From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Medicine / Ophthalmology (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Ophthalmology task force.

Certain Professions[edit]

The article states that presbyopia is delayed in certain professions. Which ones ?? --SystemBuilder 18:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Ok, I found the article (the reference seemed to be associated only with the 2nd fact in the sentence.) I also found that the article assumed that 'seeking correction for presbyopia' was the same as 'developing presbyopia' which by no means is the same, e.g. farmers and housewives most likely seek correction later because their daily chores do not require extensive reading or near-field focusing to complete successfully. On the other hand, office-workers require this skill, and the lives of construction workers might depend upon it. --SystemBuilder 19:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


It is mentioned that there is a "surgery" or "treatment" for correcting presbyopia. What is it? How does it work? Is it permanent?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 17:15, 27 January 2005 (UTC).

A Google search for Presbyopia reveals several pages offering surgery or laser treatment, though I regard these with suspicion as they are trying to sell. It also reveals a patent covering the matter, and a report of recent trials of laser treatment. Non of these are as good as an article I found on the web a few years ago, for a centre offering treatment which explained how staples were put in to tension the zonula, the elastic ligaments that pull the lens outwards. The laser methods seek to strengthen or shorten the zonula, and some methods seem to insert a ring that pulls out the zonula. This all looks very recent and experimental and personally I wouldn't want to risk it, but it's interesting and may well become routine one day. --Lindosland 02:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Article Improvement Drive[edit]

Contact lens is currently nominated to be improved on Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive. Please support the article with your vote. --Fenice 10:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


With the excellent quackwatch reference in Optometrist in mind, I ask: Has there been any research to determine whether eye exercises delay/prevent/treat Presbyopia? It seems like a simple thing to test, so surely, it's been done. What are the results? Since muscles are used to focus, it's reasonable to hypothesize keeping those muscles strong (e.g. by repeatedly focusing near and far) would help. If not, what are you waiting for? Surely, there's, e.g. NIH money for this type of work!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elvey (talkcontribs) 16:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC).

Yes, it seems that a test of a method like this should be fairly straightforward. The only problem might be finding dedicated subjects who are willing to keep at it for a while. PSWG1920 (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

By "muscles" you are meaning the extraocular muscles. These do not control accommodation. The muscles that do so are the ciliary muscles. Nuvitauy07 (talk) 04:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The claim that exercises have not proven effective is referenced with a non-scientific web page (page of received medical advice). Moreover, that page provides no evidence for the claim, simply saying "it is fair to assume" that exercises will not help. It also makes the contradictory statement that "You need to use your accommodative system to keep it flexible", implying that exercise (use) of the system does have an effect. The claim that exercises "have not proven effective" thus needs stronger evidence if it is to be this categorical. GKantaris (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

etymology of word[edit]

why give presbyteros (elder) when the simple form of the adjective presbys or presbus, old, seems simpler?12:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Even Merriam-Webster dictionaries (including the site online) uses presbys. That said, don't forget the Latin portion "-opia", which translates to "eye". Scarletsmith (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
No, -opia is actually Greek, it has the Greek root op- derived from ok-. In Latin, this root is oc- (oculus). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Theories about focusing mechanisms of the eye[edit]

This article offers two opposing theories to explain the focusing mechanism which appear to contradict one another:

1. That the tension of the zonula is released by contraction of the ciliary muscle, to allow the lens to fatten, for close vision.

2. That the 'ciliary muscles' pull the lens taut in order to focus at close range, having the counterintuitive effect of steepening the lens centrally (increasing its power) and flattening it peripherally.

Since there appears to be no consensus in the literature, why not consider a third alternative?

3. That the muscles that control rotational eye movement, lateral rectus, medial rectus, and oblique muscles, work in opposition to one another in a kind of isometric tension that changes the shape of the eye, e.g. shortening (and lengthening) the focal distance to the retina? (talk) 01:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC) Wm. B. Fankboner

The problem with this is that citations exist for the first two. Unless you can come up with a reference for your third, it is a "plausible proposal" which really comes under the original research category and therefore not eligible for inclusion in the Wiki TerryE (talk) 13:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


