find ourselves attending hospital after a pre-school routine
screening and to be told he was hyperopic (they did the dilation
testing thingy with the light being shone into his eyes through various
lenses). We were in and out of the door in 10 minutes and feel
confused.
He has been given a partial prescription (+5D right eye and +6 left
eye) and we have been told that he may well develop a squint when the
glasses are taken off at night. He currently has no squint.......are
we right to be concerned about this course of action?
He is to wear these glasses for 6 weeks, when he will be reviewed.
When we put the glasses on him he says that everything is blurry (he is
just 4) and is refusing to keep them on. We are trying to keep low
key, putting him in different situations to see if he will take to
wearing them, but all to no avail as he says he can see better without.
Are exercises a good option, can they help him improve......it is like
a maze for a novice to find their way through conflicting opinions,
just want to do the best like the other parent here, sounds as though
we are in much the same situation. If you can offer any advice from
what you have learnt so far I would be grateful, hope all is going well
with your child.
Back to top
David Robins, MD
medicine forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 135

PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:27 am    Post subject: Re: Hyperopia plus amblyopia Reply with quote

On 6/22/06 11:43 AM, in article
1151001805.760874.63050@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com,
"romulus.mare@gmail.com" <romulus.mare@gmail.com> wrote:

Quote:
The vision is amblyopic, so it is used to being blurry and wouldn't care.
The non-cycloplegic value does indicate the eye is capable of some
accommodation, but doesn't mean it will STAY in focus as it needs to.

I can only tell you what I would do, but she is not my patient, and it would
be unethical for this is be more than an educational discussion with me at
this point. I cannot make medical recommendations over the internet.

Of course David, I would not expect anything else. On the other hand I
appreciate very much you have the time and mood to reply to my posts.

I will go through with what current OD prescribed for another 38 days
(2 already passed) and then go to another check. I will discuss with OD
the improvement if it is the case and tell her that I heard other
opinions, then kindly ask to try to explain to me the future course of
action.

Would this hurt? My daughter will have 4 years on 1st of July. Is it
too late?


No, not too late. You can afford to do this. Even if there is SOME
improvement, it still doesn't validate the entire treatment design.

But, once again, there is no single "right" way. My way is just what I and
many of my colegues would do and have been doing.

Good luck.
Back to top
romulus.mare@gmail.com
medicine forum beginner


Joined: 06 Jun 2006
Posts: 22

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:43 pm    Post subject: Re: Hyperopia plus amblyopia Reply with quote

Quote:
The vision is amblyopic, so it is used to being blurry and wouldn't care.
The non-cycloplegic value does indicate the eye is capable of some
accommodation, but doesn't mean it will STAY in focus as it needs to.

I can only tell you what I would do, but she is not my patient, and it would
be unethical for this is be more than an educational discussion with me at
this point. I cannot make medical recommendations over the internet.

Of course David, I would not expect anything else. On the other hand I
appreciate very much you have the time and mood to reply to my posts.

I will go through with what current OD prescribed for another 38 days
(2 already passed) and then go to another check. I will discuss with OD
the improvement if it is the case and tell her that I heard other
opinions, then kindly ask to try to explain to me the future course of
action.

Would this hurt? My daughter will have 4 years on 1st of July. Is it
too late?
Back to top
David Robins, MD
medicine forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 135

PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 4:07 am    Post subject: Re: Hyperopia plus amblyopia Reply with quote

On 6/19/06 8:47 AM, in article
1150732034.681335.27080@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com,
"romulus.mare@gmail.com" <romulus.mare@gmail.com> wrote:

Quote:
I would tend to disagree with this treatment. At 20/200, there is little
stimulus for accommodation. Leaving the amblyopic eye 3.5 D underplussed is
leaving it still very blurry, not sharp on the retina. Why leave it blurry,
when the eye wants a sharp image to use, and likely won't accommodate the
additional 3.5 D ?

I would use the full cycloplegic for each, eye, cutting both the same,
perhaps 0.5 to 0.75 D less than the full plus. Only then is the eye-to-eye
difference fully accounted for, and close enough to "sharp" focus to get the
best from the patching. I don't understand the rational for going slightly
more than half of the total - I have never done that.

