I have cataracts and beginning glaucoma. Is surgery necessary for the cataracts.?

Answer 1

If you have cataracts and glaucoma and are a diabetic too. you need to see your ophthalalmologist fast, since both need urgent and prompt treatment . the cataracts need to be surgically treared sooner or later. as there are a no.of improved surgical techniques , you need not be afraid of surgery.

Answer 2

No one can answer if the time is right to have your cataracts removed. Cataracts occur when the natural lens of the eye becomes cloudy affecting the quality of your vision. This is part of the natural aging process. In my office we recommend that patients have their cataracts removed when they begin to interfere with their quality of life. ie: glare around lights becoming annoying or unable to make out fine detail.

That being said, your issue is complicated by the fact that you have glaucoma. One vital part in monitoring the way that your glaucoma is mangaged is for your ophthalmologist to look for changes in your optic nerve. If your cataracts have become so cloudy that they obscure the view of the back of your eye then it is necessary to go ahead with the surgery.

The other issue to take into consideration is the timing of the surgery. Several years ago we would wait until a patient was bumping into walls to remove the cataracts. We made large incisions that required 10-12 sutures. Today the incisions that are made are so small that 99 percent of the time they can be closed without sutures. This has made the surgery much safer than in years past. You no longer want to wait too long or the cataract becomes so dense that removal of the lens is more complicated and increases your risk of a less then great outcome.

Having cataract surgery is kind of like having a baby. Everyone likes to tell you a horror story. Most people tell me the worst part of the experience is all the stories and the anticipation.

I hope this helps. Good luck.

Answer 3

I developed cataracts in both eyes at the age of 40. I've had surgery on both eyes (not at the same time) to remove the cataract and implant an artificial lens. Surgery is necessary. The cataract won't go away - no matter how many times you clap.

Answer 4

Surgery is necessary if you want to see -- the cataracts won't go away by themselves. My mom had cataracts for many years but was always afraid of having the surgery to remove them. When she finally did it out of complete necessity (really couldn't see much), she was astounded at the difference and couldn't believe all the things she'd been missing. Then she spent a while kicking herself for waiting so long -- so do have the surgery!

Answer 5

Yes.. you need to do surgery....

One more remedy... Once I read in a newspaper that a man who had cataracts used to clap very hard with both his hands... It was researched that clapping directly affects the nerves of your eyes... After some period it went away and the person was able to see clearly.. Try... its a good exercise.

Good Luck.

Answer 6

Well
I'm following a system to improve my vision with simple eye exercises. I found it on this site http://www.goobypls.com/r/rd.asp?gid=413. I'm starting seeing very positive (and unexpected) results.
I guess it's the sotware you need.