The mentioning of TruFocals in the Treatment section, looks very much as promotion of a specific product, Should this be part of the the article? jengeldk (talk) 13:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Cleaned it up, throwing away most of it. --X-Man (talk) 01:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
+1 The boiler plate in section has been pasted in from some TruFocals material. The vast majority of people in the 3rd world leave presbyopia untreated and live with it. In the more affluent nations the standard treatment is either multifocal or variafocal correction by spectacles. Since cataracts are also common with aging, multi-focal IOLs are also becoming more common. The % of the population using adaptive focal spectacles is tiny. A proportionate treatment of this option would be 1 or 2 sentences, rather than 75% of the section. TerryE (talk) 12:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Seems to be gone now. Can we get rid of the content complaints? Philhower (talk) 15:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
No objections were raised. Done. Philhower (talk) 13:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

how the myopia and hyperopia both independently appear with astigmatisim,presbyopia,and corneal guttata? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear authors of the most exciting free knowledge site. The root -opia is not at all latin. Its also Greek from the verb epoptevo which means I surveille, Thank you very much Stylianos Kassaras just a Greek who loves his language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Laser Blended Vision == Monovision[edit]

According to these sites:

The "Laser Blended Vision" is trademark name for laser corrective surgery that results in monovision. Given that I suggest the section be rewritten and the whole Blended Vision page be moved into a new page about monovision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

precisely 1.9?? inches[edit]

That reads really funny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Normal reading distance[edit]

The article says "a 60-year-old must use corrective lenses to read at a comfortable distance of 60 inches" which is plainly nonsense. A comfortable reading distance can't possibly exceed the length of ones arms! (talk) 02:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Reference for contact lens paragraph seems all wrong[edit]

The paragraph on contact lenses ("Contact lenses have also been used to correct ... There are also newer bifocal or multifocal contact lenses ...") is footnoted with a reference to a paper on "Switchable electro-optic diffractive lens with high efficiency for ophthalmic applications". This paper has nothing to do with contact lenses -- it has to do with LCD-based multifocal spectacle lenses.

I suppose the reference should be deleted or reparented to a new paragraph that actually relates to the subject of the paper, and the paragraph on contact lenses then needs a proper reference.

Jgs42 (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

We head for presbyopia from the age of fifteen[edit]

I was told by an optician today - May 22 2012 (I went to the optician because I had my eyes tested - I do not wear glasses, but I have diabetes mellitusand so needed my eyes tested) that we begin to head for presbyopia from the age of fourteen or fifteen, after our eyes have reached peak elasticity. Since I am not an optician myself, I would not wish to edit the article, but any who does know about this could edit it. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Is this even a disease?[edit]

Basically, the 'normal' reading distance has always been quoted as 12" - 18" with a 12 point Courier Font. Seems this Presbyobia has only come about where computer SW 'artistes' and computer engineers have created tiny fonts for use on tiny monitors and they have habitually locked their focal range for hours a day for decades.

Where people do have slowness in refocusing that is best alleviated through extended time away from TVs, monitors, and books everyday with walking and exercise. You can't expect to keep your lenses locked into such a narrow focal distance everyday and expect the lenses to stay responsive. No one with any sense has ever habitually read legal sized fine print since the days of 13 inch computer monitors with 8 point fonts and little screen space. Now with large sized monitors no one sensibly reads print like that. You know the legal size print was chosen that size because people, young and old, can't and won't read print that small.

This is like, to my surprise, 'floaties' in your eyes being now a new disease to be concerned about and treated. That floaties come about with age is ridiculous. I can remember them as a small child and being able to change focus from one to another as they move about.ThunderCell (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


Besides lacking citation, this section makes no sense, and no attempt is made to explain it. The terms aren't even defined. Besides this writing, there are no references online to 'lens valve cytokinesis'. I assume it means farther separating the 2 surfaces of the lens, like mitosis of a clam shell, but no mechanism is suggested. How do you flatten the equator and fatten the poles?

"Many texts, though, describe the 'ciliary muscles' (which seem more likely to be just elastic ligaments and not under any form of nervous control) as pulling the lens taut to focus at close range.[citation needed] This has the counter-intuitive effect of steepening the lens valve cytokinesis centrally (increasing its power) and flattening peripherally." (talk) 02:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Eye-training App to help with presbyopia?[edit]

Wall Street Journal: "Can an App Improve Vision?"

"The Verdict: A 30-person study published in February 2012 in the journal Scientific Reports ..." — FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)