I also would not back off the patching until I saw the results I was looking
for. If there is no change while full-time patching, reducing it to 5-6 hrs.
just wastes additional time, in my opinion.

I've been treating amblyopia for over 25 years, so I speak from experience.

I have no ideea. I highly apreciate your reply, I am just trying to
understand everything. Anyway, I have three separate opinions of
doctors seeing and testing her. Two said D5+ and one said D3.5+. Why
would they all three do that?

We started occluding today, and she seems very comfortable with her
vision. Would it be the same if the vision would be blurred? Also, as I
remember from non-cycloplegic tests her value was D5-5.5+. Wouldn't
this mean that she can accomodate the difference?

What should I do? Should I ignore last advice and make some glasses
with D8+?


The vision is amblyopic, so it is used to being blurry and wouldn't care.
The non-cycloplegic value does indicate the eye is capable of some
accommodation, but doesn't mean it will STAY in focus as it needs to.

I can only tell you what I would do, but she is not my patient, and it would
be unethical for this is be more than an educational discussion with me at
this point. I cannot make medical recommendations over the internet.
Back to top
David Robins, MD
medicine forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 135

PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 3:59 am    Post subject: Re: Hyperopia plus amblyopia Reply with quote

On 6/19/06 8:58 AM, in article 2ngd9292bdode3haouickg87et3rnghqau@4ax.com,
"Anon E. Muss" <anonymous@example.org> wrote:

Quote:
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 21:15:27 -0700, "David Robins, MD"
trashadd5@bigfoot.com> wrote:

On 6/18/06 1:12 AM, in article
1150618328.003777.279320@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com,
"romulus.mare@gmail.com" <romulus.mare@gmail.com> wrote:

Finally, yesterday I took my daughter to the pediatric ophtalmologic
clinic. Very nice doctor, she took at least 30 minutes to explain
everything to me and my wife. I even did the tests myself to understand
completely.

The amblyopic eye (right eye) has corrected vision accuracy of 20/200.
The good one has 20/20.

The OD performed Worth test and my daughter could only see three dots.
She happily counted them. She should have seen 4. I could see 4 with
both eyes, 3 with left eye and 2 with right eye.

She prescribed us +5 on amblyopic eye and +1 on the good eye. Doctor
did not do another cycloplegic autorefractor, but I had previous test
results with me. She said if hyperopia is 8,5+ we need to have a bit
over half that value for diopter on that eye. So we ended up with D5+.

We also will have to occlude completely for 40 days and after that 30
more only 5-6 hours a day. Then we'll go for another consult.

I am seeking now easy (for daughter) ways to accept the occluder.

How all this sounds for you? OD said we can expect anything from no CVA
improvement to 20/30 probably in amblyopic eye. Then we need to
struggle to excercise fusion. Then if everything goes well, we'll think
about CL, glasses, operations and everything else.


I would tend to disagree with this treatment. At 20/200, there is little
stimulus for accommodation. Leaving the amblyopic eye 3.5 D underplussed is
leaving it still very blurry, not sharp on the retina. Why leave it blurry,
when the eye wants a sharp image to use, and likely won't accommodate the
additional 3.5 D ?

I would use the full cycloplegic for each, eye, cutting both the same,
perhaps 0.5 to 0.75 D less than the full plus. Only then is the eye-to-eye
difference fully accounted for, and close enough to "sharp" focus to get the
best from the patching. I don't understand the rational for going slightly
more than half of the total - I have never done that.

I also would not back off the patching until I saw the results I was looking
for. If there is no change while full-time patching, reducing it to 5-6 hrs.
just wastes additional time, in my opinion.

Have you incorporated the results of the completed ATS in your
practice? In particular, do you use part-time patching with
near-tasks for certain patients who meet the guidelines listed here:

http://public.pedig.jaeb.org/Completed_Studies.htm#ATS2A

or do you use full-time patching exclusively for such patients?

I've been treating amblyopia for over 25 years, so I speak from experience.

FWIW, I essentially concur with Dr. Robins assessment. I think
cutting that much plus would be a mistake. This would be especially
true if she has any strabsimus and/or high AC/A ratio (accommodative
convergent strabismus).

