Cat Forum / Cat Anecdotes / July 2007
A sad conclusion
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Karen - 04 Jul 2007 03:24 GMT I think Pearl is really having trouble seeing anymore. The last time we went to the vet, the vet asked if she could see at all. Apparently she has pretty bad cataracts. Well, she can see to jump and she can see Sugar run and chase her. She plays chase the laser dot sometimes. But I can tell that she is indeed getting worse. The last week, after I go to bed, she goes in the bathroom and jumps on the counter where there is a night light and meows and meows until I go get her. Her blood sugar is fine (she's doing fairly well), her coat is shiny, she seems fairly well in health. Tonight I was playing with one of those sparkle wands that have short tinsel glued in the end of the stick. I tried tracking with her eyes with it. She really couldn't see it well. Yet, when I put it under the throw rug, she watches it disappear, but I think maybe that is her excellent hearing tracking more than her eyes. I wonder if I leave a hall light on if that will help her. I'll have to try it tonight. But I do think that her eyes are definitely getting worse. Nothing to be done really but it is just kind of sad. I think it confuses her a bit. She is certainly more restless than usual. Poor girl. She really isn't very old for all her ailments. :(
Mishi - 04 Jul 2007 03:50 GMT >I think Pearl is really having trouble seeing anymore. The last time we >went to the vet, the vet asked if she could see at all. Apparently she [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >confuses her a bit. She is certainly more restless than usual. Poor >girl. She really isn't very old for all her ailments. :( Hi Karen,
It is hard when they start to have problems. :( I know when my Maus (RB) was having trouble seeing, putting a night light in the areas where he wanted to go helped him greatly. How old is she? Can she have the cataracts removed?
I don't know if cats can take bilberry, but a rescue contact of mine had a blind boston who regained some of his vision after she gave it to him. She had before and after treatment photos, and you could definitely see that the cataracts had lightened. It is just a random thought, though.
Good luck, and purrs coming from my clowder! Mishi
Karen - 04 Jul 2007 04:12 GMT >> I think Pearl is really having trouble seeing anymore. The last time we >> went to the vet, the vet asked if she could see at all. Apparently she [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Good luck, and purrs coming from my clowder! > Mishi She is 11. Not very old. But she has asthma, a heart condition and diabetes. She takes so much stuff already! I have never heard of bilbury. I'll have to see what I can find about it. I don't know that they remove cataracts in cats.
PatM - 04 Jul 2007 04:51 GMT On Jul 3, 9:12 pm,
> She is 11. Not very old. But she has asthma, a heart condition and > diabetes. She takes so much stuff already! I have never heard of > bilbury. I'll have to see what I can find about it. I don't know that > they remove cataracts in cats.- Hide quoted text - I'm sorry about what your Pearl is going through. There is a bunch on the web about cataract surgery for cats, such as this site http://www.vetspecialists.co.uk/06_Animal_Welfare/Ophthalmology_Facts/Cataract_S urgery.html , but her other conditions and her age might make it tricky. They recomemd a specialist. I don't know what I would do...I'm pretty sure we don't have any feline opthamologists in this neck of the woods. And the cost. I have cataracts from taking prednisone and will have to have them removed eventually. My doc tells me that's the only cure. I would be tempted to look into that bilberry or other eyedrops I saw online. Does anyone know of any cats that are blind? I wonder how well they get around? I knew a blind ferret. If she learned your home, and nothing was moved, she might do ok--?
PatM
jXwXeXrXmXoXnXt@sonic.net - 04 Jul 2007 06:43 GMT > Does anyone know of any cats that are blind? I wonder > how well they get around? I knew a blind ferret. If she learned your > home, and nothing was moved, she might do ok--? Guess you haven't seen MaryL's posts? She has a wonderful cat named Duffy who is completely blind, and gets around her house just fine. In fact he's amazing - he can climb to the top of tall furniture, he chases the other cat around the house, loves to play, etc. It doesn't seem to have hampered him at all.
I think that animals - domestic ones, anyway - do better than humans do when they lose their sight. I'm sure they're a lot less likely to dwell on what they've lost, the way a human would. They adjust, and then live with it. They probably forget to a large extent what it was like to have sight. Out in the wild it would be a different story - a blind wild animal probably wouldn't live long. But a domestic pet doesn't have that problem!
Joyce
jofirey - 04 Jul 2007 07:18 GMT > On Jul 3, 9:12 pm, >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > to have them removed eventually. My doc tells me that's the only > cure. If you have cataracts, get them off ASAP. The "surgery" is a breeze. There is simply no good reason to delay it. It isn't like you will get them again eventually or anything.
Most of us no longer have to wear glasses. Best thing I ever had done.
Jo
jXwXeXrXmXoXnXt@sonic.net - 04 Jul 2007 11:16 GMT > If you have cataracts, get them off ASAP. The "surgery" is a breeze. There > is simply no good reason to delay it. It's interesting that you say this, because I seem to have known a lot of people who, for reasons I could never understand, had to wait for some period of time before they could have cataract surgery. I never knew if it was because they were inoperable until they had grown to a certain area or maybe thickness, that would make it possible to remove them. Or maybe there was some other reason for it. But people were always *waiting* to have cataract surgery, and I couldn't understand it. Why make people suffer for months, sometimes years, through declining eyesight, if the cataracts could be removed at any time? Do you know what I'm talking about?
Joyce
Winnie - 04 Jul 2007 12:52 GMT On Jul 4, 6:16 am, jXwXeXrXmXoX...@sonic.net wrote:
> It's interesting that you say this, because I seem to have known a lot > of people who, for reasons I could never understand, had to wait for [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Joyce Yes, I know what you are talking about. I think you have to wait for a certain stage before the cataract is "operable". My mother has cataract for a long time and her eye doctor checked her frequently and waited until a time when he said she needed surgery.. The wait was not because of lack of resource, at least in her case.