Answer 7

I'll play the devil's advocate here and say surgery is not necessary. I know some people must be thinking, what the hell is this guy talking about?
It's a long story to get into but eye researchers have been arriving at flawed conclusions about how the eye works since 1855... source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmholtz
There, you'll see it says "His theory of accommodation went unchallenged until the final decade of the 20th century."
140 years unchallenged, that is...
A serious situation took place around 1920, when the most respected optometrist at Columbia University in NY found a way to reverse deteriorating eyesight and benefit or even eliminate serious conditions such as glaucoma, cataracts, macular degeneration and so on...
He disproved Helmholtz's Theory and showed evidence.
In light of this, this would have changed our whole understanding of what causes refraction errors as well as diseases of the eye.
However, here is where several people will cling to cultural beliefs when I say this: the Board of Optometrists at the most prestigious school of optometry in the country during the 1920s rejected Bates' discovery, expelled him from his teaching position (he taught other optometrists!), and ostracized him without investigating the evidence Bates had provided them... (a few of you are probably thinking that the Board of Optometrists must've had a good reason for doing this--but you need to consider the following reasons first)
What is very strange is that Bates used to be the leading optometrist for 15 years before his discovery and then he made a nearly 180 degree turn to change his beliefs about how the accommodation of the eye really works.
So what was the Board of Optometrist's motive for expelling Bates? Think about it...
They'd be out of a job if people could heal their own eyes... wouldn't that be a rationale cause for them to cover up something that would cause people to stop buying glasses or needing to make regular visits to them?
Heck, they'd probably go out of business. They had sufficient cause to cover this up.
Their worst fears were confirmed when Bates brought in the evidence that disproved Helmholtz's theory.
Our researchers have been making serious flaws in their research for over 150 years just because of this, and they are unable to really understand what causes diseases of the eye such as cataracts and glaucoma.
I'm sure reading this will cause a great number of people, especially optometrists, to get mad because of their cultural beliefs and what they've been taught in school. But this is a serious problem that has just recently been addressed, and that cannot be ignored.
The problem is this:
Helmholtz's theory addresses the crystalline lens as the primary cause of refractive errors, and ignores the 4 recti and 2 oblique eye muscles' role in causing refractive errors, which was Bates' discovery.
Ask yourself this: it is known that eyeball shape changes but the eye doctors are unable to explain why. Ask your optometrist if you don't believe me.
Need more proof?
Go to http://www.us.cibavision.com/for_your_eyes/vision_library.shtml and you'll see this sentence: "exactly why eyeball shape varies is not known, but the tendency for farsightedness is inherited." Inherited? Yet they cannot tell you how the eyeball changes shape. This has to be considered first, because it can do away with the presbyopia myth.
HINT: the eyeball shape changes, somehow... but the ODs and eye researchers cannot explain it!
Why not? I'll tell you why. It's because of what happened back in the 1920s. Do you think this is possible or not?
Were you even born then? How can you be so sure you're correct of your understanding regarding the eye since all the information you receive in school is filtered and subject to groupthink bias?
Think about this: you know that our history books sometimes distorts the facts. Science is NOT immune to distortion of facts; and it is possible facts have been distorted when a fundamental teaching is followed like the letter of the law for over 140 years, although no one but Bates had disproven it, yet it remains unknown.
You have to ask yourself, is this even possible?
Well, I'm afraid it looks like it is possible- and I have had results with the Bates method which took my eyesight all the way from 4/20 to beyond 20/10!!
I can see strands of people's hair from 1/5 to 1/4 a mile away, and see the details in a jet stream in the sky from 30-50 miles away.
How in the world is this possible? It's because vision is largely a mental process. I wouldn't lie because I dislike deception. I also do not draw conclusions without testing things out empirically--that is, with an Snellen eye chart under similar conditions when I do measurements of visual acuity.
I am offering you 'my actual experience of improvement with Bates Method', despite what many ODs and others out there say, and I have good reason to believe it can help you with cataracts and glaucoma.
Let me show you something Dr. William Bates wrote in one of his journals about cataracts:

"Some years ago, I performed an experiment on a rabbit which had just been killed by chloroform. By dragging upon the muscles on the outside of the eyeball, it was possible to obtain pressure on the lens and produce a temporary cataract. When pressure on the eyeball was released, the cataract disappeared. By advancing the muscles and fastening them permanently to the back part of the eyeball with the aid of sutures, the cataract which appeared in the pupil was permanent so long as the pressure was maintained by the advancement of the muscles. The facts demonstrated very conclusively that cataract in the rabbit's eye can be produced by pressure on the eyeball with the aid of the muscles on the outside of the globe."

I'm curious if any of our researchers have ever tried this. Do you have any proof indicating otherwise? This does sound like an easy experiment to demonstrate. If you have no proof indicating otherwise, then why should you assume that what Bates says is incorrect? Assuming he's incorrect just because he's an eye doctor from the 1920s is not a good enough reason. You need proof of some research done first, and don't just take it by hearsay. Instead, look at details of how the experiment was done.

That information was for everyone. Hank, you need to see a doctor asap especially if you have diabetes, but in the meantime you should try the Bates Method and see if you have any success in addressing cataracts and glaucoma with it. Remember surgery needs to be considered as a last resort...surgery changes everything and the eye most likely won't heal fully. Not every single fact about side effects of surgeries is disclosed to the patient. There's too much deceptive advertising going on about eye surgeries like LASIK, and some eye doctors have already quit doing LASIK because of disturbing information that isn't disclosed to patients. There is definitely something going on if the eye doctors are backing out of it.

Here are some links to find out more information about the Bates Method:

Information about Bates Method:
http://www.iblindness.org/

Forum for posting questions:
http://www.iblindness.org/forum/

Please stop by the iblindness.org forum sometimes and post something there. I go under the alias Spock. You might want to just look around first and see what you think.

It is possible to relieve both glaucoma and cataracts because Bates helped patients who had those. He wrote several journal entries addressing how to eliminate both. Both have a common cause: chronic tension of the extrinsic eye muscles. If you look at the rabbit experiment, you will see how pulling the eye muscles was able to produce pressure on the lens and therefore cause cataracts. Glaucoma follows a similar idea regarding the extrinsic muscles because it has to do with pressure of the eyeball. I've spent considerable time typing this up and I hope you will take all this into consideration. Cataracts and glaucoma can be eliminated without surgery, it's just that the eye doctors have no idea of what really causes those diseases because they don't know the whole story behind everything with Helmholtz's theory and Bates.

Truth can be stranger than fiction sometimes.