The only possible difference is that I might, depending on her age and
other circumstances, see what happens from mere full-time spectacle
correction alone first. I almost always try full-time spectacle
correction alone first on purely optical defocus amblyopia, for at
least a short period of time, unless time is absolutely critical.

I have seen patients, even with relatively deep amblyopia like this,
go from 20/200 to 20/60 or 20/80. Additionally, patients and their
parents tolerate full-time spectacle correction more than full-time
patching. But such patients need to be extremely compliant with their
full-time on spectacle wear and follow-ups. If they aren't or can't
be, they are then moved directly to full-time patching. If they
aren't compliant with that, then they would be referred to Dr.
Robins... :)

And if you can bring a patient's amblyopic eye's vision up from 20/200
to 20/60 or 20/80, they tolerate patching better than if they were
20/200 in that eye.

And I suspect, but know of no studies to back it up, that there is
less risk of binocularity problems when spectacles alone are used to
improve vision first prior to patching.

I do usually start with just glasses, if the eyes are straight. I was
commenting on the patching instructions, starting with full-time and cutting
to part-time before seeing the results.

I have used some of the PEDIG study findings, but not all. And it doesn't
fit every pt. I've seen a number of kids where they weere getting patched 6
hr/day for months and had leveled out at perhaps 20/60, and were told to
give up. Increasing patching to near full-time got them almost to 20/20. So,
not always is 6 hrs equal to full-time, etc. You need to tailor it to the
situation at hand. Therefore, no, I don't use full-time patching
exclusively, only when needed.

The rest are your statements I essentially agree with also.
Back to top
Neil Brooks
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 1148

PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 4:58 pm    Post subject: Re: Hyperopia plus amblyopia Reply with quote

On 19 Jun 2006 09:47:51 -0700, romulus.mare@gmail.com wrote:

Quote:

Neil Brooks wrote:
On 19 Jun 2006 08:47:14 -0700, romulus.mare@gmail.com wrote:

I would tend to disagree with this treatment. At 20/200, there is little
stimulus for accommodation. Leaving the amblyopic eye 3.5 D underplussed is
leaving it still very blurry, not sharp on the retina. Why leave it blurry,
when the eye wants a sharp image to use, and likely won't accommodate the
additional 3.5 D ?

I would use the full cycloplegic for each, eye, cutting both the same,
perhaps 0.5 to 0.75 D less than the full plus. Only then is the eye-to-eye
difference fully accounted for, and close enough to "sharp" focus to get the
best from the patching. I don't understand the rational for going slightly
more than half of the total - I have never done that.

I also would not back off the patching until I saw the results I was looking
for. If there is no change while full-time patching, reducing it to 5-6 hrs.
just wastes additional time, in my opinion.

I've been treating amblyopia for over 25 years, so I speak from experience.

I have no ideea. I highly apreciate your reply, I am just trying to
understand everything. Anyway, I have three separate opinions of
doctors seeing and testing her. Two said D5+ and one said D3.5+. Why
would they all three do that?

We started occluding today, and she seems very comfortable with her
vision. Would it be the same if the vision would be blurred? Also, as I
remember from non-cycloplegic tests her value was D5-5.5+. Wouldn't
this mean that she can accomodate the difference?

What should I do? Should I ignore last advice and make some glasses
with D8+?

I've introduced myself before. I'm a patient, NOT a doctor, but I'm a
pretty well-versed patient, especially in this kind of issue.

I've watched Dr. Robins post here for quite some time. I have the
sneaking feeling he's awfully good (I've been seen by the best--some
of whom I wouldn't go back to).

I was amblyopic and highly hyperopic as an infant. It looks
*abundantly* clear to me that I was given insufficient plus early on
in life. It seems abundantly clear that this caused significant
problems with my accommodative AND vergence amplitudes--placing much
too much reliance on MY eyes to focus at near--something they were NOT
built to do. All of this caused serious instability in my eye
alignment, too, leading to three strabismus surgeries over my
lifetime.