Winnie
Lesley - 04 Jul 2007 12:59 GMT >On Jul 4, 6:16 am, jXwXeXrXmXoX...@sonic.net wrote: >> It's interesting that you say this, because I seem to have known a lot [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >cataract for a long time and her eye doctor checked her frequently and >waited until a time when he said she needed surgery.. Until fairly recently the surgeon would have to wait for a cataract to "ripen" ie become sufficiently solid that it could be lifted out in one piece rather than having to have repeated open surgery but over the last few years this has changed and now cataracts can be done at an earlier stage
Lesley
Slave of the Fabulous Furballs
jXwXeXrXmXoXnXt@sonic.net - 04 Jul 2007 22:03 GMT > Until fairly recently the surgeon would have to wait for a cataract to > "ripen" ie become sufficiently solid that it could be lifted out in one piece > rather than having to have repeated open surgery but over the last few years > this has changed and now cataracts can be done at an earlier stage It must have been quite recent, then. A friend of mine had a cataract removed 5 years ago, and she had to wait quite some time while it "ripened" or whatever. In the meantime, she was almost blind, having severe cataracts in both eyes. I remember that after she had the cataract removed from one eye, she was overjoyed. She kept saying, "Wow! The *colors*!" like someone on LSD. :)
Joyce
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) - 04 Jul 2007 19:22 GMT > On Jul 4, 6:16 am, jXwXeXrXmXoX...@sonic.net wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > waited until a time when he said she needed surgery.. The wait was > not because of lack of resource, at least in her case. I think it has to do, also, with how well the patient sees with the cataract. Mine were "incipient" for many years - when they began to noticeably affect my vision, surgery became an "elective", and it was up to me to determine when I felt it was needed. ...."Surgery" is still "surgery" - no reputable surgeon will perform any procedure unnecessarily, any more. (Gone are the days when whole families would have their tonsils out at the same time - simply because doctors thought they served no useful purpose, so one bout of "tonsilitis" in one family member, and out they all came!)
jofirey - 04 Jul 2007 20:56 GMT >> On Jul 4, 6:16 am, jXwXeXrXmXoX...@sonic.net wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > useful purpose, so one bout of "tonsilitis" in one family member, and out > they all came!) In all fairness, in those days we didn't have the antibiotics available to treat tonsillitis that we have today. Penicillin was about it and a lot of people either were allergic, or became allergic after using it for a while.
Jo
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) - 05 Jul 2007 18:25 GMT >> ...."Surgery" is still >>"surgery" - no reputable surgeon will perform any procedure unnecessarily, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > treat tonsillitis that we have today. Penicillin was about it and a lot of > people either were allergic, or became allergic after using it for a while. True, but despite the discomfort of a severely sore throat for a few days, people usually RECOVERED from tonsilitis. (I'm not saying the surgery was never neccessary, but surely not for an entire family just because ONE member required it!)
I can't help but wonder whether our reliance upon immediate treatment with antibiotics is an entirely good thing. How does that help our bodies to build any immunities? I should think the wiser course, especially with "childhood" diseases, would be to let the disease run its course, only resorting to antibiotics if the attack is severe. (We might not, then, have so many illnesses emerging that are resistant to standard antibiotics.)
No one enjoys feeling ill, but allowing a mild case of flu or chicken pox or mumps or whatever to run its course may produce a healthier immune system. Even as a senior citizen, I generally give my body a week to handle coughs or colds on its own (with the aid of Co-enzyme Q-10 and echinacea - plus aspirin and OTC remedies). Usually I'm back to normal well within a week - if not, I see a doctor.
jofirey - 05 Jul 2007 21:07 GMT >>> ...."Surgery" is still "surgery" - no reputable surgeon will perform any >>> procedure unnecessarily, any more. (Gone are the days when whole [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > echinacea - plus aspirin and OTC remedies). Usually I'm back to normal > well within a week - if not, I see a doctor. Have you ever had shingles? It is extremely painful. And you are at risk for it for life if you have even had Chicken Pox. Mumps can easily leave boys sterile.
Not to mention that when you keep someone from getting childhood diseases, you also prevent them from spreading childhood diseases. Not every one that contracts these things is capable of fighting them off.
You didn't mention measles. That is another one that can and did kill.
Jo
jXwXeXrXmXoXnXt@sonic.net - 05 Jul 2007 21:15 GMT > Have you ever had shingles? It is extremely painful. And you are at risk > for it for life if you have even had Chicken Pox. Mumps can easily leave > boys sterile.
> Not to mention that when you keep someone from getting childhood diseases, > you also prevent them from spreading childhood diseases. Not every one that > contracts these things is capable of fighting them off.
> You didn't mention measles. That is another one that can and did kill. Right, but Evelyn was talking about antibiotics. Actually, any doctor who would prescribe antibiotics for those illnesses isn't worth the title. For those, you need to be vaccinated.
Do kids still get vaccinated for those diseases?
Joyce
William Hamblen - 06 Jul 2007 02:08 GMT >Right, but Evelyn was talking about antibiotics. Actually, any doctor >who would prescribe antibiotics for those illnesses isn't worth the title. >For those, you need to be vaccinated. > >Do kids still get vaccinated for those diseases? They have MMR for measles-mumps-rubella and a separate vaccine for chicken pox. MMR is required by law in the USA. Chicken pox is not. I'm older than those vaccines and so had all those illnesses in childhood. Measles made me by far the most ill I've ever been. (obRPCA: I was seeing cats that weren't there in my fever.) A parent who refuses the measles vaccine for his child should be horsewhipped.
