All of us Vs Keratoconus


Members Login
Chatbox
Please log in to join the chat!
Post Info TOPIC: heredity


Executive

Status: Offline
Posts: 437
Date: Sun Oct 9 1:05 AM, 2005
heredity
Permalink   
 


Probably this question was already asked here.
I know that only a certain percentage of all KC is a family condition.
What is the probability that my kids will have KC as I do?
Having in mind that i do not know of any other member in my family who would have
KC. Probably my genes responsible for normal corneal function have have mutated?
Any ideas how often this thing is transmitted? How persistent is it?

__________________
yarsky
Anonymous

Date: Sun Oct 9 1:39 AM, 2005
Permalink   
 

Hi mate... i'm sure i read that the figure is 7%-10% have a member with kc also... I was watching a programe on TV with said that there are different ways genes can effect us... and have different prevalance figures due to things like "carriers" ect...

Have a read of the topic "The Genetics Connection" I could not guess which type it may be for us...

As for mutating... i can only say that i did read that radio waves of radiation was seen to change the shape of the cornea in an article... but there was no refferance to kc... and not everyone who uses a mobile phone gets kc... although it has been reported in a news article from Isreal if i remember correctly...

This may mean nothing but CK uses radio waves to change the shape of the cornea?

So has radio waves got something to do with it?... and there is the negative irons which was mentioned with the water channels study... and also static is discussed with the PA treatment?

I'm not saying that any of this is correct... its just somethings i have come across...

I think.... missing watewr channels (due to genes or something else) plus mechanical friction (like, eye rubbing... due to allergies?) equals a steep cornea which is found at your diagnoses and called kc... may be due to this number of events to happen is why kc is fairly rare?

all the best mate...



-- Edited by QuintriX at 01:41, 2005-10-09

__________________


Executive

Status: Offline
Posts: 437
Date: Sun Oct 9 11:35 AM, 2005
Permalink   
 

Hi Quintrix,
you say 7-10%...Which may mean that may kids have 7-10 chances out of 10O to develope the same stuff as I did...

__________________
yarsky


Executive

Status: Offline
Posts: 164
Date: Sun Oct 9 4:52 PM, 2005
Permalink   
 

i don't know anyone in my entire family with kc, and i certainly wouldn't wish it on any children i may have in the future!

let's hope our kids all sit outside that 7-10% huh!


i wouldn't care if my kids have terrible myopia and have to wear glasses their whole life, who cares, it's a lot more bearable than kc, that's for sure!!

__________________
yeup... it's me. :p
Anonymous

Date: Mon Oct 10 8:26 PM, 2005
Permalink   
 

I think the 7%-10% is not just for kids but for your wider family... so the chances of your kids getting it is far far less...

__________________


Executive

Status: Offline
Posts: 437
Date: Tue Oct 11 11:54 PM, 2005
Permalink   
 

See, this probability can not be less than 1/2000=0.0005=0.05% (frequency of KC in general population)
On the other hand it can not be bigger than 10%=1/100 (percantage of family KC in KC population)
In any case that fact that I have KC can not lower this probability below the general population level.
There are some statistics that says that it is about 50 timess bigger than the one to find KC in general population. Which means that it is about
0.0005 x 50 =0.025=2.5%
Which means that my kids have 2.5 chances out of 100 do develop it.

__________________
yarsky


Executive

Status: Offline
Posts: 437
Date: Wed Oct 12 9:52 PM, 2005
Permalink   
 

Well this paragraphe is from one report published on SNOF (french ophtalmologique society site).
" using videoceratographie...it was found that at leat in 50% of cases the KC patients have a KC relative. This figure was confirmed in another study that estmated the relative risk of having KC is from 15 to 67 times bigger for first degree relatives of a KC patient than to one obsereved in general population"

Original:
En utilisant les indices de détection vidéophotokératoscopiques des kératocônes. il semble que dans au moins 50 % des cas, les patients atteints d'un kératocône aient un autre parent atteint. Ce chiffre a été confirmé dans une étude ultérieure qui estime que le risque relatif d'être atteint d'un kératocône est 15 à 67 fois supérieur chez les apparentés de premier degré d'un patient porteur d'un kératocône à celui observé dans la population générale.


__________________
yarsky
Anonymous

Date: Wed Oct 12 11:52 PM, 2005
Permalink   
 

Hi Yarsky,

If you knew of this then you answered your own question... also the figure of one in 2000 have kc can not be right at all... if one person has kc and there is a a very good chance that a blood relative have kc as well, then that means that they must too have someone in there family with kc and so on... So i think its what is diagnosed and ususally its when there is some sort of a cone... mild or not...

The topic "kc more common that previouly thought" has a study which concludes

"CONCLUSIONS: More than one-half of corneal topographies of refractive surgery candidates did not comply with the assumed "normal" spherical or spherocylindrical patterns. The possible continuum of keratoconus-suspected keratoconus-lower steep pattern raises the question of where to draw the line between reasonable and risky when considering corneal refractive surgery"

...so i would say that kc is more common if you have kc or not, its so hard to label mild/subclinic kc. The above conclusion was for people who went for refractive surgery and was from the wider public.

The kc they know about is the ones that does not correct well or where their eye specialist was very good in his diagnoses, which is rare and that may be another reason why kc is rare?

The passing on to kids is low from what i posted in the topic " the pathogenesis of keratoconus" on this section... so the indication is that blood relatives may have mild or very mild kc, so much so that kc is not bothersum or detected or even need to be detected (unless x linking can be used at that time) but the chances of our kids getting the same diagnoses as us is very low from what is documented in a lot of places (rightly or wrongly?).

May be if a eye specialist is looking for kc in corneas they will find it more...


-- Edited by QuintriX at 00:21, 2005-10-13

-- Edited by QuintriX at 00:31, 2005-10-13

__________________
1 2  >  Last»  | Page of 2  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us

www.kcfreedom.org

Knowledge Works