🚀 go-pugleaf

Before I look in detail at all this stuff, and might come up with some 
ideas for you, I know for sure that I will be making this one 
suggestion: If you already haven't done so, get a vitreo-retinal 
specialist to do a complete vitreo-retinal examination of your eyes. You 
may need a referral from an o.d. or an o.m.d., or just faxing this reply 
with your post included, to the retinologist might do the trick. Make 
sure if you're going to use insurance, that your insurance will accept 
the retinologist and vice-versa. 

You need a definitive vitreo-retinal diagnosis, a more definitive one 
that would come from either an o.d. or a general o.m.d.

w.stacy, o.d.

Dick Dead-Eye wrote:

> To begin with, my eyes have always been subpar.
> I've worn glasses since whenever I can remember, for myopia with a
> strong astigmatism and had surgery to correct amblyopia (not sure which
> eye) when I was about 6 or 7.
> Then back in the fall of '79, when I was 13, I awoke with floaters in my
> left eye, which becane inflamed with a rip roarin' case of
> chorioretinitis (at the time they suspected it was caused by
> toxoplasmosis), with the vision deteriorating to less than 20/200.
> The inflammation cleared up and, while technically my vision returned to
> 20/20, the field was reduced by scarring around the edges and the
> vitreous was--at least partly--detached.
> Fast forward to Jan.'89 when, one morning, I suddenly noticed a couple
> of small, pure black spots in the near center vision of my right eye.
> It turned out to be a "cold sore" on my optic nerve!  Like my left eye,
> 10 years earlier (which they now believe may have also been caused by a
> herpes infection, not toxo), the right eye became inflamed, started to
> recover, then reinflamed, this time totally cooking it, to be followed
> in a few months by a trauma induced cataract!  P=(
> So now I am totally blind in one eye and half blind in the other (in the
> sense of the field is reduced and the detached vitreous has greatly
> reduced the quality of the remaining vision in that eye:  It takes
> longer for the eye to adjust to darkness {and, even then, it's only
> about half--or even less--sensitive than my [previously] "good" eye},
> there is a mild reduction in overall "brightness contrast" {a slight
> "film"?} and there is a mostly transparent--except when I squint, when
> it looks "bubbley/sudsy"--wrinkly wad of "pie/cake dough" {i.e., when
> you stir or kneed the dough, it holds together but "wrinkles"} swishing
> around in my vision, which sometimes looks--albeit, usually faintly and
> out of focus--like either a fishing net sprawling around in water or a
> dim puff of smoke).
> In the past few years, I've had a few--what I believe are--"vitreous
> events", where, when I shifted my vision, I'd notice a litte spot (or
> strand?) that visually seemed to slightly flap or pull--it didn't look
> like the retina, but maybe a piece of loose but tethered vitreous (at
> least one of them looked like a small air bubble under a transparent
> sticker stuck to a window).  After a couple of weeks or so, it would
> seem to have just about disappeared when, suddenly, (at the
> correspondingly opposite side of my vision field?) I'd notice a real
> vivid, small patch or strand of floaters that was tethered/anchored to
> that one area.  After 2-3 weeks that tethered patch/strand would start
> to "weather" and fade into the background, never completely disappearing
> (other than the accompanying floaters), just adding to the vitreal
> artifacts.
> A couple of years ago, I had a couple of similar episodes, though these
> times the eye fluid (vitreous?) became not blurry, hazy or
> cloudy--suggesting inflammation--but a bit "gooey", yet certain things I
> could see off in the distance, relatively clear, while at the same time
> the facial features of someone standing 20-30 feet away may be a
> blur--it actually looked like if you squinted to *almost* a blur.  As it
> cleared up, the (vitreous?) fluid had a slight, but definite, greasy,
> shiny slick to it. It was after those episodes cleared up that I started
> noticing that real small print--like the newspaper stock market
> results--started to become difficult (albeit, just slightly) to read.
> Then, last Feb ('04), another episode started, this time to the point of
> causing some mild inflammation:  The distant "wall chart" vision
> remained relatively close to 20/20, but I needed a magnifying glass to
> be able to read even regular newspaper size print!
> Even a couple of months after the inflammation cleared up, it was
> apparent I now needed reading glasses/bifocals:  Do I nned reading
> glasses because of the event, or was the vitreous event caused by my eye
> (focus) muscles changing?