Bud
 Signature The night is just the shadow of the Earth.
jXwXeXrXmXoXnXt@sonic.net - 06 Jul 2007 02:37 GMT >> Do kids still get vaccinated for those diseases?
> They have MMR for measles-mumps-rubella and a separate vaccine for > chicken pox. MMR is required by law in the USA. Chicken pox is not. > I'm older than those vaccines and so had all those illnesses in > childhood. Measles made me by far the most ill I've ever been. I had measles, mumps and chicken pox as a kid, too. Never got rubella, though. Didn't have kids, too late now, so I'm not worrying about that one. :)
Measles was probably the worst one for me, too, but I was so young (3 or 4) that I really can't remember feeling sick. I do remember one thing, though. The doctor came to the house, and I got worried that he was going to give me a shot. He promised he wouldn't. Next thing I knew they had my butt uncovered and I was jabbed with a needle.
Oh, I also remember it was dark in the apartment because my parents had the curatins drawn. Apparently your eyes become extremely sensitive to light during the progression of the disease, and the sun could cause permanent damage.
> (obRPCA: I was seeing cats that weren't there in my fever.) Were they nice cats, at least? :)
Joyce
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) - 06 Jul 2007 00:21 GMT >>>>...."Surgery" is still "surgery" - no reputable surgeon will perform any >>>>procedure unnecessarily, any more. (Gone are the days when whole [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > You didn't mention measles. That is another one that can and did kill. What part of "resorting to antibiotics if the attack is severe" didn't you understand? I was merely suggesting people's bodies should be given the chance to throw off infections before administering antibiotics. As many family doctors have observed in the past: "When you get an illness, one of two things happens - either you get better, or it gets worse". If it gets worse, obviously antibiotics are there to be used, but why assume your body won't recover on its own? (At least give it the chance!)
jofirey - 06 Jul 2007 01:57 GMT >>>No one enjoys feeling ill, but allowing a mild case of flu or chicken pox >>>or mumps or whatever to run its course may produce a healthier immune [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > it gets worse, obviously antibiotics are there to be used, but why assume > your body won't recover on its own? (At least give it the chance!) I apologize. I'm being contentious. I do understand your point. It doesn't apply to chicken pox or mumps, since you never know if they are going to be mild and for that matter since antibiotics are useless against them
But its 112F/44.44C outside and I'm being a grump.
So I'll try to behave, and go out and put more water in the bird bath.
There are at least 10 blue jays out back trying to make do with the dogs water bowl.
Jo
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) - 06 Jul 2007 20:37 GMT >>What part of "resorting to antibiotics if the attack is severe" didn't >>you understand? I was merely suggesting people's bodies should be given [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > going to be mild and for that matter since antibiotics are useless against > them Since I had both many years before antibiotics were available (and of course there were no vaccines for them, yet), I didn't realize that. In my day you just took aspirin, used calomine lotion (in the case of chicken pox), slept as much as you could, and waited until they went away. I was fortunate in having an excellent immune system, so never got a severe case of ANYTHING. (We never were sure whether I had whooping cough or not - the tests at Children's Hospital indicated I had it, they gave my folks all sorts of instructions about what to do if it got worse, and I promptly recovered!)
> But its 112F/44.44C outside and I'm being a grump. Tell me about it! It was 116F here on the 4th, 115 yesterday, and similar temperatures are expected until the middle of next week, at least. (Going out to check my mailbox is like walking half a block in an oven!) Under those conditions, EVERYONE'S temper tends to be short - no wonder most riots occur in the summertime!
jXwXeXrXmXoXnXt@sonic.net - 06 Jul 2007 23:50 GMT > Since I had both many years before antibiotics were > available (and of course there were no vaccines for them, > yet), I didn't realize that. In my day you just took > aspirin, used calomine lotion (in the case of chicken pox), > slept as much as you could, and waited until they went away. That's how it was for me, too. I mean, these diseases are viruses, and unless there's a vaccine, you just have to wait it out, like you do with the flu. (There were no anti-virals either when I was a kid.) Lucky for me, I didn't get deathly ill with any of them - I was out of school for about a week with each, which was pretty much par for the course.
I heard about whooping cough, but I didn't get it, and neither did anyone I knew. This was the 1960s, maybe that disease was on its way out? I never got scarlet fever either (my dad had it as a kid). Or rheumatic fever - that was a scary one.
The main thing I remember with mumps was that I couldn't stand to eat any food that had a strong flavor, or anything with citrus. I can still remember how it felt if I did. Chicken pox - I remember the itching, but I was a good girl and didn't scratch them. :) One came off my forehead when I was taking off my shirt, and I still have the scar.
Joyce
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) - 08 Jul 2007 00:28 GMT > Chicken pox - I remember the > itching, but I was a good girl and didn't scratch them. :) I wasn't, and I still have a few slightly visible pox marks on my midriff, seventy years later!
Jack Campin - bogus address - 08 Jul 2007 01:15 GMT >> Chicken pox - I remember the itching, but I was a good girl >> and didn't scratch them. :) > I wasn't, and I still have a few slightly visible pox marks > on my midriff, seventy years later! I didn't think scratching made any difference? I've got no marks from it, anyway.
I had it in an amazing setting. I was eight years old and our family was emigrating to New Zealand, by ship. We were on a dead cheap NZ-government-sponsored ticket, a six-berth room at the waterline, with no windows and right next to the stabilizers, which made a noise like a snoring dinosaur all night long. The chickenpox got me put in the isolation cabin, which was high up at the stern of the ship with the best view any passenger could have had. The downside was I couldn't go ashore, but since it seemed to be raining the whole time we were berthed in Fiji I can't have missed much.