=================================
If I were starting life again today, I would want:
=================================

- maximum plus prescription based on a 4 day Atropine cycloplegic
refraction

- Dr. Robins' recommendation for occlusion

- Careful, and frequent monitoring for eye alignment and binocular
function issues

- to be placed in contact lenses (again, using the full plus distance
prescription) as soon as everybody thought I was ready--likely with
(over-the-contacts) reading glasses prescribed for near work (all
actual prescriptions would have to be written with significant regard
to any effect on eye alignment);

- Vision therapy -- as early as it was practical, and for as long as
everybody agreed it was beneficial (or harmless). I would want EVERY
advantage in terms of accommodative and vergence amplitudes--a place
where I (or, quite likely, your daughter) would be inherently weak,
and inherently over-taxed.

Lastly, I would want to have parents like you--people who are taking a
very aggressive stance at making sure that everything that should be
done to ensure excellent vision ... is being done. Nice job!

I'm just another data point, and *even I* wouldn't suggest that you
should give it equal weight. Just some more thoughts from somebody
who's been there ... AND has fought their way out of it a few times.

[As always, Docs: If I bunged anything up, please jump in]

All the best,
Neil

I am desperate. Why would I receive such advice then from such
respectable pediatric ODs here? Can it be some information I do not
know but they know from consultation?

Again, there may be better people to respond to this than I, but...

So much of this is *NOT* absolute right/wrong, better/worse ... yet.
Much of what you're looking at, or that I lived, is a matter of art
and some *thoroughly* educated judgments by caring, skilled
practitioners.

There may simply NOT BE 100,000 cases like your daughter and me that
allow for large-scale testing to know *with certainty* what's best.

To your credit, you do not come across--at least to me--as "desperate"
I think that's a very good thing. Better to make the right decision
than a fast one here.

Since (in my belief) you are "out at the fringes" where NOT a great
deal of "hard science" exists, if I were you, I'd be trying to reason
this through myself:

- What makes sense based on all that *I* have learned?

- What do *I* perceive as the potential risks and rewards of each
doctor's recommended course of action??

In this case, *I* (Neil) see fairly material risks in UNDER-correcting
your daughter. The mechanism is simple: (ANALOGY): she was born with
a weak leg. UNDERcorrecting her asks her to put all of her weight on
that leg ... every day ... all day. This seems likely (to me) to
cause that leg to buckle under the pressure (accommodation) and that
knee to turn inward as she walks (vergence). Hey ... not a bad
analogy :-)

The risks of *FULL* correction for the hyperopia?? To my thinking,
the ONLY significant risks are IF giving her a full plus Atropinised
prescription causes her eyes to turn (strabismus), but ... again ... I
mentioned this before ... and it's an easy one for the doctor to
compensate for when evaluating the best prescription.

*I* would think that the goal is to get your daughter's focusing
(accommodative) and turning (convergence) systems to be as "relaxed"
as possible at all times ... and THEN to "exercise" and "build" them
in a controlled setting (vision therapy) where a good practitioner can
decide at what point it's time to stop for the day and to measure
progress all along the way.

As I've said before: I'm 42. I've been dealing with this for my
entire life. The only one who's probably had a harder time with this
than me is ... my mother ... watching ... unable to help. You're
doing a GREAT job. Just try to relax ... as much as possible ... keep
learning ... and weigh all of this information yourself. Ask each
doctor about the other doctor's advice: "Doc B says to do this. Why
do you think that's good or bad advice?"

They won't always LOVE you for that but ... tough. It's your kid Smile
Back to top
romulus.mare@gmail.com
medicine forum beginner


Joined: 06 Jun 2006
Posts: 22

PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 4:47 pm    Post subject: Re: Hyperopia plus amblyopia Reply with quote

Neil Brooks wrote:
Quote:
On 19 Jun 2006 08:47:14 -0700, romulus.mare@gmail.com wrote:

I would tend to disagree with this treatment. At 20/200, there is little
stimulus for accommodation. Leaving the amblyopic eye 3.5 D underplussed is
leaving it still very blurry, not sharp on the retina. Why leave it blurry,
when the eye wants a sharp image to use, and likely won't accommodate the
additional 3.5 D ?

