Glaucoma Drops
Glaucoma Disease » Glaucoma Drops » Pupil Dilation

Pupil Dilation

Question:

On Sun, 18 Jul 1999 12:59:12 -0400, Tin-man <tin___…@hotmail.com> wrote: ……….. >N,ow you have here an opportunity >to respond as an Adult, or again as in the past, act ugly and degrading. Which >will it be this time?

I think it would be considerate of you not to drag along, in your responsive posts, automatic quoting of a long accumulation of the past posts of the thread.  You should snip everything out that is not directly relevant to your responsive post.  This post of yours is listed as 103 lines long, because of your quotes of all the previous trash, while your actual added content is less than a dozen lines; and your posting of your general comment on the demeanor of posts really needs *no* referent quotes at all. Ray

Response:

On Fri, 16 Jul 1999 10:34:07 +0100, "David Wright" <djwri…@tesco.net> wrote: >Hello Barry >When a patient is using pilocarpine or another of the miotic preparations >the pupil reacts by becoming very small (this is the purpose of the drops) >but there is also a transient period when the focusing muscle is also >affected and the patient experiences very ’short sight’.

I don’t know anything about this, so let’s assume it is true. >It is therefore >conceivable that the dilating drops used during eye examinations would have >an effect on the same muscles causing problems with focus and visual >disturbance.

I hope you aren’t now going to resort to suggesting all the things you could possibly conceive of.  There’s just no more logic or specificity to what you say here than there is to your saying that, if you wrecked your thumb with a hammer, and then found your big toe also had a problem, it was likely because you stubbed it against a croquet mallet. I don’t claim what I said in my other post to this thread cannot be wrong, but it is just a simple, straightforward extrapolation and doesn’t connect up a bunch of stuff that I have exceedingly little reason to make a speculation regarding. >If dilating drops are to be used during an examination it is >usual for the doctor to warn patients of their effect on vision

Well, it has been my experience over here that OMDs/ODs seldom do that. >and although >the particular problem mentioned here has not been widely reported to us, it >may be that patients simply put any disturbance down as being normal and >covered by the warning.

Lots of books on things that may be.  They call their contents fantasies. >Nevertheless, the post is very interesting and the >effect has been noted so that if we receive further queries, we can use your >experience to reassure them.

Right.  If they report their eyeballs falling out, you’ll reassure them that anything that happens after an OMD/OD warns them that they could experience unusual visual effects from dilation drops will correct itself, as exemplified by the experience of a certain person you heard of who noticed retrace flicker until his dilation drops wore off. Ray (If everybody’s happy, then it just has to follow that everybody’s healthy. . .and vice versa no doubt.  So once story’s as good as the next.  QED)

Response:

Because I have glaucoma I have a check-up every 4 months.  When I went yesterday, beside the usual tests, my ophthomologists dilated my pupils so that he could check the rear part of my eyes.  It took several hours for the pupil dilating drug to wear off.  I was not suprised that I had strong sensitivity to sunlight during that period of time but what bothered me was that it was difficult to use my computer because the monitor kept flickering – espescially when the screen was white.  The flickering went away when my pupils finally returned to normal.  Why would dilated pupils cause this effect? Barry Howze

Response:

Hello Barry When a patient is using pilocarpine or another of the miotic preparations the pupil reacts by becoming very small (this is the purpose of the drops) but there is also a transient period when the focusing muscle is also affected and the patient experiences very ’short sight’. It is therefore conceivable that the dilating drops used during eye examinations would have an effect on the same muscles causing problems with focus and visual disturbance. If dilating drops are to be used during an examination it is usual for the doctor to warn patients of their effect on vision and although the particular problem mentioned here has not been widely reported to us, it may be that patients simply put any disturbance down as being normal and covered by the warning. Nevertheless, the post is very interesting and the effect has been noted so that if we receive further queries, we can use your experience to reassure them. Many thanks David Wright MSAE Chief Executive, International Glaucoma Association While we are pleased to offer the above information, it is not possible for the International Glaucoma Association to advise on an individual patient’s eye condition or treatment as this has to be the role of their own doctor or eye specialist who knows the full details of their particular case. IGA Web Page – http://www.iga.org.uk/home.htm ———- In article <378e29ee.5215…@news.mindspring.com>, barho…@hotmail.com – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -(Barry Howze) wrote: >Because I have glaucoma I have a check-up every 4 months.  When I went >yesterday, beside the usual tests, my ophthomologists dilated my >pupils so that he could check the rear part of my eyes.  It took >several hours for the pupil dilating drug to wear off.  I was not >suprised that I had strong sensitivity to sunlight during that period >of time but what bothered me was that it was difficult to use my >computer because the monitor kept flickering – espescially when the >screen was white.  The flickering went away when my pupils finally >returned to normal.  Why would dilated pupils cause this effect? >Barry Howze

