Talk:Cataract/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Microwave citation

Are there citation(s) for microwaves causing cataracts? Pythagras 15:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


Cataract is one of the most common pathological conditions of the elderly. Nearly everyone over 60 has some sign of cataract and 50% of those aged 70 and above have some visual loss due to cataract.

Cataract surgery is the most common surgery performed in the United States in the medicare population. It is generally safe and effective. The cataractous natural lens is removed by an ultrasound technique requiring an incision of about 2.6mm in length in the cornea. Visual rehabilitation is greatly aided by the placement of an artificial plastic lens in the eye at the time of surgery. Typically, patients will wear glasses at least part time after cataract surgery, but relatively good vision can be achieved without correction.

The prinicipal risk of cataract surgery is retinal detachment, which has an incidence of about 1/2% to 1%. The risk period for retinal detachment runs five years after the day of surgery. If a detachment should occur, it is imperative that the patient recognize what has happened and seek treatment immediately, certainly within 24 hours. Symptoms of retinal detachment include flashes of light, black spots in the vision and a "curtain" or cloud coming over the vision. The cloud starts in the peripheral vision and progresses centrally, often in a matter of hours. All symptoms are in one eye only. Vision out of the other eye is unaffected. There is no pain involved.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 02:46, 11 July 2004 (UTC).

Previously, polymethylmethacrylate was used as the lens material. Advances have brought about the use of silicone acrylate which is a soft material. This allows the lens to be folded and injected into the eye through a smaller incision.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 06:47, 21 December 2004 (UTC).


This needs to be split. What should we call the other article? Cataract (geography)? Cataract (rivers)? Cataract (geology)? Suggestions? – Quadell (talk) 00:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

morgagnian cataract 의 뜻은? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thdclgh (talkcontribs) 06:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest the Cataract (geography and geology), because the area is far broader than the waterfalls in rivers. It also contains subjects from both geography and geology. Or maybe as two different aspects for geography and geology, due to the cause of large geographical changes or the phenomena in it self as geologic event. Karcih (talk) 09:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Why has not the page been split yet? (with the disambiguation choices first or rather a choice between the different meanings)Karcih (talk) 22:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


I removed:

Humans with cataracts were accused of being possessed by Satan during the Middle Ages.

Briefly Googling for the terms "cataract", "satan" and various other combinations only yielded this very page. Unless proof can be brought, I doubt this should remain on the page. JFW | T@lk 22:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Conditions linked?

AED, wouldn't it be great to list here the medical conditions linked to cataract. I can think of myotonic dystrophy and a coupla others, but a nice list (with the type of cataract they induce) would be very useful. JFW | T@lk 22:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Great idea, doctor! I'll add it to my "To do" list and see what I can do. AED 22:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

literary meaning?

what is the literary meaning of cataract?


This passage was redundant. And somewhat contradictory.

Some cataract formation is to be expected in any person over the age of 70. Fully half of all people between the ages of 65 and 74 and about 70% of those over 75 have some cataract formation.

I removed the first sentence to improve it.JordeeBec 19:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Comparison photos

Why does a cataract remove the color from the image?--Light current 21:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Any answers?--Light current 17:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Nope, the colour perception is not so remarkably altered in all patients, as shown in the images. In fact, there needs to be an actual artist's rendition of the before and after cataract surgery visual changes, to actually convey the difference. EyeMD 20:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I dont know how the color got removed. Perhaps the original uploader could replace the color.?--Light current 20:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


Why are electricians susceptible to cataracts? Ive not heard this one B4! 8-?--Light current 21:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Im going to remove ref to electricians unless someone comes up with a reason for their susceptibility.--Light current 04:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the EyeMD could comment on this also?--Light current 20:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Although a number of sources report that electrical shocks or currents passing close to the eyes can cause cataracts, I don't know if the incidence and prevalence of cataracts in electricians has been specifically examined. -AED 21:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


Can someone fix the placement of the images? Right now it looks horrible. — ዮም | (Yom) | TalkcontribsEthiopia 18:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree - the editors who have moved around the images: Lightcurrent, kindly refrain from such changes which affect the readability and look of the article. Have a look at my revision and image placement was well, almost perfect then. Why did you change the image placements from good to bad? EyeMD 02:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Good and bad are subjective words. It must be your monitor resolution. The way I changed it looked perfect on my screen (1024 X 768), with the no cataract view to the left of the 'cataract' view. As it is now its OK when the contents box is open, but when its closed, the 'cataract' and 'no cataract' views are disordereed. I dont know how to alter this to everyones satisfaction as its a function of the way the Wiki works! 8-|--Light current 10:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I have moved the eye X sect pic into the surgery para as there were too many images at the top of the page cuasing formatting problems. Please report if any problems on your screens!--Light current 22:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I like it this way, too. -AED 00:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
On my setup (Firefox 1.5, 1024x768 resolution) the "cataract" view appears on top of the "no cataract" view. Shouldn't the "no cataract" view come first? 17:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah Im just hoping its OK on all resolution screens. Its difficult to tell without changing my video setup!--Light current 01:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If left untreated?

