I was told as a ‘youngin’ that it was better for me to have contact lenses than glasses since my prescription gets worse as time goes by. My eye doctor told my mom that wearing contacts is better than wearing glasses because, “The closer the lens is to her eye, the more slowly she’ll go blind.” I am, by no stretch of the imagination, legally blind. However, I do notice a significant difference over time; my prescription needs to be strengthened when I get every yearly checkup. Is is true that contacts help you go blind more slowly than glasses? If so, is it solely due to to differences in distance, or are other factors at work here?
I wonder if you were told that before soft contact lenses were invented / became popular? I am asking because IIRC, my eye doctor told me that hard contact lenses would prevent my eyes from deteriorating, too. This, however, was 35 years ago when only hard contact lenses were available. I do seem to recall some discussion about how contact lenses could correct your vision better because they were closer to the lense, but I don’t recall anything about “preventing blindness”.
To a certain extent, hard contacts can re-shape the cornea. There’s been some renewed interest in orthokeratology thanks to some new designs that are worn overnight while sleeping.
Whether or not you’ll “go blind” slower or faster is more likely a function of genetics rather than whether you wear glasses or contacts, or have refractive surgery such as LASIK.
I have Keratoconus, which is a deterioration of the structure of the cornea with gradual bulging from the normal round shape to a cone shape. The optometrist who initially diagnosed me with it was of the opinion that hard contact lenses could (but not necessarily will) slow the progression of the disease. However, the ophthalmologist who I went to to confirm the diagnosis (and did in fact confirm it) did NOT think it was possible the hard lenses would make any difference at all.
I have to wear hard lenses anyway to correct my vision well, so the point is kinda moot. But it seems that even among professionals there may not be a consensus opinion.
As a soft contact wearer for thirty years, I have no basis for knowing if the rate of increased near sightedness has been slowed due to my wearing of contact lenses. I was told by my doctor is that it is a congenital defect that has led to my near sightedness.
I do know that when I do wear glasses for longer periods of time, I develop eye strain and headaches more often as my eyes work harder to focus through the lenses that are farther away.
I have seriously considered getting surgery to correct my vision, but since I have near zero problems with contact lenses, I’m not willing to take the risk (I know it’s a really really small risk) of damaging my eyes via the surgery.
Oh…and we all know what really makes you go blind. 
Optically, there would be two things contacts can accomplish that glasses could not. One is that you always look through the same part of a contact lens, whereas each spot on the eyeglass lens has to serve the eye no matter where the eye is pointed, at least to some degree. This might be why it’s easier to have closer lenses. The other thing is that the contact lens forms a new surface at which most of the eye’s image forming happens, and corneas are often a bit lumpy and uneven. The lens covers over those lumps and replaces them with its own surface a little further out. This can fix problems for which glasses are useless.
Optometry student here. The latest research (according to my contact lens professor) is that rigid gas perms do NOT slow down the progression of keratoconus. They may be the only way to get clear vision for many keratoconics, but they don’t prevent progression of the condition.
Do rigid lenses help with myopia control? They might flatten out the cornea (particularly if they are shaped to do so, as with Ortho-K) but the truly relevant question is, do they prevent the eye from getting longer? After all, the reason high amounts of myopia are considered a problem is not the refractive error per say but the elongation of the eyeball and the effect that “stretching” the eye has on the retina. Some people do claim that ortho-k can slow down the progression of increasing eye length, but i haven’t seen any research that demonstrates this to be true.
RevTim, I’m very curious about the ophthalmologist telling you that RGPs won’t help with your K-cone. We have several patients who successfully wear RGPs to control the progression of the disease. They won’t “cure” it, but they do keep it “in check” for the patients we have. I have one patient who went to have Intacts, which worked well for him. I’m not sure that his keratoconus won’t continue, but the surgery was deemed a success, and he’s now able to see through eyeglasses, which he could not, before the Intacts.
When I asked about it, I was told that ANY contact lens, rigid or soft, will alter the shape of the cornea somewhat, and that people who wear contact lenses as their primary correction usually see slower prescription changes than they likely would without contacts. Our doctors also perform LASIK, and require a certain amount of time without contacts before you can have the exam to determine candidacy for the surgery. The explanation is that the cornea needs to return to its “natural shape” before we can determine whether it can be altered surgically. RGP wearers must refrain from their contacts for a month before the exam. Soft lens wearers should refrain for 2 weeks, ideally.
So, cromulent, do they have anything new and exciting coming down the pike for myopic people who have dry, allergic eyes and can’t wear contact lenses? I try new technology just about every year when I visit my opthalmologist; the ones that people can wear for a month, I’m up to almost two whole hours of wearing (before I go crazy trying to get those miserable, itchy things the hell off my eyeballs).