Guest guest Posted April 14, 2004 Report Share Posted April 14, 2004 Hi Chantelle, This report should help support your claim that your vision does interfere with your ability to do many things. I can help you decipher more later if you do not sit down and discuss it with Ann. For now just know that OU means both eyes, OS means left eye, and OD means right eye; so the report actually did mention your left eye a lot. So with the coloboma your right eye is the better eye, but acuity wise your right eye is worse. Kim > Hi guys. Got one of my vision reports. Im going to go to the low > vision assessment centre if they ever call me back! lol I sent my > thing to them, I phoned them back to get a response but hey, maby it > will take a little longer. I put it in the mail before easter, but > maby I will get a response this week. > > Anyways, anyone who understands optomological exams, enjoy this > read… (Just a note, not much is on the left eye, when that's the > worse eye. Oh well. > > Ok, here it goes… > > Both eyes less then 20 degrees diameter in both eyes. > Other abnormality (Quadranopsia, superotemporal (cant read the next > word v edef?) > distance: Right eye 20/40+ near 20/30 Left eye 20/400. Right eye > conjenital colomboma. > > Rotine check up; blurred vision @ distance & near OU. History of > diabetes and heart condition. non- strabismus and orthobhoria at > distance and near. 12mmHg OD 12mmHg OS > correctopia OU (Lower sislocation of pupils) all media appears to be > otherwise clear and unremarkable OU. Dilated Fundus Exam disclosed > very large inferior nasal retinal colomboma OU. with obstruction of > OS Macula. very pale and whitish appearance. Humphrey.s > Autoperimetry discloses very large dense and defined superior > temporal visual field defect OU corresponding to the retinal damage > (enclosures) results confirmed good reliability. OS has very poor > Vas both central and peripheral due to macular coverage of retinal > damage wheras OD macula has been spared allowing reasonable and > functionally workable central vision. Extreamly poor temporal visual > fields prove debilitating. > > > > > Membership of this email support groups does not constitute membership in the > CHARGE Syndrome Foundation. > For information about the CHARGE Syndrome > Foundation or to become a member (and get the newsletter) > please contact marion@... or visit > the CHARGE Syndrome Foundation web page > at http://www.chargesyndrome.org > 7th International > CHARGE Syndrome Conference, Miami Beach, Florida, July 22-24, 2005. > Information will be available at our website > www.chargesyndrome.org or by calling 1-. In Canada, you may > contact CHARGE Syndrome Canada at 1- (families), visit > www.chargesyndrome.ca, or email info@.... Thank you! > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2004 Report Share Posted April 14, 2004 Thanks for the interpretation. I am surprized though that the accuity is better in my left eye as I dont really use that eye and rely mostly on my right eye to see everything. But im glad it says enough that I do have visual imarement that hampers things. (well ok, I would be even happier if my vision was 20/20 in both eyes with no colomboma, but you know what I mean! LOL) Chantelle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2004 Report Share Posted April 14, 2004 HI Chantelle, All it really means is that with your limited field of vision in your left eye you can make things out okay. The problem is the coloboma covers so much of that eye that as you say you do not rely on it much. If someone is inexperienced and looks at the report they could look at the report and say you can see fine, because the acuity in that eye is okay. That is not what the report says, so make sure they read it closely or have someone spell it out in laypersons terms, so the folks determining your eligibility for disability can understand it. I do think it is interesting that the field loss is so great in the left eye and the acuity in the right eye is so poor. I don't see how they can say you do not qualify for low vision services, but I do not work in that field. Of course you would like to see well, but since you don't it would be helpful if others understood how the vision loss effects you in different situations. Good luck, Kim > Thanks for the interpretation. I am surprized though that the > accuity is better in my left eye as I dont really use that eye and > rely mostly on my right eye to see everything. But im glad it says > enough that I do have visual imarement that hampers things. (well > ok, I would be even happier if my vision was 20/20 in both eyes with > no colomboma, but you know what I mean! LOL) > > Chantelle > > > > > Membership of this email support groups does not constitute membership in the > CHARGE Syndrome Foundation. > For information about the CHARGE Syndrome > Foundation or to become a member (and get the newsletter) > please contact marion@... or visit > the CHARGE Syndrome Foundation web page > at http://www.chargesyndrome.org > 7th International > CHARGE Syndrome Conference, Miami Beach, Florida, July 22-24, 2005. > Information will be available at our website > www.chargesyndrome.org or by calling 1-. In Canada, you may > contact CHARGE Syndrome Canada at 1- (families), visit > www.chargesyndrome.ca, or email info@.... Thank you! > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2004 Report Share Posted April 15, 2004 HI Chantelle: quite quickly, I recall you felt the examination was not accurate of your visual fields, in terms of what was happening with the visual field testing during the exam? Was it possible that perhaps you missed some of the verbal explanations due to hearing impairment? Was it just the visual acuity and not the visual fields the individual at CNIB was given? This report seems fairly accurate in terms of what you have explained to be your visual functioning, and in terms of what I observed being with you.This report should make you available for services with CNIB. I CANNOT believe you never recieved vision services in all your schooling. What the report does not cover is many other vision considerations: lighting, sun/snow glare, visual distraction on the left (when the candle was placed on the table on that side), eye reflexes, and your reports on inability to discriminate faces at a distance. Did you also have a cataract(s) early on??? You compensate so well with vision and hearing, it is VERY VERY misleading to the lay person that you COULD be disabled. You are amazing, especially in terms of your functioning level considering this report. I am always in awe of how all our kids learn to use their vision and yet it also explains so many of the other issues they need help with. Ann Gloyn specialist Teacher Canada > Hi guys. Got one of my vision reports. Im going to go to the low > vision assessment centre if they ever call me back! lol I sent my > thing to them, I phoned them back to get a response but hey, maby it > will take a little longer. I put it in the mail before easter, but > maby I will get a response this week. > > Anyways, anyone who understands optomological exams, enjoy this > read… (Just a note, not much is on the left eye, when that's the > worse eye. Oh well. > > Ok, here it goes… > > Both eyes less then 20 degrees diameter in both eyes. > Other abnormality (Quadranopsia, superotemporal (cant read the next > word v edef?) > distance: Right eye 20/40+ near 20/30 Left eye 20/400. Right eye > conjenital colomboma. > > Rotine check up; blurred vision @ distance & near OU. History of > diabetes and heart condition. non- strabismus and orthobhoria at > distance and near. 12mmHg OD 12mmHg OS > correctopia OU (Lower sislocation of pupils) all media appears to be > otherwise clear and unremarkable OU. Dilated Fundus Exam disclosed > very large inferior nasal retinal colomboma OU. with obstruction of > OS Macula. very pale and whitish appearance. Humphrey.s > Autoperimetry discloses very large dense and defined superior > temporal visual field defect OU corresponding to the retinal damage > (enclosures) results confirmed good reliability. OS has very poor > Vas both central and peripheral due to macular coverage of retinal > damage wheras OD macula has been spared allowing reasonable and > functionally workable central vision. Extreamly poor temporal visual > fields prove debilitating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.