Response:

Barry, The same thing has happened to me several times.  The screen seems to flicker the most when I’m not looking directly at it, which is pretty weird. Everything has always returned to normal when my pupil gets back to normal. For the record, I use Ocuserts in one eye, so maybe this is somehow related to the pilocarpine.  If I know my eye’s will be dilated, I remove the Ocusert the night before. Arne Johnson David Wright <djwri…@tesco.net> wrote in message

news:7mpe03$gu$1@epos.tesco.net… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Ray, > Everything I write is necessarily equivocal because my knowledge is, like > everybody else (including doctors), incomplete. Surely during all your > research over the years you have seen medical opinion change both in terms > of glaucoma and indeed on almost any other subject you have looked at, so it > would be unreasonable or possibly damaging to make statements which were > unequivocal because a recipient may act on information which, at the time > was considered accurate yet later was discovered to be false. > You seem to take great pleasure in making destructive comments about many > peoples posts but without, in general, offering constructive information. If > that is you particular pleasure – fine, but bear in mind that although some > of us will continue trying to help, others who may have had valuable > information to give will be discouraged. > David Wright MSAE > Chief Executive, International Glaucoma Association > While we are pleased to offer the above information, it is not possible for > the International Glaucoma Association to advise on an individual patient’s > eye condition or treatment as this has to be the role of their own doctor or > eye specialist who knows the full details of their particular case. > IGA Web Page – http://www.iga.org.uk/home.htm > ———- > In article <379023cf.1612…@nntp3.tsoft.net>, ra…@tsoft.net (Raymond A. > Chamberlin) wrote: > >On Fri, 16 Jul 1999 10:34:07 +0100, "David Wright" > ><djwri…@tesco.net> wrote: > >>Hello Barry > >>When a patient is using pilocarpine or another of the miotic preparations > >>the pupil reacts by becoming very small (this is the purpose of the drops) > >>but there is also a transient period when the focusing muscle is also > >>affected and the patient experiences very ’short sight’. > >I don’t know anything about this, so let’s assume it is true. > >>It is therefore > >>conceivable that the dilating drops used during eye examinations would > have > >>an effect on the same muscles causing problems with focus and visual > >>disturbance. > >I hope you aren’t now going to resort to suggesting all the things you > >could possibly conceive of.  There’s just no more logic or specificity > >to what you say here than there is to your saying that, if you wrecked > >your thumb with a hammer, and then found your big toe also had a > >problem, it was likely because you stubbed it against a croquet > >mallet. > >I don’t claim what I said in my other post to this thread cannot be > >wrong, but it is just a simple, straightforward extrapolation and > >doesn’t connect up a bunch of stuff that I have exceedingly little > >reason to make a speculation regarding. > >>If dilating drops are to be used during an examination it is > >>usual for the doctor to warn patients of their effect on vision > >Well, it has been my experience over here that OMDs/ODs seldom do > >that. > >>and although > >>the particular problem mentioned here has not been widely reported to us, > it > >>may be that patients simply put any disturbance down as being normal and > >>covered by the warning. > >Lots of books on things that may be.  They call their contents > >fantasies. > >>Nevertheless, the post is very interesting and the > >>effect has been noted so that if we receive further queries, we can use > your > >>experience to reassure them. > >Right.  If they report their eyeballs falling out, you’ll reassure > >them that anything that happens after an OMD/OD warns them that they > >could experience unusual visual effects from dilation drops will > >correct itself, as exemplified by the experience of a certain person > >you heard of who noticed retrace flicker until his dilation drops wore > >off. > >Ray (If everybody’s happy, then it just has to follow that everybody’s > >healthy. . .and vice versa no doubt.  So once story’s as good as the > >next.  QED)

Response:

On Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:16:45 +0100, "David Wright" <djwri…@tesco.net> wrote: >Ray, >Everything I write is necessarily equivocal because my knowledge is, like >everybody else (including doctors), incomplete.

