|
redhound
|
 |
« on: June 13, 2010, 12:04:33 PM » |
|
Has anyone been told by their eye doctor that they are a "suspect" for glaucoma? I am seeing an opthamologist for additional testing this week, but I am terrified. I am only 30 and just had a baby girl who is turning 1 this August. I am trying not to panic, but I am not too good at that. I always expect the worst.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
biomancer
trying to be the person my dog thinks I am
Distinguished Senior Member
Posts: 8,009
CHE Fora Hazmat Team
|
|
« Reply #1 on: June 13, 2010, 12:29:10 PM » |
|
Hi RedHound!
It's worth asking what makes your DO think you're at risk for glaucoma. I had an eye doctor once who was of the opinion that everyone was at risk for glaucoma and wanted to do several tests on me that would not be covered by insurance. I have low blood pressure, and absolutely no family history of glaucoma, and my eyeball pressure is normal according to the "puff test". Thus, I concluded that the DO was either trying to make money off of unnecessary tests, or was a bit of a whackjob. The "puff" test that most DOs do at a regular eye checkup is nothing to worry about (quick and painless). My DO wanted to follow it with one that uses a needle to probe intraocular eye pressure, even though my "puff test" gave normal results. I thought that was unnecessary, and talked with my old DO back home about it. He thought my new DO was probably trying to get everyone to use the new machine so he could charge for it and pay off the purchase price of the new machinery, and added that if the "puff test" goes normally then there's no need for further glaucoma screening unless the patient has high BP and a family history.
However, Mr.B's grandmother has glaucoma, so he does have a family history and he does get checked for it. Typically glaucoma occurs in people who already have high blood pressure (especially a long history of high blood pressure), so if your BP is unusually high, then it's not a bad thing to get checked. It develops slowly and is quite treatable if caught early.
If you don't have high BP or a family history, then I think (and I'm just a biologist, not a physician, optometrist, or opthalmologist) that your DO is probably being a bit paranoid (or is desperate to pay off that fancy new machinery). But, I'm just a biologist, not a physician.
I hope this helps!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Clueless people can be dangerous. The acidic environment they can spread often needs to be neutralized, and humor is basic. - Dellaroux
Viruses invented people so that people would invent airplanes so viruses could get around better. - R. Duda
|
|
|
|
redhound
|
|
« Reply #2 on: June 13, 2010, 12:41:20 PM » |
|
Thanks so much for your post. Two optometrists have noticed a gradual increase in my cup to disc ratio. The problem is that I am seeing a new optometrist since I moved to take my tt job, so according to his explanation, his measurement could be +/- .2 off from my former optometrist's measurement. My cup to disc ratio is 0.75 and my old cup to disc ratio was 0.4 in 2004 and 0.6 in 2007. The last two measurements were taken by my old optometrist. Apparently this is a subjective measurement that needs to be taken by the same person every year, so we are not 100% positive if this is actually an increase in my cup to disc ratio or rather reflective of differences in optometrists' measurements.
I absolutely positively hate the puff test - I have passed out twice in the past due to it, so my old optometrist did not make me do it every year. I guess that was my fault. So I scheduled another appointment to see the same optometrist this week to do the puff test with my husband in tow...just in case I pass out again.
Thank you for posting and I hope I have better news later this week. I am just dreading the appointment.
Glaucoma does not run in my family, but I did have high blood pressure last year due to my pregnancy.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
antiphon1
|
|
« Reply #3 on: June 13, 2010, 12:50:09 PM » |
|
It's not uncommon for women to have short term vision changes after pregnancy. That said, I'd schedule an appointment with my primary care physician to rule out other factors like high blood pressure.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
redhound
|
|
« Reply #4 on: June 15, 2010, 12:42:44 AM » |
|
Antiphon - I will be seeing my primary physician this week. Thank you for the tip!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
voxprincipalis
Foxaliciously Cinnamon-Scented (and Most Poetic)
Member-Moderator
Distinguished Senior Member
Posts: 17,442
Has potentially infinite removable wallets
|
|
« Reply #5 on: June 15, 2010, 07:51:09 AM » |
|
I absolutely positively hate the puff test - I have passed out twice in the past due to it, so my old optometrist did not make me do it every year. I guess that was my fault. So I scheduled another appointment to see the same optometrist this week to do the puff test with my husband in tow...just in case I pass out again.
