[Villages PL]

I told my doctor that I didn't get my yearly eye exam yet because I don't like getting my eyes dilated. And he reminded me that I could get ultra-wide digital retinal-imaging. It captures about 80% of the retina in one panoramic image. Then it can be part of my record so that next year it can be used for comparison.

I got some information on it and it "typically does not require dilation". But the information also states: "However, for care reasons, dilation may still be required." I don't know what they mean by that.

Just wondering what your experience has been, if you have had it.

[Mikeod]

Originally Posted by Villages PL

I told my doctor that I didn't get my yearly eye exam yet because I don't like getting my eyes dilated. And he reminded me that I could get ultra-wide digital retinal-imaging. It captures about 80% of the retina in one panoramic image. Then it can be part of my record so that next year it can be used for comparison.

I got some information on it and it "typically does not require dilation". But the information also states: "However, for care reasons, dilation my still be required." I don't know what they mean by that.

Just wondering what your experience has been, if you have had it.

"For care reasons" likely refers to situations where the patient is being followed for some retinopathy and the better image quality through dilation is preferred. Patients with diabetic retinopathy, hypertensive retinopathy, macular degeneration, choroidal nevi, glaucoma, or other conditions such as early cataract may be better served by dilating. For screening purposes, the undilated view may suffice. Should a suspicious area be noted, a dilated exam would be desirable.

I'm not sure why you avoid dilated exams, and it really doesn't matter for this discussion, but, if the problem of light sensitivity/glare is the stumbling block, there are reversal drops that can be effective depending on the type of drop used to dilate the pupil.

[kbace6]

Originally Posted by Villages PL

I told my doctor that I didn't get my yearly eye exam yet because I don't like getting my eyes dilated. And he reminded me that I could get ultra-wide digital retinal-imaging. It captures about 80% of the retina in one panoramic image. Then it can be part of my record so that next year it can be used for comparison.

I got some information on it and it "typically does not require dilation". But the information also states: "However, for care reasons, dilation my still be required." I don't know what they mean by that.

Just wondering what your experience has been, if you have had it.

I have had the it done 3 times in the past 6 years. Originally it was for my large pupils, of which they suspected glaucoma. Now I get it done every couple of years and have a record of it from the past. My pupils have not gotten any larger in that time, they are just big normally I am told. I have never had my eyes dilated. In fact dilating my eyes has never even come up. I was under the impression that the optomap meant not having to dilate the eyes.

All in all I would give the Optomap a thumbs up.

-KB

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by mikeod

"For care reasons" likely refers to situations where the patient is being followed for some retinopathy and the better image quality through dilation is preferred. Patients with diabetic retinopathy, hypertensive retinopathy, macular degeneration, choroidal nevi, glaucoma, or other conditions such as early cataract may be better served by dilating. For screening purposes, the undilated view may suffice. Should a suspicious area be noted, a dilated exam would be desirable.

The only condition I'm aware of having is a slow developing cataract in one eye that was first diagnosed several years ago. So far it doesn't interfere with reading or distance vision.

I'm not sure why you avoid dilated exams, and it really doesn't matter for this discussion, but, if the problem of light sensitivity/glare is the stumbling block, there are reversal drops that can be effective depending on the type of drop used to dilate the pupil.

I'm not worried about light sensitivity. Dilation just seems to me to cause "trauma" to the eyes. Although, I don't suppose any eye doctor would ever suggest that. Have there ever been any long term studies where they compare dilated patients to a control group that doesn't get dilated?

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by kbace6

I have had the it done 3 times in the past 6 years. Originally it was for my large pupils, of which they suspected glaucoma. Now I get it done every couple of years and have a record of it from the past. My pupils have not gotten any larger in that time, they are just big normally I am told. I have never had my eyes dilated. In fact dilating my eyes has never even come up. I was under the impression that the optomap meant not having to dilate the eyes.

All in all I would give the Optomap a thumbs up.

-KB

Glad to hear you like it. I hope I don't have to get dilated but even if I do, it seems like a good idea to have Optomap as part of my record for future comparison.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by Villages PL

The only condition I'm aware of having is a slow developing cataract in one eye that was first diagnosed several years ago. So far it doesn't interfere with reading or distance vision.



I'm not worried about light sensitivity. Dilation just seems to me to cause "trauma" to the eyes. Although, I don't suppose any eye doctor would ever suggest that. Have there ever been any long term studies where they compare dilated patients to a control group that doesn't get dilated?

