I'm new to this list and am not sure whether this is an appropriate posting. If
not, I would be grateful if someone would direct me to a more pertinent list.
Since I am not a member of any optometric/opthamologic profession, I apologize
for any confusing and/or inadequate information in this posting.
I am trying to gather information in order to make an informed decision as to
the relative merits of different approaches to curing strabismus in infants. My
eight-month-old daughter has been diagnosed as suffering from strabismus and
far-sightedness by a highly regarded pediatric opthamologist here in Dallas. He
prescribed glasses (+5 lenses), while warning us that they had only a 10%-20%
chance of correcting the problem without surgery, which he would wish to perform
before she is a year old. We also have had our daughter examined by an O.D.,
who substantially agrees with this diagnosis of the problem. However, he
advocates using what he terms a "physics/math" model of treating it, as opposed
to the M.D. approach of a "biochemical" model. His treatment consists of +4
prism lenses as well as working on developing our child's gross motor skills.
My wife and I very much wish to spare our child surgery and probably will
undertake the O.D. approach for the next 2 or 3 months. However,I do not wish
to undertake any treatment method that could possibly preclude another approach,
e.g., inappropriate lenses or waiting too long for surgery. I realize that
success rates vary with the patient, particular problems, etc. However, I would
like to know of any sources for the general reader comparing and/or critiquing
either or both of the treatment approaches described above. I would greatly
appreciate any assistance that anyone is able to give me concerning this matter.
Sam Ratcliffe
Head, Bywaters Special Collections Wing
Hamon Arts Library
Southern Methodist University
Dallas, Texas 75275-0356