I would use the full cycloplegic for each, eye, cutting both the same,
perhaps 0.5 to 0.75 D less than the full plus. Only then is the eye-to-eye
difference fully accounted for, and close enough to "sharp" focus to get the
best from the patching. I don't understand the rational for going slightly
more than half of the total - I have never done that.

I also would not back off the patching until I saw the results I was looking
for. If there is no change while full-time patching, reducing it to 5-6 hrs.
just wastes additional time, in my opinion.

I've been treating amblyopia for over 25 years, so I speak from experience.

I have no ideea. I highly apreciate your reply, I am just trying to
understand everything. Anyway, I have three separate opinions of
doctors seeing and testing her. Two said D5+ and one said D3.5+. Why
would they all three do that?

We started occluding today, and she seems very comfortable with her
vision. Would it be the same if the vision would be blurred? Also, as I
remember from non-cycloplegic tests her value was D5-5.5+. Wouldn't
this mean that she can accomodate the difference?

What should I do? Should I ignore last advice and make some glasses
with D8+?

I've introduced myself before. I'm a patient, NOT a doctor, but I'm a
pretty well-versed patient, especially in this kind of issue.

I've watched Dr. Robins post here for quite some time. I have the
sneaking feeling he's awfully good (I've been seen by the best--some
of whom I wouldn't go back to).

I was amblyopic and highly hyperopic as an infant. It looks
*abundantly* clear to me that I was given insufficient plus early on
in life. It seems abundantly clear that this caused significant
problems with my accommodative AND vergence amplitudes--placing much
too much reliance on MY eyes to focus at near--something they were NOT
built to do. All of this caused serious instability in my eye
alignment, too, leading to three strabismus surgeries over my
lifetime.

=================================
If I were starting life again today, I would want:
=================================

- maximum plus prescription based on a 4 day Atropine cycloplegic
refraction

- Dr. Robins' recommendation for occlusion

- Careful, and frequent monitoring for eye alignment and binocular
function issues

- to be placed in contact lenses (again, using the full plus distance
prescription) as soon as everybody thought I was ready--likely with
(over-the-contacts) reading glasses prescribed for near work (all
actual prescriptions would have to be written with significant regard
to any effect on eye alignment);

- Vision therapy -- as early as it was practical, and for as long as
everybody agreed it was beneficial (or harmless). I would want EVERY
advantage in terms of accommodative and vergence amplitudes--a place
where I (or, quite likely, your daughter) would be inherently weak,
and inherently over-taxed.

Lastly, I would want to have parents like you--people who are taking a
very aggressive stance at making sure that everything that should be
done to ensure excellent vision ... is being done. Nice job!

I'm just another data point, and *even I* wouldn't suggest that you
should give it equal weight. Just some more thoughts from somebody
who's been there ... AND has fought their way out of it a few times.

[As always, Docs: If I bunged anything up, please jump in]

All the best,
Neil

I am desperate. Why would I receive such advice then from such
respectable pediatric ODs here? Can it be some information I do not
know but they know from consultation?
Back to top
Neil Brooks
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 1148

PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 4:28 pm    Post subject: Re: Hyperopia plus amblyopia Reply with quote

On 19 Jun 2006 08:47:14 -0700, romulus.mare@gmail.com wrote:

Quote:
I would tend to disagree with this treatment. At 20/200, there is little
stimulus for accommodation. Leaving the amblyopic eye 3.5 D underplussed is
leaving it still very blurry, not sharp on the retina. Why leave it blurry,
when the eye wants a sharp image to use, and likely won't accommodate the
additional 3.5 D ?

I would use the full cycloplegic for each, eye, cutting both the same,
perhaps 0.5 to 0.75 D less than the full plus. Only then is the eye-to-eye
difference fully accounted for, and close enough to "sharp" focus to get the
best from the patching. I don't understand the rational for going slightly
more than half of the total - I have never done that.

I also would not back off the patching until I saw the results I was looking
for. If there is no change while full-time patching, reducing it to 5-6 hrs.
just wastes additional time, in my opinion.

I've been treating amblyopia for over 25 years, so I speak from experience.