> The recent eyeglass history for my left eye is so:
>
> (Sph = "Sphere", Cyl = "Cylinder", Axs = "Axis";
>  Adj.Sph, Adj.Cyl = Adjusted Sph, Cyl = Sph/Cyl + Add)
>
> Year    Sph     Cyl    Axs    Add
> ====   =====   =====   ===   =====
> 1988?  -0.25   +2.75    80    ---
> 1990   -3.00   +4.00    85    ---    Adj.Sph   Adj.Cyl
> 2002   -2.00   +3.00    80    ---    =======   =======
> 2004   -2.00   +3.00    85   +1.25    -0.75     +4.25
> 2005   -2.00   +3.00    85   +1.75    -0.25     +4.75
>
> The vision didn't really change between 1988-90, it was just that, until
> the right eye went down the tubes, I had used my eyes complementarily:
> My (then) "bad" (left) eye was used for close-up vision and the (then)
> "good" (right) eye was used for distance.
> Once the right eye became useless, the left eye was re-evaluated.
> A couple of other characteristics/properties that may be contributing
> factor(s):
>
> --- The left eye pressure is relatively low (7-13--whereas the right eye
> is usually 1 or less!)--so don't even THINK of suggesting anything
> surgical (vitrectomy, LASIK, etc.)!  P=/
> --- The left eye also has a slight "reverse sided" cataract (whereas a
> "normal" cataract develops on the outside of the lens, this one is on
> the *inside* of the lens).
>
> With all that said, here is the $50 question:  Is there such a thing as
> "dual focus"?
> In other words, could my distance vision be both -2.00/+3.00 *AND* about
> -0.25/+2.75, with perhaps some tweaking of the Cyl and/or Axs?
> It was during the time I had my order in for my first pair of bifocals
> last summer, that I tried on all of my old glasses and found that my
> "1988" pair seemed perfect for reading--and not half bad for distance!
> Over the past year, since I got the bifocals, I've checked my distance
> vision through the bifocal and it seems less and less clear:  When I
> first looked though the "1988" glasses and the bifocals, the distance
> didn't really look blurry, everything just had a slight "ghosting" to it
> (like looking though binoculars or a telescope that is out of focus:
> When you adjust the focus of the binoculars/telescope, are you changing
> the Sph, Cyl, both or neither?); recently, though, I've found that
> looking in the distance through the new bifocals (and "1988" glasses)
> does introduce a definite blurriness, besides the "ghosting" (which my
> oculist said was going to start happening as the "Add" increased, even
> at mid-distance, thus requiring either trifocals or progressives--which
> I *have* considered).
> Even more "perverse", if I turn my glasses backwards so that the outside
> face of the glasses is "facing my face" with the (normally positioned)
> left eyeglass in front of my left eye and the (normally positioned)
> right eyeglass hanging off to the left of my head:  If I rest the top
> edge of my left eyeglass against my left eyebrow, tilt the bottom of the
> resting eyeglass out/up slightly (15�-30�--The Sph and/or Cyl
> component/action?)) and turn the tilted glass slightly counterclockwise
> (5�-15�--The Cyl and/or Axs component/action), (albeit, everything looks
> a little smaller) looking through the upper part of the bifocal section,
> the distance looks almost as clear as through the regular distance part
> of the lens!  The kicker is that when I turn my attention to up close
> (intended "bifocal") vision, holding the glasses in the same position,
> at the same angle, looking out through the same area of the bifocal, I
> can still read up close, perfectly clear (maybe even *slightly* better
> than via the prescribed way!), whereas the non-bifocal part is just as
> fuzzy as the other way!!
> Thus the main question:  Is it possible to have two (or more) equally
> valid focal values, at least for distance?
> One difference I notice is that, looking through the regular distance
> lens, the "vitreous wad" is more like a "puff of smoke" and out of
> focus, whereas, through the bifocal, everything looks "watery" (at
> times, anyways, even a little greasy?), like I am looking through a
> clear piece of "Saran Wrap" that is spread out but anchored underwater
> (i.e., I am looking *through* the vitreal fluid--at least more--in 
> focus?).
> Could the "ghosting"/slight double imaging (at least partly) be the
> image reflecting (refracting?) off of the vitreous, like looking through
> a double paned window, thus what may be my "natural" 20/20 vision with
> -0.25/+2.75 is "ghosted" by the "double pane" effect of the vitreous,
> which is cancelled out with the -2.00/+3.00 values--and now that it is
> starting to present itself, presbyopia isn't compatible with the
> -2.00/+3.00 values???
> Can the Cyl and Axs have two different values for bifocals or does the
> bifocal and rest of the glass have to have the same values?
>
>
>