It is possible that the child may have an intermittent squint, which may be visible only when the child is tired or sick or, the child may have a squint only for distance or only for near. A squint specialist is trained to detect such squints. Treatment includes glasses and/or surgery and it must be implemented so that the child may develop some degree of binocular vision. Treatment for the development of amblyopia (Lazy eye), if present, must also be strictly followed. A second opinion may also be considered.
The child now has aphakia in both eyes corrected by bi-focal glasses. Alternatively, a cataract lens may be tried in both eyes to correct the basic refraction and glasses may be used only to correct any residual astigmatism and for near work. A progressive (multifocal) glasses may also be considered. A few years later, a surgical implantation of an IOL (Secondary IOL) in both eyes may be suggested.
2006-08-28 18:49:47
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
A normal person who is focused at optical infinity would require no glasses to see far away. Near sighted people are already focused close. How close? The number gives you the distance. The power, the -12 in her case means she is focused 1/12 of a meter in front of her eye. The power is equal to one over the distance in meters. If she were focused at a meter, that'd be 1/1 and she'd use a -1 lens. If she were focused a half a meter away, she'd wear a -2 lens. If she were focused a third of a meter away, that'd be a -3 lens. A -10 lens to correct someone's eye would be focused a tenth of a meter or 10cm away. It takes basically 2.5 cm to equal an inch, so she's focused with a -12 about 4 inches in front of her eyes. So when she tries to see beyond that, blurr. And she can't relax her eyes, they're already powerfully focused close. When we used to remove cataracts and didn't have lenses to put IN the eye, the intraocular lenses that we use these days, people used VERY thick, coke-bottle like glasses. The power of those lenses was about +10. If your daughter had "cataract surgery" and they removed the lens from her eye and did NOT put an intraocular lens in, she'd probably see almost normally at a distance. We actually used to do this for highly myopic people, and some still do along with corneal reshaping surgeries such as LASIK or LASEK. The main problem with highly myopic eyes is that the eye is relatively larger than normal, so the tissue is sort of on stretch. This makes it a bit more 'dangerous' as high myopes are at a much higher risk of getting a retinal detachment. This would occur if the gel in the eye, the vitreous, pulls hard enough on the retina to cause a tear, and then the liquified vitreous gets beneath the retina allowing it to 'float' into the middle of the eye. The repair is to close the hole, and the retina will reattach. But in high myopia, with things thinned out, it's sometimes really difficult to get the retina to reattach. My suggestion would be to see an Ophthalmologist and see if there might be a way to correct her vision with contacts, or surgically with a cornea surgery (LASIK etc.), or use high index of refraction spectacles. In Canada some of the eye doctors will do "cataract surgery" as a refractive treatment. But any intraocular surgery in this level of Myope has significant risk. The 20/20 thing. When a normal person stands 20 feet from the letters, the 'best' he is able to see is usually about 5 degrees which corresponds to that small letter size. It's really an angle. If one moves back to 40 feet (twice as far), then one would see a letter twice as big to be seeing the same. At 100 feet, a normal person would see a 100/100 letter and still be seeing at the same angle. BUT, if one is standing at the 20 foot distance, and the smallest letter visible is the 40 foot letter, then that person is seeing 20/40. e.g. seeing at 20 feet, the 40 foot letter. If she's seeing 20/400, then a normal person would be 400 feet away, and that's a BIG letter. If her eye sees well, when corrected, when using the -12 lens, then she has a GOOD camera and all that's needed is to focus the thing. How that's done is up to her. e.g. glasses, contacts, surgery.... Hope this helps.
2016-03-26 23:40:52
·
answer #2
·
answered by Sharon 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
awww, don't worry. my cousin felt the same way when her three year old son was told he had to wear glasses. he's only three! he even has to wear an eye patch. poor eyesight isn't something you can really fix with a diet. i am nearly legally blind and i am able to wear contacts without any problems.
just have faith and talk to her about this, glasses are not so horrible....and it could really help her. when she gets older, she can possibly wear contacts or get surgery. it's something i am sure you are really worried about, but she will probably have to wear glasses, and it's not the worst thing in the world. it will help her! believe me, when i was young and started the squinting and found out i needed glasses, once i got them, it was amazing! seriously, this is normal. and you can have your eye doctor help her to find glasses that are good for young children. my cousin's three year old is active, has a patch with little stars on it, and is able to wear his glasses without any problems. you and your daughter will be just fine!
2006-08-28 17:16:56
·
answer #3
·
answered by royal_crown78 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
1
2016-06-19 18:28:26
·
answer #4
·
answered by Margie 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
this happens to some children... u should follow eye specialist says also go to Haridwar to Swamy Ramdevjis hospital, they will recommend simple yoga exercises, Email:divyayoga@rediffmail.com visit:www.divyayoga.com ...god bless your child and follow swami jis instructions rigidly
2006-08-28 18:09:08
·
answer #5
·
answered by pali@yahoo.com 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Carrots are good for the eyes
2006-08-28 17:14:08
·
answer #6
·
answered by ▒Яenée▒ 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
...I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you sure it's not your eye sight going bad?
2006-08-28 17:13:57
·
answer #7
·
answered by Philip 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
oh sweet jesus.
2006-08-28 17:12:49
·
answer #8
·
answered by pollypureheart 4
·
1⤊
0⤋