;-) )))))  I read your disclaimer.  I think it covered that territory. ……… >You seem to take great pleasure in making destructive comments about many >peoples posts

I simply put the posts of others — which seem to claim a basis of reasoning, but which have elements indicating otherwise, and whose authors appear to speak from a platform of authority — into a context where they may be better analyzed for rationality. >but without, in general, offering constructive information.

If I have no constructive information on the subject of the post under challenge, of course, I don’t give it.  It does not follow that, if I attack some reasoning in a post, I should have to substitute something that reaches an equivalent level of attempted solution.  (If Star Wars or the F-22 aren’t good for what ails us, take away their money, without necessarily spending it on something equivalent.) >If >that is you particular pleasure – fine, but bear in mind that although some >of us will continue trying to help, others who may have had valuable >information to give will be discouraged.

A lot of people say, particularly in regard to health info, that the Net is full of junk.  The value of the Net is that, if something there is wrong, ambiguous or defective in any other way, it is still likely that somewhere else on the Net, or preferably as close to the same location as possible, has handled the same subject in a different manner that may be better.  Often it will become evident which presentation is correct, or that neither is, or that the info sought is still missing.  If the matter is not cleared up from the Net, there are additional sources of such info not on the Net, but their contents are often simply stated under the authority of someone with an MD or some other authoritative label after his/her name, and are really just unconsidered extensions of inhouse verbiage. If MDs and other autorities can’t take what’s on Usenet, let them hide out elsewhere.  I’m sure their groupies will find them.  I don’t see that it’s out of line to put an on-topic ad in a NG. Ray

Response:

On 18 Jul 1999 21:26:09 PDT, ejone…@concentric.net (Earle Jones) wrote: …….. >I think that "near point" and "far point" are reasonable well defined: >Let’s talk about the normal eye, where the focus never moves beyond infinity. >Far point  == the point of focus of the relaxed (undrugged) normal eye >(the emmetrope, if you prefer the jargon). >Near point == the point of focus of the eye at its closest focus (at its >maximum focussing power).

I don’t get the impression those are the ways optoms usually use those terms.  They seem to define them such: Far point:  20 ft or more — infinity for practical purposes Near point:  14 in >In a 70-year-old subject, they are the same.

You seem to avoid sorting out the points of confusion that appeared to me in what you wrote.  A person at a young age has a range of best focus that (s)he may exercise with the crystalline lens of the eye, given the fixed power of his/her cornea.  That person also has some particular distance at which his/her eye(s) focus(es) when that lens is in a relaxed condition.  I believed that this is what you referred to as "resting focal point" in your earlier post.  Any lens or lens system also has a depth of focus, for any setting of adjustable focus, and over which "depth"/range the degree of focus is "acceptable" but not exactly as good as at the center of this range.   This range is dependent on the aperature diameter (controlled sluggishly by light level in the case of the eye) and other features of said lens or lens system. All of these things change with age, pretty much to one’s detriment. Your above definition of ‘near point’ describes the closest point one can bring one’s center of depth of focus by controlling the power / focal lenth / diopters of one’s crystalline lens.  I think I have more or less always been aware that this point has increased throughout my life, rather than suddenly jumping out at the time I’m found to need bifocals.  I don’t know how one’s resting focal point varies throughout life, but I assume it also varies somewhat reciprocally linearly throughout life.  I don’t know that one is necessarily only one of myopic, emmetropic or hyperopic throughout life; but in any case, in my case: I have never been myopic.  I was never classed as hyperopic during the range of my life in which I had significant range of focus/accommodation by means of my crystalline lenses.  At my present age of 68 (the same as yours, I believe), I do know that my range of depth of focus, at any light level, does not include any real distance (infinity or less); i.e., without prosthetic lenses, I cannot focus images other than somewhat behind my retinae.  I thus assume that, at least at present and henceforward, I would be classed as hyperopic (as well as presbyopic (having no or insufficient accommodative range)). I would, in that condition, certainly say that my uncorrected resting focal point is "beyond infinity" (as is all of my uncorrected focused vision). I assume you have nothing more explanatory in respect to the original poster’s question regarding flicker. Ray – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -……..

Response:

On Tue, 20 Jul 1999 22:39:30 -0400, Tin-man <tin___…@hotmail.com> wrote: >Sort of like trying to read a long post that you pick every other line apart and >comment on.. it’s also hard to follow. Tell you what, I’ll try to remove the extra >trash if try to not produce it. How about it? >Tin-man >"Raymond A. Chamberlin" wrote: >> Ray >Is this sufficient for you pal??

Related Posts

Write a comment