I know for a fact that a poster on this thread is a retired eye doctor.

It would seem that having the eyes dilated happens almost every time that there is an eye examination. I am sure that if it would harm the eye, we would have heard about it due to the information pipeline.

There is being careful and there is unfounded fear.

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

I am sure that if it would harm the eye, we would have heard about it due to the information pipeline.

I believe it's likely we would only hear about it if there was a controlled long term study, one that uses a test group and a control group.

There is being careful and there is unfounded fear.

Yes, and what I'm doing is being careful.

[Villages PL]

THE MYOPIA MYTH: Toxic Dilating Drugs

The above link states, in part: "In addition, the drugs have a tendency to raise the intraocular pressure in some individuals and can precipitate an attack of glaucoma."

This is what happened to me on my last eye exam. The eye doctor detected some pressure that was thought could be glaucoma. So I was asked to come back to get rechecked. When I was rechecked, without dilation, the doctor said I was okay. But there was no mention that "an attack of glaucoma" was brought on by the dilation drug. So much for honest disclosure by doctors. Who knows if yearly dilation might eventually cause a permanent case of glaucoma. Doctors are not likely to tell you.

[Mikeod]

Originally Posted by Villages PL

THE MYOPIA MYTH: Toxic Dilating Drugs

The above link states, in part: "In addition, the drugs have a tendency to raise the intraocular pressure in some individuals and can precipitate an attack of glaucoma."

This is what happened to me on my last eye exam. The eye doctor detected some pressure that was thought could be glaucoma. So I was asked to come back to get rechecked. When I was rechecked, without dilation, the doctor said I was okay. But there was no mention that "an attack of glaucoma" was brought on by the dilation drug. So much for honest disclosure by doctors. Who knows if yearly dilation might eventually cause a permanent case of glaucoma. Doctors are not likely to tell you.

PL
First, pressure alone is a poor way to detect glaucoma. There are people with glaucoma whose pressure is within the normal range prior to any treatment. Also, the eye pressure normally varies during the day, so the time of day when pressure is measured may be significant.

Second, the type of glaucoma that could occur with dilation is called angle closure glaucoma and can occur in people where the drainage of the interior fluid in the eye is hindered by dilating the pupil. However, there are non-invasive methods of evaluating the risk of causing a pressure spike by dilating. I never dilated a patient or had someone else dilate a patient before these tests were done, even though the incidence of angle closure from dilation is extremely low.

Third, the drops used to dilate create a larger pupil by either stimulating the eyes natural dilating muscle, or relaxing the eyes natural constricting muscle. The effects on these muscles is limited because the body's natural processes reverse the change. For example, if you step into a dark room, the pupil dilates through stimulation of the dilating muscle and relaxing the constricting muscle. Step back into a lighted room and the pupil closes down because the body stops one process and initiates another. It's a chemical process in both directions and the body has the ability to control it.

I think your dismissal of doctor honesty for the occurrence you experienced is a disservice to the profession. You did not have an "attack" of glaucoma. You apparently displayed a somewhat higher pressure than the doctor was comfortable with and you were brought back to confirm the pressure was either normal, or, at least, in line with prior readings. This is not unlike the patient whose blood pressure reads a bit higher than usual on a visit and is asked to return for a second evaluation to confirm it is OK.

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by mikeod

PL


I think your dismissal of doctor honesty for the occurrence you experienced is a disservice to the profession. You did not have an "attack" of glaucoma. You apparently displayed a somewhat higher pressure than the doctor was comfortable with and you were brought back to confirm the pressure was either normal, or, at least, in line with prior readings. This is not unlike the patient whose blood pressure reads a bit higher than usual on a visit and is asked to return for a second evaluation to confirm it is OK.

I didn't mean any disservice to the profession. I just chose the wrong words. "honest disclosure" should have been "full disclosure". I felt like I didn't get enough information and was sent home to worry, for several days, that I might have glaucoma. Typically there's little time for discussion when there are people waiting in the waiting room.

I got my exam today by optomap. My cataract that was first diagnosed 10 years ago is still too small to worry about, so I was glad to hear that. My prescription for glasses, that I got several years ago, still doesn't need to be changed. But there was something in the optomap-picture that was in doubt. So it was recommended that I see an opthamologist and I'm waiting for an appointment to be set up.

I can't imagine what it might be because I don't have any vision problems. Although, the doctor suspects it might have something to do with the lense implant that I have in one eye.