Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cataract: follow-up.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Cataract: follow-up.

    Those interested will remember that I had cataract operations a couple of years ago. A couple of weeks or so afterwards, the ophthalmologist prescribed varifocal glasses with some correction for astigmatism. These worked fine and I also had reading glasses made with the same correction, mainly for the computer. No problem.

    About a year ago, I realised that, when driving, my visual acuity had diminished slightly, also when watching TV. This was not serious but just an observation. One evening, while watching TV, I took my glasses off to give my eyes a rub and, lo, I saw I could read the subtitles more clearly. The following day, I tried driving without glasses and, again, I could just about read the number plates of cars at over 30 m, which I couldn't with the glasses. Even at night, it was better without than with.

    I had reason to see the ophthalmologist yesterday for a totally unrelated reason and I explained what I had found. He sat me down in his big chair and carefully gave me the works and he confirmed that the astigmatism had disappeared, but he was at a loss to explain it. He waffled about my iris being smaller than average, so I wasn't using the total surface of the lens, but he confirmed that that was unchanged from earlier. I also pointed out that even when dilated, at night, I could see the stars very clearly without correction, even relatively dim ones.

    I speculated with him that the lens, when inserted, is folded concertina-wise and that it unfolds. Was it possible that the unfolding takes a lot longer than a few weeks to settle down and that the astigmatism was due to the plastic "memory" of the silicone implant having been folded? He didn't think so, but he had no other explanation.

    Anyway, the upshot is he recommended no glasses for anything over a metre or so distance and ordinary spherical "reading" glasses without prescription for close work. Good news!

    The bad news is that my prostate cancer has taken off again (I had radiation therapy for it in 1995) and I've been put on flutamide: I'm not sure that the hormone therapy isn't worse than the disease! Fortunately, I don't have to pay for it!
    Brian (the devil incarnate)

  • #2
    Hi Brian

    Sorry to hear of the prostate problems. Are recurrances typical? Best wishes with the treatment.

    Great to hear about your vision improving. Mine has got to the point where I have had varifocals for about 6 months, and I have to say I don't like them at all. I paid for the 'medium' priced lenses, in other words the blurry region at each side of the lense isn't as big as it could be or as small as it could be if I paid twice as much. I really beleive they charge so much just because they can, not because they have to.

    I now can only read my laptop comfortably when it is on my lap. If it is to one side, or on my desk at work, I really struggle.

    The worst problem I have is at band practice. My bad playing is now explained by the excuse of not always being able to read the notes. We did a concert on Saturday indoors without great lighting and it was difficult to say the least.

    I am seriously tempted by the option of replacement lenses - heading off the possibility of cataracts too! Trouble is the £3.5k per eye cost! Hopefully that will come down soon like lasek has.
    FT.

    Comment


    • #3
      Sad the prostate cancer is playing up again. Did you only have radiation at the time? Is it simply enlarged or are metastases found?
      Join MURCs Distributed Computing effort for Rosetta@Home and help fight Alzheimers, Cancer, Mad Cow disease and rising oil prices.
      [...]the pervading principle and abiding test of good breeding is the requirement of a substantial and patent waste of time. - Veblen

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Fat Tone View Post
        I am seriously tempted by the option of replacement lenses - heading off the possibility of cataracts too! Trouble is the £3.5k per eye cost! Hopefully that will come down soon like lasek has.
        Price: I paid €2000 per eye, roughly half what you quote. May be worth taking a Cyprus holiday!

        Replacement: a lot depends on the cause of your problems as to whether this would be feasible. If, e.g., your eyeball is deformed or the cornea has not a uniform thickness, then replacing the lens would not help. "Prescription" replacement lenses have not been overly successful, whereas spherical ones are routine for otherwise good eyes or where it is certain that the aberration is due to the natural lens.

        As cancer is never cured, only remitted, yes, it is not unexpected for it to take off again after 17 years of remission. I'm not worried because tumours grow slowly at 80 and the flutamide will slow it further. I have enough more serious potential problems (CHF) that will probably carry me off long before the cancer develops to a painful condition (metastasis to the bones).
        Brian (the devil incarnate)

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Umfriend View Post
          Sad the prostate cancer is playing up again. Did you only have radiation at the time? Is it simply enlarged or are metastases found?
          Yes, I had only RT at the time.

          It is being assumed that it is taking off just now, as the biopsy was aborted - see http://www.murc.ws/showthread.php?t=72102 - based on PSA rising steadily and RPSA dropping (85% certainty) I'll have further tests done in 2 months depending on what happens with the flutamide. CT scan and bone scan are negative for metastasis, not even to lymph nodes. Prostate is tiny (14.6 cm³).
          Brian (the devil incarnate)

          Comment


          • #6
            Do all tumors grow slowly at 80? I thought that was somewhat specific to prostate cancer.

            Anyway, good luck with the flutamide. There are newer drugs that have somewhat less side-effects I understand.
            Join MURCs Distributed Computing effort for Rosetta@Home and help fight Alzheimers, Cancer, Mad Cow disease and rising oil prices.
            [...]the pervading principle and abiding test of good breeding is the requirement of a substantial and patent waste of time. - Veblen

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Umfriend View Post
              Do all tumors grow slowly at 80? I thought that was somewhat specific to prostate cancer.

              Anyway, good luck with the flutamide. There are newer drugs that have somewhat less side-effects I understand.
              True but it is being used for diagnostic purposes, so that the better knowledge of flutamide in various databases will be useful. The major effects of any testosterone-killing drug are the same, by definition, even castration: boobs, no libido, erectile dysfunction, hot flushes etc.

              Some tumours can gallop at any age. Prostate less so.
              Brian (the devil incarnate)

              Comment


              • #8
                I had cataract surgeries a bit before Brian and saw a big reduction in my astigmatism as well. My doc speculates that the adaptive (focusing) lens implants have contributed to this. A welcome fringe benefit indeed.

                Sorry to hear about the prostate firing up again - hopefully they can get it back in check. Hang in there Brian, you can lick it again
                Dr. Mordrid
                ----------------------------
                An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.

                I carry a gun because I can't throw a rock 1,250 fps

                Comment


                • #9
                  Keep at it Brian!!

                  Damn, so many MURCers not doing too well health wise.
                  Titanium is the new bling!
                  (you heard from me first!)

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X