I have no ideea. I highly apreciate your reply, I am just trying to
understand everything. Anyway, I have three separate opinions of
doctors seeing and testing her. Two said D5+ and one said D3.5+. Why
would they all three do that?

We started occluding today, and she seems very comfortable with her
vision. Would it be the same if the vision would be blurred? Also, as I
remember from non-cycloplegic tests her value was D5-5.5+. Wouldn't
this mean that she can accomodate the difference?

What should I do? Should I ignore last advice and make some glasses
with D8+?

I've introduced myself before. I'm a patient, NOT a doctor, but I'm a
pretty well-versed patient, especially in this kind of issue.

I've watched Dr. Robins post here for quite some time. I have the
sneaking feeling he's awfully good (I've been seen by the best--some
of whom I wouldn't go back to).

I was amblyopic and highly hyperopic as an infant. It looks
*abundantly* clear to me that I was given insufficient plus early on
in life. It seems abundantly clear that this caused significant
problems with my accommodative AND vergence amplitudes--placing much
too much reliance on MY eyes to focus at near--something they were NOT
built to do. All of this caused serious instability in my eye
alignment, too, leading to three strabismus surgeries over my
lifetime.

=================================
If I were starting life again today, I would want:
=================================

- maximum plus prescription based on a 4 day Atropine cycloplegic
refraction

- Dr. Robins' recommendation for occlusion

- Careful, and frequent monitoring for eye alignment and binocular
function issues

- to be placed in contact lenses (again, using the full plus distance
prescription) as soon as everybody thought I was ready--likely with
(over-the-contacts) reading glasses prescribed for near work (all
actual prescriptions would have to be written with significant regard
to any effect on eye alignment);

- Vision therapy -- as early as it was practical, and for as long as
everybody agreed it was beneficial (or harmless). I would want EVERY
advantage in terms of accommodative and vergence amplitudes--a place
where I (or, quite likely, your daughter) would be inherently weak,
and inherently over-taxed.

Lastly, I would want to have parents like you--people who are taking a
very aggressive stance at making sure that everything that should be
done to ensure excellent vision ... is being done. Nice job!

I'm just another data point, and *even I* wouldn't suggest that you
should give it equal weight. Just some more thoughts from somebody
who's been there ... AND has fought their way out of it a few times.

[As always, Docs: If I bunged anything up, please jump in]

All the best,
Neil
Back to top
Anon E. Muss
medicine forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 22 May 2006
Posts: 136

PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:58 pm    Post subject: Re: Hyperopia plus amblyopia Reply with quote

On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 21:15:27 -0700, "David Robins, MD"
<trashadd5@bigfoot.com> wrote:

Quote:
On 6/18/06 1:12 AM, in article
1150618328.003777.279320@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com,
"romulus.mare@gmail.com" <romulus.mare@gmail.com> wrote:

Finally, yesterday I took my daughter to the pediatric ophtalmologic
clinic. Very nice doctor, she took at least 30 minutes to explain
everything to me and my wife. I even did the tests myself to understand
completely.

The amblyopic eye (right eye) has corrected vision accuracy of 20/200.
The good one has 20/20.

The OD performed Worth test and my daughter could only see three dots.
She happily counted them. She should have seen 4. I could see 4 with
both eyes, 3 with left eye and 2 with right eye.

She prescribed us +5 on amblyopic eye and +1 on the good eye. Doctor
did not do another cycloplegic autorefractor, but I had previous test
results with me. She said if hyperopia is 8,5+ we need to have a bit
over half that value for diopter on that eye. So we ended up with D5+.

We also will have to occlude completely for 40 days and after that 30
more only 5-6 hours a day. Then we'll go for another consult.

I am seeking now easy (for daughter) ways to accept the occluder.

How all this sounds for you? OD said we can expect anything from no CVA
improvement to 20/30 probably in amblyopic eye. Then we need to
struggle to excercise fusion. Then if everything goes well, we'll think
about CL, glasses, operations and everything else.


I would tend to disagree with this treatment. At 20/200, there is little
stimulus for accommodation. Leaving the amblyopic eye 3.5 D underplussed is
leaving it still very blurry, not sharp on the retina. Why leave it blurry,
when the eye wants a sharp image to use, and likely won't accommodate the
additional 3.5 D ?