Mumps, on the other hand, was horrible. I got terrifying hallucinations that my hands had swollen up to the size of baseball catcher's mitts. My father knew exactly what to do - he'd had the same hallucination as a kid and pressed my hands in cold wet towels. I wonder how many generations back that hallucination and its remedy went.
============== j-c ====== @ ====== purr . demon . co . uk ============== Jack Campin: 11 Third St, Newtongrange EH22 4PU, Scotland | tel 0131 660 4760 <http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/jack/> for CD-ROMs and free | fax 0870 0554 975 stuff: Scottish music, food intolerance, & Mac logic fonts | mob 07800 739 557
jXwXeXrXmXoXnXt@sonic.net - 08 Jul 2007 06:20 GMT > Mumps, on the other hand, was horrible. I got terrifying hallucinations > that my hands had swollen up to the size of baseball catcher's mitts. > My father knew exactly what to do - he'd had the same hallucination as > a kid and pressed my hands in cold wet towels. I wonder how many > generations back that hallucination and its remedy went. Bizarre! I didn't have any hallucinations with mumps. Or at least, I don't remember anything like that. Sounds pretty scary.
Joyce
Enfilade - 08 Jul 2007 14:04 GMT > > Mumps, on the other hand, was horrible. I was three weeks old when I had mumps and I don't remember a thing about it.
My dad recalls thinking it was very funny that I looked like I swallowed a football that got stuck on the way down.
--Fil
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) - 08 Jul 2007 20:38 GMT > > Mumps, on the other hand, was horrible. I got terrifying hallucinations > > that my hands had swollen up to the size of baseball catcher's mitts. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Bizarre! I didn't have any hallucinations with mumps. Or at least, I > don't remember anything like that. Sounds pretty scary. Although measles came the closest, I never had any disease with a fever high enough to induce delirium! (Which I assume is what caused the hallucinations.)
mlbriggs - 07 Jul 2007 05:19 GMT >>>> ...."Surgery" is still "surgery" - no reputable surgeon will perform >>>> any procedure unnecessarily, any more. (Gone are the days when whole [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Jo Yes, I have had shingles and I have scars to prove it. The shingles started as a heavy aching pain in my left arm. I thought I was having a heart attack. It got so bad that night, I debated calling my son or letting him find a dead body. I took a straight shot of bourbon and said to myself "let them find the body". The next day the rash started to appear and my boss insisted I see his doctor z(mine was out of town). Shingles -- awful!!! My son said he recently had a preventative shot for it that is available now. You are right about the childhood diseases -- I had them all.
Karen - 07 Jul 2007 15:58 GMT >>>>> ...."Surgery" is still "surgery" - no reputable surgeon will perform >>>>> any procedure unnecessarily, any more. (Gone are the days when whole [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > for it that is available now. You are right about the childhood diseases > -- I had them all. ML!! Oh my goodness. It's not funny but it is. There is a gal on my diabetes board whose husband has just come down with the non-rash form. It just sounds miserable. I have known only a handful of people who had it but man, they all agree it is the worst thing ever.
Winnie - 07 Jul 2007 20:33 GMT > >>>> ...."Surgery" is still "surgery" - no reputable surgeon will perform > >>>> any procedure unnecessarily, any more. (Gone are the days when whole [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Oh yes I remember the pain of shingles. I thought I broke my back. Had to take short-term disablity and stay home for 3 weeks. The medicine for it was very expensive and had to be taken within 72 hours.
Winnie
mlbriggs - 11 Jul 2007 01:42 GMT >> >>>> ...."Surgery" is still "surgery" - no reputable surgeon will >> >>>> perform any procedure unnecessarily, any more. (Gone are the days [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > Winnie The doctor gave me Prednisone and a drying agent. I got blisters from the tip pf my little finger, up the arm to my chest, then over my chest to center of the chest. The worst blisters were on my upper arm and the scars are still there.MLB
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) - 04 Jul 2007 19:12 GMT > > If you have cataracts, get them off ASAP. The "surgery" is a breeze. There > > is simply no good reason to delay it. > > It's interesting that you say this, because I seem to have known a lot > of people who, for reasons I could never understand, had to wait for > some period of time before they could have cataract surgery. "Routine" eye surgery has changed dramtically, over the past forty years or so! They used to have to "ripen" before they were removed, and the patient then had to wear very thick glasses. When my Dad had his first one done, he had to lie flat in bed without moving his head for about two weeks. They were then just beginning to use corrective contacts instead of the ""bottle glass" ground lenses, and considered that a great improvement (which of course it was). By the time my mother had hers done, they were using implants, but the incision was still large enough so she had to be very careful for several weeks. By the time I had mine done, the implant was a soft lens, inserted folded and allowed to unfold after insertion (thus requiring only a tiny incision), and I could drive the next day. (Next step, according to my ophtalmologist, a liquid lens that can be injuected without incision, and becomes firm after injection - but that's still in the future, somewhat.)
jXwXeXrXmXoXnXt@sonic.net - 04 Jul 2007 22:00 GMT > By the time I had mine done, the > implant was a soft lens, inserted folded and allowed to > unfold after insertion (thus requiring only a tiny > incision), and I could drive the next day. Is the implant permanent, or just for while the eye is healing from the surgery? Why is an implant needed? (Maybe I don't understand what cataracts are. I always thought they were some sort of tissue growing on the surface of the eye, which gradually get wider and thicker, obscuring eyesight gradually. And I thought all that was needed to fix them was simply to remove them - end of story. I haven't heard about implants being needed before.)