This article dwells at length on treatment of cataracts, but leaves unstated what can be expected if cataracts go untreated. Do people go fully blind? after how long? in what percentage of cases? Perhaps it seems too obvious a point, but it deserves discussion. QuartierLatin1968 El bien mas preciado es la libertad 16:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Good points. I've rewritten the opening to address a couple of them. -AED 17:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion - added some more points on untreated cataracts. EyeMD 20:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Example image erroneous!

Color vision is not lost, only impaired, so the image should not be black & white. There are color versions on the NIH pages, someone familiar with this subject ought to do something about this, and the other b&w examples, too! --Janke | Talk 17:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC) PS: Fixed temporarily, could one of the regular editors of "eye stuff" look into the whole series, and get the right size images, please? --Janke | Talk 17:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I have remove this link because the site doesn't look notable. The WHOIS record seems to go to a maildrop. If someone can vouch for them, please feel free to put it back, but in the meantime, I think it violates WP:EL. --Mdwyer 21:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

cataract videos

I added a link containig some cataract surgery videos.Tbere 19:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


What is the meaning of this phrase? "zonules are liable to dislocation anteriorly or posteriorly" Especially the word "zonules"? Obvipously written by an MD, and typically obtuse. My experience is that the doc either thinks that the patient already knows all about his/her condition, or is too stupid to understand the explanation. Either way, nothing is communicated. Too Old 00:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Misleading wording around ECCE

The phrasing "Extra-capsular (ECCE) surgery consists of removing the lens but leaving the majority of the lens capsule intact. High frequency sound waves (phacoemulsification) are sometimes used to break up the lens before extraction." is misleading. Isn't Phaco now the norm? If I recall correctly I read a UK RCS report which quoted something in excess of 90% of procedures use of Phaco -- which is hardly sometimes. Why not:

"Extra-capsular (ECCE) surgery consists of removing the lens whilst leaving the lens capsule largely intact. High frequency sound waves (phacoemulsification) are normally used to break up the lens before extraction"

If you want to refer to conventional ECCE then why not add:

"though in some circumstance conventional ECCE may be required. This involves manual expression of the cataract through a large incision in the cornea."

TerryE 00:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Alternative Cataract Removal

I've removed the "Alternative Cataract Removal" section , as others have done before me, after it was added yet again by the persistent anonymous user Unfortunately I suspect the ping-pong may continue ... AndrewWTaylor 20:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mr - please provide some justification for your addition, otherwise it will be reverted every time AndrewWTaylor 10:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been watching this for a while and I agree with the continued reversions. The added content is non-neutral and seems to be promoting one company's product, and the references are mostly to papers that have been written by people who are affiliated with the company who holds the patent for this product (according to the provided references). --- RockMFR 18:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

added & removed again today... AndrewWTaylor 16:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
and again. Maybe we should think about getting the page protected from anonymous edits. AndrewWTaylor 08:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh well, they keep adding it and I keep removing it. Some additions are now by User:Bionational, clearly suggesting they are attempting to promote their own product. AndrewWTaylor 18:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

St. Johns Wort and Cataracts

I have come across few medical journals (BMJ), BBC News (, and a Cambridge University Journal ( that suggest someone who is taking St. Johns Wort when exposed to prolonged sun exposure, may form Cataracts. Many people are taking St. Johns Wort and it is worth mentioning the link between St. Johns Wort and Cataracts in this article, as it could help someone avoid cataracts and it will also make this article more accurate and more informative. Any objections or approvals? -- (talk) 03:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


This article needs a disambugation page.

This is becouse there is also a wiki-article named Cataract (band) and there are other articles who are related to the word cataract

Refer to 'Split' on this discussion page for the other articles. Jaberucg (talk) 19:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There's already a dab page at Cataract (disambiguation). And the article was split a very long time ago. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 19:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Pearl in the Eye

I've previously encountered the phrase "pearl in the eye" in a few stories; this appears to be an uncommon but not unique phrase describing cataracts. Anyone have a good source for this? -- (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

How does it look like?

I think I might have symptoms, does anyone have an image of what a person wtih cataracts sees? Thank you. Chinawoman (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Early detection

Someone could perhaps add a section with this: I appologise, but I'm unable at this time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


This PDF at states on page 4 that UV B is a cause of cataracts, but unfortunately it doesn't cite the research behind that claim. I've had a quick look, but don't have access to any of the publications that came up. Could someone with access to opththalmic journals please search for a citation and alter the article to reflect this? Many thanks Quickos (talk) 22:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Research section ambiguity

The first sentences of the research section are confusing/ambiguous. I assume this is meant to be a sub-section of _Treatment_, but it looks like a stand-alone. Prevention research would also be of interest, but I assume the first couple of lines are treatment related. Clarifying the statements seems like a useful step, but I'm far from knowledgeable on the topic. LUxlii (talk) 16:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)