I would use the full cycloplegic for each, eye, cutting both the same,
perhaps 0.5 to 0.75 D less than the full plus. Only then is the eye-to-eye
difference fully accounted for, and close enough to "sharp" focus to get the
best from the patching. I don't understand the rational for going slightly
more than half of the total - I have never done that.

I also would not back off the patching until I saw the results I was looking
for. If there is no change while full-time patching, reducing it to 5-6 hrs.
just wastes additional time, in my opinion.

Have you incorporated the results of the completed ATS in your
practice? In particular, do you use part-time patching with
near-tasks for certain patients who meet the guidelines listed here:

<http://public.pedig.jaeb.org/Completed_Studies.htm#ATS2A>

or do you use full-time patching exclusively for such patients?

Quote:
I've been treating amblyopia for over 25 years, so I speak from experience.

FWIW, I essentially concur with Dr. Robins assessment. I think
cutting that much plus would be a mistake. This would be especially
true if she has any strabsimus and/or high AC/A ratio (accommodative
convergent strabismus).

The only possible difference is that I might, depending on her age and
other circumstances, see what happens from mere full-time spectacle
correction alone first. I almost always try full-time spectacle
correction alone first on purely optical defocus amblyopia, for at
least a short period of time, unless time is absolutely critical.

I have seen patients, even with relatively deep amblyopia like this,
go from 20/200 to 20/60 or 20/80. Additionally, patients and their
parents tolerate full-time spectacle correction more than full-time
patching. But such patients need to be extremely compliant with their
full-time on spectacle wear and follow-ups. If they aren't or can't
be, they are then moved directly to full-time patching. If they
aren't compliant with that, then they would be referred to Dr.
Robins... :)

And if you can bring a patient's amblyopic eye's vision up from 20/200
to 20/60 or 20/80, they tolerate patching better than if they were
20/200 in that eye.

And I suspect, but know of no studies to back it up, that there is
less risk of binocularity problems when spectacles alone are used to
improve vision first prior to patching.
Back to top
romulus.mare@gmail.com
medicine forum beginner


Joined: 06 Jun 2006
Posts: 22

PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:47 pm    Post subject: Re: Hyperopia plus amblyopia Reply with quote

Quote:
I would tend to disagree with this treatment. At 20/200, there is little
stimulus for accommodation. Leaving the amblyopic eye 3.5 D underplussed is
leaving it still very blurry, not sharp on the retina. Why leave it blurry,
when the eye wants a sharp image to use, and likely won't accommodate the
additional 3.5 D ?

I would use the full cycloplegic for each, eye, cutting both the same,
perhaps 0.5 to 0.75 D less than the full plus. Only then is the eye-to-eye
difference fully accounted for, and close enough to "sharp" focus to get the
best from the patching. I don't understand the rational for going slightly
more than half of the total - I have never done that.

I also would not back off the patching until I saw the results I was looking
for. If there is no change while full-time patching, reducing it to 5-6 hrs.
just wastes additional time, in my opinion.

I've been treating amblyopia for over 25 years, so I speak from experience.

I have no ideea. I highly apreciate your reply, I am just trying to
understand everything. Anyway, I have three separate opinions of
doctors seeing and testing her. Two said D5+ and one said D3.5+. Why
would they all three do that?

We started occluding today, and she seems very comfortable with her
vision. Would it be the same if the vision would be blurred? Also, as I
remember from non-cycloplegic tests her value was D5-5.5+. Wouldn't
this mean that she can accomodate the difference?

What should I do? Should I ignore last advice and make some glasses
with D8+?
Back to top
David Robins, MD
medicine forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 135

PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 4:15 am    Post subject: Re: Hyperopia plus amblyopia Reply with quote

On 6/18/06 1:12 AM, in article
1150618328.003777.279320@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com,
"romulus.mare@gmail.com" <romulus.mare@gmail.com> wrote:

Quote:
Finally, yesterday I took my daughter to the pediatric ophtalmologic
clinic. Very nice doctor, she took at least 30 minutes to explain
everything to me and my wife. I even did the tests myself to understand
completely.

