View report page

169
As regards tonsils and adenoids, in addition to the 30 children found to have these
conditions, 32 had already been operated upon. A few had had two operations,
two were awaiting a second operation, and one a third. The percentage of myopes
even now requiring operation (12 in 104) is twice as great as amongst ordinary
children.
Family
history.
A definite family history of myopia was obtained in 27 of the 104 children. In
eleven cases, one of the parents was affected; in 14 cases, one or more brothers or
sisters had attended or were still at a myope class; and in two cases both a parent
and a brother or sister were affected. In seven other cases a family history of
myopia was probable.
Position in
family.

It would appear that first children are rather more liable to be myopic than
second, and second than third, and also that in the largest families (8 to 11 children)
the greatest proportion of the myopes are amongst the last born, but the figures are
inconclusive. The numbers are small, and as regards the largest families there is
another fallacy. Although the first sight saving class in London was started in 1908,
it is only within the past ten years or so that there has been considerable extension
of these classes and that a serious attempt has been made to rope in all high myopes.
In a family of ten, where the youngest child is now of school age, it may be that
older members of the family were also myopic but attended ordinary schools and
are not therefore included in the table.
The following diagram shows in detail the position of myopes in 29 families of
three and over, where either more than one child attended a myope class, or where
other members of the family wore glasses. In each column the top circle indicates
the first child and the lowest the last born. Black circles indicate children in a
myope class and concentric circles those wearing glasses, but not in attendance at
myope classes.
Many of these cases, particularly 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 25, 26, 27 and 29 show
grouping of the myopic children in one part of the family. In some instances where
only one child was at a myope class the history was given that the next child in the
family wore glasses. This occurred in cases 10, 12, 14, 21 and 24. In cases 18,
20, 24, 26, 27 and 29 the myopic children and those wearing glasses tended to be
grouped towards the end of large families. The actual examinations were confined
to children in the special classes, and the glasses of others were not tested. From
the histories given, myopia could only be suspected, and the fact that children in
proximity to the myopes frequently wore glasses is given merely as a matter of
interest and as a ground for future enquiry.
In some instances there is no sign of grouping. Case 11 shows myopia in the
1st, 3rd, and 5th, the 2nd and 4th being normal; in case 15 the myope was the 5th