Joyce
John F. Eldredge - 04 Jul 2007 22:43 GMT > > By the time I had mine done, the > > implant was a soft lens, inserted folded and allowed to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >needed to fix them was simply to remove them - end of story. I haven't >heard about implants being needed before.) Cataracts are caused by the eye's natural lens gradually turning opaque. This is a structure internal to the front of the eye, and shaped like the lens in a magnifying glass. Once the cloudy lens is removed, a replacement lens is necessary, whether as an implant, a contact lens resting on the front of the eye, or as glasses. Otherwise, all you would be able to see was whether your surroundings were light or dark, but no details.
I have the early stages of a cataract in my left eye. It hasn't changed in the 2 1/2 years since it was discovered, so the ophthalmologist says that it isn't time yet to deal with it. The result is a slightly-blurry C-shaped arc in the center of my vision from the left eye.
 Signature John F. Eldredge -- john@jfeldredge.com PGP key available from http://pgp.mit.edu "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
jXwXeXrXmXoXnXt@sonic.net - 05 Jul 2007 00:57 GMT > Cataracts are caused by the eye's natural lens gradually turning > opaque. This is a structure internal to the front of the eye, and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Otherwise, all you would be able to see was whether your surroundings > were light or dark, but no details. Oh, wow, I never knew that. I haven't had a cataract, and although I have a friend who had one, she didn't explain the medical details. That's really interesting. But in that case, how do cataracts "grow back"? I hear people talking about having to have cataracts removed several times. How could an artifical replacement lens get cataracts?
Also, do the replacements eventually break down and have to be replaced?
Thanks for the explanation.
Joyce
John F. Eldredge - 05 Jul 2007 02:11 GMT > > Cataracts are caused by the eye's natural lens gradually turning > > opaque. This is a structure internal to the front of the eye, and [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Thanks for the explanation. I had not heard of anyone having to have cataract surgery more than once on the same eye, but I suppose that the membrane in front of the lens, which holds the lens in place, could start to become opaque. I don't know what the life expectancy is for the replacement lenses. Now I have some additional topics to read about.
One thing that I did learn, and which surprised me, is that dark-eyed people have a higher rate of cataracts than do light-eyed people. One would generally expect the situation to be the other way around, since light-skinned people have more trouble with skin cancer and other sun damage. Apparently, the doctors aren't sure why dark-eyed people are at higher risk of developing cataracts.
 Signature John F. Eldredge -- john@jfeldredge.com PGP key available from http://pgp.mit.edu "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
jXwXeXrXmXoXnXt@sonic.net - 05 Jul 2007 09:06 GMT >> Also, do the replacements eventually break down and have to be replaced?
> I had not heard of anyone having to have cataract surgery more than > once on the same eye, but I suppose that the membrane in front of the > lens, which holds the lens in place, could start to become opaque. I > don't know what the life expectancy is for the replacement lenses. Now > I have some additional topics to read about. Better you than me. :) (I don't mean to come off all anti-intellectual, but I feel overwhelmed with too much to do these days, and I never feel like I have time. I still don't know how I ever managed to work full time when I was younger, and then have a full life after work!)
> One thing that I did learn, and which surprised me, is that dark-eyed > people have a higher rate of cataracts than do light-eyed people. One > would generally expect the situation to be the other way around, since > light-skinned people have more trouble with skin cancer and other sun > damage. Apparently, the doctors aren't sure why dark-eyed people are > at higher risk of developing cataracts. I would guess that there are completely different things at work. Maybe the chemicals in eye pigment are somehow related to conditions that cause cataracts.
Joyce - dark-eyed, don't have any as yet!
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) - 05 Jul 2007 19:06 GMT > Better you than me. :) (I don't mean to come off all anti-intellectual, > but I feel overwhelmed with too much to do these days, and I never feel > like I have time. I still don't know how I ever managed to work full > time when I was younger, and then have a full life after work!) In that you're not alone! I wondered what I'd do with "all that time" after I retired, but so far I have as much trouble finding time for things I really MUST do as ever I did!
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) - 05 Jul 2007 19:02 GMT > > Cataracts are caused by the eye's natural lens gradually turning > > opaque. This is a structure internal to the front of the eye, and [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > hear people talking about having to have cataracts removed several times. > How could an artifical replacement lens get cataracts? I think someone here has already explained that - it has to do with how the eye accepts the implant. (But the "grown back" kind only require laser treatment, not surgery.
> Also, do the replacements eventually break down and have to be replaced? Good question! (Maybe, like joint replacements, it depends upon how long you live after having them done.) Since most people are fairly elderly when cataracts become a problem, and the "soft" implants haven't been around that long yet, perhaps the correct answer is "no one knows".
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) - 05 Jul 2007 18:54 GMT >>>By the time I had mine done, the >>>implant was a soft lens, inserted folded and allowed to [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > result is a slightly-blurry C-shaped arc in the center of my vision > from the left eye. Apparently the rapidity with which one's vision is affected depends upon where on the lens the clouding begins - both of mine began at the side, so it took quite a long time for me to even notice, although my ophthamologist had mentioned them from time to time over a period of several years.
MatSav - 04 Jul 2007 22:51 GMT > ...Maybe I don't understand > what cataracts are... Cataracts are where the lens IN the eyeball becomes "cloudy" and prevents light passing through the aqueous humor (the fluid in the eyeball) to reach the retina (the light-sensitive cells at the back of the eye). Removal of a cataract involves a small incision and removal of the clouded lens, and replacement with an artificial alternative. The lens may be attached to the muscles that previously supported the original lens, or may be supported on very small surgical steel wire coils (like springs).
(I am NOT a medical professional - this is just something I "know" from a friend who had their cataracts removed.)