The amblyopic eye (right eye) has corrected vision accuracy of 20/200.
The good one has 20/20.

The OD performed Worth test and my daughter could only see three dots.
She happily counted them. She should have seen 4. I could see 4 with
both eyes, 3 with left eye and 2 with right eye.

She prescribed us +5 on amblyopic eye and +1 on the good eye. Doctor
did not do another cycloplegic autorefractor, but I had previous test
results with me. She said if hyperopia is 8,5+ we need to have a bit
over half that value for diopter on that eye. So we ended up with D5+.

We also will have to occlude completely for 40 days and after that 30
more only 5-6 hours a day. Then we'll go for another consult.

I am seeking now easy (for daughter) ways to accept the occluder.

How all this sounds for you? OD said we can expect anything from no CVA
improvement to 20/30 probably in amblyopic eye. Then we need to
struggle to excercise fusion. Then if everything goes well, we'll think
about CL, glasses, operations and everything else.


I would tend to disagree with this treatment. At 20/200, there is little
stimulus for accommodation. Leaving the amblyopic eye 3.5 D underplussed is
leaving it still very blurry, not sharp on the retina. Why leave it blurry,
when the eye wants a sharp image to use, and likely won't accommodate the
additional 3.5 D ?

I would use the full cycloplegic for each, eye, cutting both the same,
perhaps 0.5 to 0.75 D less than the full plus. Only then is the eye-to-eye
difference fully accounted for, and close enough to "sharp" focus to get the
best from the patching. I don't understand the rational for going slightly
more than half of the total - I have never done that.

I also would not back off the patching until I saw the results I was looking
for. If there is no change while full-time patching, reducing it to 5-6 hrs.
just wastes additional time, in my opinion.

I've been treating amblyopia for over 25 years, so I speak from experience.


David Robins, MD
Board certified Ophthalmologist
Pediatric ophthalmology and adult strabismus subspecialty
Back to top
romulus.mare@gmail.com
medicine forum beginner


Joined: 06 Jun 2006
Posts: 22

PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 8:12 am    Post subject: Hyperopia plus amblyopia Reply with quote

Finally, yesterday I took my daughter to the pediatric ophtalmologic
clinic. Very nice doctor, she took at least 30 minutes to explain
everything to me and my wife. I even did the tests myself to understand
completely.

The amblyopic eye (right eye) has corrected vision accuracy of 20/200.
The good one has 20/20.

The OD performed Worth test and my daughter could only see three dots.
She happily counted them. She should have seen 4. I could see 4 with
both eyes, 3 with left eye and 2 with right eye.

She prescribed us +5 on amblyopic eye and +1 on the good eye. Doctor
did not do another cycloplegic autorefractor, but I had previous test
results with me. She said if hyperopia is 8,5+ we need to have a bit
over half that value for diopter on that eye. So we ended up with D5+.

We also will have to occlude completely for 40 days and after that 30
more only 5-6 hours a day. Then we'll go for another consult.

I am seeking now easy (for daughter) ways to accept the occluder.

How all this sounds for you? OD said we can expect anything from no CVA
improvement to 20/30 probably in amblyopic eye. Then we need to
struggle to excercise fusion. Then if everything goes well, we'll think
about CL, glasses, operations and everything else.
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1 [15 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Tue Dec 18, 2018 7:04 pm | All times are GMT
Forum index » Medicine forums » vision
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Help - 11 year old son with amblyopia LG vision 8 Thu Jul 13, 2006 9:39 pm
No new posts Help - 11 year old son with amblyopia LG vision 9 Thu Jul 13, 2006 9:39 pm
No new posts Hyperopia in one eye romulus.mare@gmail.com vision 39 Tue Jun 06, 2006 1:25 pm
No new posts Amblyopia tamparocks29@yahoo.com vision 0 Fri Apr 14, 2006 7:58 pm
No new posts Driving restrictions for persons affected by Amblyopia sanju vision 18 Wed Mar 15, 2006 7:54 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: email marketing campaigns , electronics forum, Science forum, Unix/Linux blog, Unix/Linux documentation, Unix/Linux forums


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0283s ][ Queries: 20 (0.0029s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]