Kevin's 2nd Progress eval-Post 24 sessions

Comment

Comment by Dr. Dan L. Fortenbacher on March 31, 2010 at 12:47am

Thank you Dr. Bausback for your comment.

Yes, Kevin's spectacle lenses play a critically important role in his overall response to his treatment in vision therapy. Kevin's refraction was essentially OU plano and he did not present with a binocular vision problem. However, he did have an accommodative component (significanly reduced PRA). Through Dynamic Retinoscopy plus doing additional performance based tests (such as the King-Devick) I deterimined that Kevin's best near point lens was OU +0.50.

The value of judiciously prescribed near-point lenses can not be underestimated. I gave the family this "low plus" Rx at the start of his VT and they obtained it for Kevin through his primary care OD who referred Kevin to our office.

You can see him in his first progress evaluation Sovoto video (session #8) where he is doing better but has a ways to go. Now with only 6 more visits left he solidifying his skills to a level of automaticity...our final goal of treatment

Again, thank you for your excellent comment!

Comment by Henry Bausback on March 30, 2010 at 11:00pm

If this doesn't speak to the power of vision therapy, I don't know what does. The difference in function is remarkable. I think all primary care optometrists should see this video as a useful reminder to think critically about the role of oculomotor signs in the evaluation of a patient's chief complaint.

Perhaps the question foremost on my mind, upon viewing both videos, is what effect wearing the spectacle correction had upon the improvement in this case?