 Signature MatSav
William Hamblen - 05 Jul 2007 01:32 GMT >Is the implant permanent, or just for while the eye is healing from >the surgery? Why is an implant needed? (Maybe I don't understand [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >needed to fix them was simply to remove them - end of story. I haven't >heard about implants being needed before.) Cataracts happen when the lens in your eye goes opaque. You remove the cataract by removing the lens. Having removed the natural lens you need to replace it with another lens. They use implanted lenses nowadays. Not too many years ago you had to wear those thick cataract glasses.
Bud
 Signature The night is just the shadow of the Earth.
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) - 05 Jul 2007 18:49 GMT > > By the time I had mine done, the > > implant was a soft lens, inserted folded and allowed to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Is the implant permanent, or just for while the eye is healing from > the surgery? Why is an implant needed? Yes, the implant is permanent, because it is a prosthetic replacement for the eye's natural lens.
> (Maybe I don't understand > what cataracts are. I always thought they were some sort of tissue > growing on the surface of the eye, which gradually get wider and > thicker, obscuring eyesight gradually. And I thought all that was > needed to fix them was simply to remove them - end of story. I haven't > heard about implants being needed before.) Cataracts themselves are incurable - they are a permanent clouding of the eye's natural lens. The only treatment is to remove that lens, and replace it with glasses, contacts, or an implanted prosthesis. (The latter is the standard method nowadays, although there are probably rare conditions that sometimes make it inadvisable.)
I had assumed the implants were more or less standard, but my brother did not need them. (He does need glasses for reading and for driving, now - but not for watching TV or other daily activities.) My guess is that the eye's basic focusing distance (minus the natural lens) can vary. The natural lens adjusts for near and far (not always efficiently, which is why some of us without cataracts require corrective lenses to see near or far) and the ability to adjust decreases with age (which is why many people need reading glasses as the get older).
sam - 06 Jul 2007 02:59 GMT > Is the implant permanent, or just for while the eye is healing from > the surgery? Why is an implant needed? (Maybe I don't understand [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Joyce I am not an ophthalmologist (nor do I play one on TV), but here goes. A cataract is a clouding of the lens of the eye which, I believe, is located in the "corneal sac" in the front part of the eyeball. The clouding is not a surface defect but rather a through-and-through defect in the lens. The muscles of the normal eye contract and expand changing the shape of the lens, giving one the ability to focus at different distances.
Cataracts are extracted by cutting a slit in the side of the corneal sac and pulling the clouded lens out. That is usually replaced by a plastic artificial lens (intraocular implant)that focuses to mid-range (or maybe farther). The replacement lens is then sewn into place in the corneal sac and the sac is sutured shut (really fine sutures!). Unfortunately, the implant is sufficiently hard that the muscles in the eye can't change the focus, so after the surgery the patient will need reading glasses at least, and maybe more correction for distance vision.
For those that can't for whatever reason, have the implants, contact lenses are usually used to replace the focus adjustment the removed lens provides.
Please be advised that my experience is old (like me) -- I had mine out in '85 and '86. However, that said, after successful surgery, the patient's sight is way, way better.
Hope this helps,
Sam, whose Mistletoe is away at Catnip Suites while we go on vacation.
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) - 04 Jul 2007 18:59 GMT > If you have cataracts, get them off ASAP. The "surgery" is a breeze. I agree! I agonized over the first one, until I realized I just wasn't seeing as well as I should to drive, but it really WAS "practically nothing". Consequently, I opted to have the second done as soon as it showed signs of getting larger.
> There > is simply no good reason to delay it. It isn't like you will get them again > eventually or anything. Well, actually that's not ENTIRELY true - sometimes the implants get a bit cloudy. However, that can be easily taken care of with lasers, it doesn't require additional surgery.
> Most of us no longer have to wear glasses. Best thing I ever had done. AMEN! I was phenomenally near-sighted for most of my life (although I had worn contacts for the past forty-odd years). Until I had the second surgery, I still wore a contact in one eye (much easier than adjusting to regular glasses), but what a joy to see without them! Of course, I still need reading glasses, since the implant will not adjust for distance as your natural lens does, but most of us past fifty need them anyway.
jofirey - 04 Jul 2007 19:10 GMT >> There is simply no good reason to delay it. It isn't like you will get >> them again eventually or anything. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > taken care of with lasers, it doesn't require additional > surgery. I had that with one eye. The doctor explained that sometimes the eye will try to "heal" itself after cataract surgery and the scar tissue it creates may have to be removed with a laser burst. Takes a few seconds.
He said I got it so quickly because I was so young when I got cataracts. But it has never happened with the other eye.
Jo
Karen - 04 Jul 2007 11:31 GMT > On Jul 3, 9:12 pm, >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > on the web about cataract surgery for cats, such as this site > http://www.vetspecialists.co.uk/06_Animal_Welfare/Ophthalmology_Facts/Cataract_S urgery.html ,
> but her other conditions and her age might make it tricky. They > recomemd a specialist. I don't know what I would do...I'm pretty sure [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > PatM I'm sure she'll do ok. I don't think there is anyplace within four hours that does that kind of surgery and I'm not sure about putting her under. We'll have to see. She didn't meow around last night. I left the light by the front door on and so it was lighter around. She came right up to bed. First time in a week.
Winnie - 05 Jul 2007 00:48 GMT > I'm sure she'll do ok. I don't think there is anyplace within four > hours that does that kind of surgery and I'm not sure about putting her [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Rusty's vet did some eye surgery on his cat Chico. Chico is probably about 8 or 9.. I am not sure exactly what type of eye surgery Chico had. I can tell from looking that Chico eyes are not quite right. They look kind of cloudy to me. But Chico didn't seem to have any problem though. The vet is not a specialist, just a regular vet.
