Refractive exams have greatly increased everywhere, in the last 60 -70 years, especially in a place like China. Therefore, more detection of myopia in the modern decades.
It's a statistic matter. Has anyone looked at that beyond Zadnik who published around 1995? -Charlie
How do you draw that conclusion? It’s a percentage. There’s a numerator AND a demoninator.
Higher chance of poor data, limited pool of examinees. I trust what I see ; especially my family history. ; e.g family history is interesting: 1 parent very myopic, 1 sis -8, other -1. Bro -6 like me. My kids all matched 1 parent. from -1 to -3 to -6. No emmetropes or hyperopes. low WR cyls from .25 to 1.00. .No AR cyls.
Also interesting that 3/4 high myopes were/ are male in my family. and huge difference of 7 D between my 2 sisters. The great majority of myopes are NOT at risk for myopic disease. Hyperopes have more glaucoma, notably Closed angle.
I agree it's a higher chance of poor data. It doesn't mean you can assume more myopes were missed especially with anecdotal data. I agree looking at the male / female data from later on would help draw a conclusion. Haven't looked at it.
The study I linked is a US only study. Showed increase.
Screwed?! Myopia is the superior status you lucky dogs!Neither of my parents are myopic. My sister and I are.
Charlie, proof myopia is not genetic.
My sister and I got screwed.
No, you are very fortunate . Probably in the family tree; g parents and /or uncles and aunts. There is a lot of variety in the expression of genetics. : 1 sis -1 , the other -8.Neither of my parents are myopic. My sister and I are.
Charlie, proof myopia is not genetic.
My sister and I got screwed.
You and your sis could have gone to a refractive surgeon and paid a healthy sum to have the doc make you a -2.00.Neither of my parents are myopic. My sister and I are.
Charlie, proof myopia is not genetic.
My sister and I got screwed.
Brilliant analysis, Joe. Think of the increased income for refractive surgeons, as emmetropes and hyperopes clamor to be myopes, the superior visual state. And yes, for some, -3 is better than -2. Then more income for O.D.s. fitting contacts to enable driving, hunting and gathering activities.You and your sis could have gone to a refractive surgeon and paid a healthy sum to have the doc make you a -2.00.
A perfect outcome for an office bound creature. i.e. the superior status. You emmetropes, there is hope for you...with hyperope LASIK, you too can be -2.00. And if you were born, and suffered with emmetropia your entire life, do not fret. Have your cataract surgeon get you mono focals with a -2.00 target OU. Even better, go for -3.00. The ultimate outcome.
Now...does this make sense?
Just reading this in a state CE meeting where one lecture topic is pediatric keratoconus, and wondering how his Ks and Topos look.
Nope. Aunts, uncles, grandparents all pretty much hyperopes. Sorry it doesn’t fit your narrative. I believe there’s a genetic component and I’d be surprised if my offspring weren’t myopic but it doesn’t explain everything.
My Nidek stopped reading Ks, not known. The cyl is WR, not oblique and R = L so unlikely a Keratocone. Simply a rare high myope, high astig. I encouraged this patient and family that we can fit contacts when he is ready.
How many high refractive error 11 year olds are not ready for contact lenses?
Why can't lab make the glasses? Literally can't? Or can't manage to do a good enough job of it?
His eyeglasses were from Pakistan, and a little low in power, although not too bad. There is no rush to start contacts, but obviously (to us( an excellent idea.
You can always make his glasses, about 3-4D under corrected. That would leave him as the perfect happy myope. Can't see the big E, but can see his EyePhone perfectly at 10 inches. Love love love.
Well, then I think his school might catch the problem in a school vision screening, which are mandated here in CA.You can always make his glasses, about 3-4D under corrected. That would leave him as the perfect happy myope. Can't see the big E, but can see his EyePhone perfectly at 10 inches. Love love love.
Excellent. I had a young 6 y.o boy that was like -12.00 with 2 cyl. We fit him into RGPs at age 6. He blossomed after that. Who knows, maybe even got a girlfriend shortly thereafter?
Did his adaptation go well? Stayed with RGP, or morphed to SCL? I think the youngest patient I fit CL was 9. High myope, of course.Excellent. I had a young 6 y.o boy that was like -12.00 with 2 cyl. We fit him into RGPs at age 6. He blossomed after that. Who knows, maybe even got a girlfriend shortly thereafter?
He adapted very well. His mom was in charge for several months with careful oversight. He is still wearing RGPs as an adult. No reason to switch a happy RGP wearing to SCL. I have many happy RGP wearers.
In many cases, SCL allow patients to have plenty of spare lenses. How many years did a set last him?
I would say that 99% of my RGP wearers would NEVER want to switch. They love their lenses. I have many adults in their 50's & 60's that treat it like a religious experience. That is good for RGP fitters. Same for my RGP translating MF wearers. 1,000% in love with their lenses.
Michael says No… he’s got his family to prove otherwise.
That's why I wrote this!!!!!Michael says No… he’s got his family to prove otherwise.
No, you may have g parents and even ancestor genes to muddy the waters. My son was on near point devices for 22 years and has the same high myopia as I. Proving genetics at work and dominant. Or he would be -10.
So if anyone in the family tree has myopia it's genetic?
