Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsGeneral TopicsCat AnecdotesHealth and BehaviorRescue
CatKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Cat Forum / Cat Anecdotes / July 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

A sad conclusion

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
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
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.