Winnie
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) - 04 Jul 2007 18:38 GMT > Does anyone know of any cats that are blind? I wonder > how well they get around? I knew a blind ferret. If she learned your > home, and nothing was moved, she might do ok--? > > PatM I've never known one, but I've read of them. A cat's normal vison is better than a dog's, so they might find the adjustment a little harder. However, cataracts happen gradually, so the adjustment happens gradually, too. (When you, as a human, get around to having the surgery - which really is "practically nothing" nowadays - you will be surprised at the dramatic improvement in your vision, even though you THINK you're seeing okay, now.) Also, cats rely more upon hearing and smell than humans do, so if you don't confuse them by moving furniture, they probably can manage quite well. (Maybe a few ramps, so they don't have to jump, since they DO rely on "eye measure" to judge those distances.)
sheelagh - 05 Jul 2007 22:16 GMT > On Jul 3, 9:12 pm, > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > PatM Sorry for butting in here., but this post caught my attraction. Have any of you considered talking to May L about this subject? Mary has 2 cats, Holly & Duffy, one of whom is totally blind. Now she would be able to tell you anything that you might need to know regarding this matter. She got Duffy, her male blind cat some time ago from a rescue centre, & from what I understand, Duffy has coped very well with his disability. however, there are things that she would know about that I don't, that would help you here. Try Pinging her on Alt.cats.anecdotes, & R.CH&B too. I'm certain that if she can give you any advice that you might need, she will provide it if she can. sorry to hear about Pearl's problems. It is always hard not to worry when they can't tell us how they feel, or how life is for them, isn't it? Best Wishes, & good luck, sheelagh
Sherry - 04 Jul 2007 05:27 GMT > >> I think Pearl is really having trouble seeing anymore. The last time we > >> went to the vet, the vet asked if she could see at all. Apparently she [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Poor Pearl. I don't know about cats, but I don't see why they could not remove cataracts. It's an easy surgery for people, or at least for my Dad it was.
Sherry
Winnie - 04 Jul 2007 12:27 GMT > She is 11. Not very old. But she has asthma, a heart condition and > diabetes. She takes so much stuff already! I have never heard of > bilbury. I'll have to see what I can find about it. I don't know that > they remove cataracts in cats.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I think it is bilberry you want to consdier.. It is a relative of blueberry. Bilberry and grape seed extract are considered good for eye health, at least in humans. Some take it for macular degeneration.
Winnie
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) - 04 Jul 2007 18:25 GMT > She is 11. Not very old. But she has asthma, a heart condition and > diabetes. She takes so much stuff already! I have never heard of > bilbury. I'll have to see what I can find about it. I don't know that > they remove cataracts in cats. Karen, that's "bilBERRY" (it's a member of the blueberry family). Cataract surgery is pretty routine for humans (expensive, but fortunately Medicare autnorizes it). I've no idea whether they perform it on cats and dogs, but I imagine it would cost a bundle. (If they do, I wonder if they use lens implants, as they do for humans?)
sam - 04 Jul 2007 04:29 GMT > I think Pearl is really having trouble seeing anymore. The last time we > went to the vet, the vet asked if she could see at all. Apparently she [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > She is certainly more restless than usual. Poor girl. She really isn't > very old for all her ailments. :( Purrs for Pearl on the way. Her sight may never improve, but if her health is otherwise good, she can have a happy life for some time yet.
Sam, closely supervised by Mistletoe
mlbriggs - 04 Jul 2007 05:58 GMT > I think Pearl is really having trouble seeing anymore. The last time we > went to the vet, the vet asked if she could see at all. Apparently she has [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > restless than usual. Poor girl. She really isn't very old for all her > ailments. :( I am sure you are aware that Mary L has written extensively about her blind cat who gets along just fine. I don't know about eye surgery for cats. I do know that I don't see much better since I had cataract surgery. I am sure age is a factor (for me as well as a cat) in how the operation goes. I leave night lights on and it seems to help. Best wishes that Pearl stays healthy and happy. That is most important. MLB
jofirey - 04 Jul 2007 07:15 GMT >I think Pearl is really having trouble seeing anymore. The last time we >went to the vet, the vet asked if she could see at all. Apparently she has [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >think it confuses her a bit. She is certainly more restless than usual. >Poor girl. She really isn't very old for all her ailments. :( The last time one of my poodles got cataracts, I put off having them removed, I won't do that again. She lived another eight years and it would have been money well spent. I don't know if you vet can or will do it, but I'm quite sure I could get someone at the UCDavis Vet school to do it as a demonstration. Cataract removal is easy. I don't know if lense replacement if possible of needed for a pet. Jo
Takayuki - 04 Jul 2007 07:18 GMT >I think Pearl is really having trouble seeing anymore. The last time we >went to the vet, the vet asked if she could see at all. Apparently she [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >confuses her a bit. She is certainly more restless than usual. Poor >girl. She really isn't very old for all her ailments. :( That is very sad about this special girl. You know, I have two motion and darkness activated nightlights, one that I got at Home Depot, and another that I got at K-Mart. I got them for myself and not for the cats, but they do definitely activate them (I can sometimes use it to help track which room a cat ran off to), and they don't mind them. Maybe lights suddenly turning on would cause more confusion for a cat with cataracts, but just a thought.
Kreisleriana - 04 Jul 2007 15:23 GMT >I think Pearl is really having trouble seeing anymore. The last time we >went to the vet, the vet asked if she could see at all. Apparently she [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >confuses her a bit. She is certainly more restless than usual. Poor >girl. She really isn't very old for all her ailments. :( My heart goes out to you and Pearl. Theresa Stinky Pictures: http://community.webshots.com/album/125591586JWEFwh
Make Levees, Not War
GaDragonfly - 04 Jul 2007 16:46 GMT > I think Pearl is really having trouble seeing anymore. The last time we > went to the vet, the vet asked if she could see at all. Apparently she [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > confuses her a bit. She is certainly more restless than usual. Poor > girl. She really isn't very old for all her ailments. :( Awww, purrs for Pearl that her eyesight doesn't get any worse. She is such a sweet girl. Sam and Hobbes send her headbutts and everyone is sending purrs.
Julie
jXwXeXrXmXoXnXt@sonic.net - 04 Jul 2007 22:09 GMT > I think Pearl is really having trouble seeing anymore. The last time we > went to the vet, the vet asked if she could see at all. Apparently she > has pretty bad cataracts... [snip]
> I wonder if I leave a hall light on if that will help her. I'll have to > try it tonight. But I do think that her eyes are definitely getting > worse. Nothing to be done really but it is just kind of sad. I think it > confuses her a bit. She is certainly more restless than usual. Poor > girl. She really isn't very old for all her ailments. :( Poor Pearl! She's had to deal with a lot. But on the other hand, although she may seem confused or sometimes disoriented, it doesn't sound like she's in pain. Is there anything that can be done about the cataracts? You've probably been reading the sub-thread about human cataracts that spun off this one, but I imagine that the situation must be the same for a cat as for a human, meaning that it wouldn't be too hard to fix them. With one exception, that is - you would have to pay for it. :(
I think the hall light is a good idea. And maybe turn on some bright lights when you play with her, so she can see the toys better?
Purrs, Joyce
Karen - 05 Jul 2007 05:43 GMT > > I think Pearl is really having trouble seeing anymore. The last time > we > went to the vet, the vet asked if she could see at all. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Purrs, > Joyce I don't know. She's doing pretty well today. I wonder if it was her low bg. She isn't great about seeing I know, but she sure sees better today. She really was looking at the lights in the sky tonight.
jXwXeXrXmXoXnXt@sonic.net - 05 Jul 2007 09:03 GMT >> I think the hall light is a good idea. And maybe turn on some bright >> lights when you play with her, so she can see the toys better?
> I don't know. She's doing pretty well today. I wonder if it was her low > bg. She isn't great about seeing I know, but she sure sees better > today. She really was looking at the lights in the sky tonight. I'm really glad to hear it! Maybe she wasn't really having trouble seeing, but just having trouble responding because she didn't have enough energy. In any case, I'm really glad she's better today! And that she had something interesting to look at. :)
Joyce
Marina - 25 Jul 2007 18:21 GMT > I don't know. She's doing pretty well today. I wonder if it was her low > bg. She isn't great about seeing I know, but she sure sees better today. > She really was looking at the lights in the sky tonight. While catching up, I was sorry to read this thread, Karen, but you may be right. If she had low bg, it may definitely have affected her eyesight. I can testify to that, as a diabetic myself. Both low and too high bg affects the eyesight.
 Signature Marina, Miranda and Caliban. In loving memory of Frank and Nikki.
Karen - 25 Jul 2007 22:09 GMT THat is good to know Marina. SHe has been doing much better and I find it odd. She definitely has cataracts. We tried to get her blood pressure today but the machine just wouldn't read it. We are pretty sure it is ok. Retinas are good and no retinal bleeding. My vet was so upset we couldn't get a reading she didn't charge for the visit. She really examined her eyes though. But, I took her up on that.
>> I don't know. She's doing pretty well today. I wonder if it was her low >> bg. She isn't great about seeing I know, but she sure sees better today. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > can testify to that, as a diabetic myself. Both low and too high bg > affects the eyesight. Marina - 26 Jul 2007 04:31 GMT > THat is good to know Marina. SHe has been doing much better and I find it > odd. She definitely has cataracts. We tried to get her blood pressure today > but the machine just wouldn't read it. We are pretty sure it is ok. Retinas > are good and no retinal bleeding. My vet was so upset we couldn't get a > reading she didn't charge for the visit. She really examined her eyes > though. But, I took her up on that. What a good vet you have to waive the fee! I wonder if they can do anything to retinal bleeding in cats? I had laser treatment umpteenth times for mine from the age of 15 to 30, but I can't imagine a cat sitting still for that. I guess they'd have to anesthetize the cat (duh).
Poor Pearl. Give her some scritches from me.
 Signature Marina, Miranda and Caliban. In loving memory of Frank and Nikki.
Karen - 26 Jul 2007 04:45 GMT >> THat is good to know Marina. SHe has been doing much better and I find >> it odd. She definitely has cataracts. We tried to get her blood [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Poor Pearl. Give her some scritches from me. I don't know. She said that would be bad. The little blood pressure thing was interesting but she was quite upset that we couldn't get a reading. Pearl was quite upset there were THINGS on her TAIL :D It's not like it is invasive. Then the vet combed her for a while. So, I don't think, even though she swore through that a bit that she was very traumatized :)
Matthew - 04 Jul 2007 22:22 GMT {{{{{{{{{{{{Karen and Pearl}}}}}}}}}}}}}
>I think Pearl is really having trouble seeing anymore. The last time we >went to the vet, the vet asked if she could see at all. Apparently she has [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >think it confuses her a bit. She is certainly more restless than usual. >Poor girl. She really isn't very old for all her ailments. :( polonca12000 - 08 Jul 2007 21:18 GMT > I think Pearl is really having trouble seeing anymore. The last time we > went to the vet, the vet asked if she could see at all. Apparently she [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > She is certainly more restless than usual. Poor girl. She really isn't > very old for all her ailments. :( Lots and lots of purrs, Polonca and Soncek
|
|
|