There are tests that are far more accurate than the puff test. Call around to opthalmologists in your area and see if anyone has the machines that do them. I was just at the eye doctor yesterday for a checkup and they have a new machine that does an ultrasound of your eye and takes all sorts of pictures. They also check for glaucoma via applanation tonometry, in which (brace yourself, but the test is not nearly as scary as it sounds) the doctor puts numbing drops in your eye and then you sit with your face in the cradle while the doctor brings a lighted instrument to rest on your cornea and measures the pressure it takes to flatten it. You feel nothing. Seriously. I am a big coward about eye stuff and it was fine. They took all kinds of pictures of my eyes, from various angles (the ultrasound actually took enough different angles to make a 3D image of my retina that the doctor could animate and have spin around, and he was pointing out, "see, here's the optic nerve, and these are the blood vessels that pass through the camera's field of vision as the angle changes," and etc. It was astonishing. Anyway, it's definitely worth the money, I think, to find somewhere with state-of-the-art technology and get yourself checked out there. VP |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you need me, I'll be hiding under a rock until mid-August. Try not to need me, unless you come bearing Chinese food.
|
|
|
|
prytania3
|
|
« Reply #6 on: June 15, 2010, 08:08:15 AM » |
|
Glaucoma is not as scary as it used to be. I've got a friend who's had glaucoma for years (diagnosed mid thirties). He's now in his 60s and can still see just fine. Yes, he does wear glasses.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Clowns, I tell you. Clowns.
|
|
|
|
terpsichore
|
|
« Reply #7 on: June 15, 2010, 08:35:18 AM » |
|
Voxy and Pry are both right. For the more accurate (and less bothersome) tests, you may need to see an opthamologist, not an optometrist. And glaucoma is often treatable with eye drops. One of the medicines is so mild that it has been repackaged as a cosmetic eyedrop; it has the side-effect of making eyelashes grow, and now former models are selling it as a prescription treatment for some sort of short eyelash symptom. But it's really a glaucoma medication.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
post_functional
|
|
« Reply #8 on: June 15, 2010, 11:06:24 AM » |
|
My uncle's had it for thirty years; also wears glasses but sees fine otherwise. Because of him I'm always tested for it at every eye exam. I've also had the numbing drops, which feels weird but is okay otherwise. It's kind of cool to see all the veins in your eye when the doctor puts the lightbulb on it. I had the puff test when the doctor didn't tell me what was coming (and I didn't know what it was; I had always had the nummy-nummy drops) and I lit into him like a bulldog savaging an old piece of rawhide.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Action is his reward.
|
|
|
|
scampster
|
|
« Reply #9 on: June 15, 2010, 11:08:55 AM » |
|
My uncle's had it for thirty years; also wears glasses but sees fine otherwise. Because of him I'm always tested for it at every eye exam. I've also had the numbing drops, which feels weird but is okay otherwise. It's kind of cool to see all the veins in your eye when the doctor puts the lightbulb on it. I had the puff test when the doctor didn't tell me what was coming (and I didn't know what it was; I had always had the nummy-nummy drops) and I lit into him like a bulldog savaging an old piece of rawhide.
What is this puff test?! I have always had the one where they numb your eye and push on the cornea. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
When you are a scientist your opinions and prejudices become facts. Science is like magic that way!
|
|
|
|
onion
|
|
« Reply #10 on: June 15, 2010, 11:17:56 AM » |
|
My uncle's had it for thirty years; also wears glasses but sees fine otherwise. Because of him I'm always tested for it at every eye exam. I've also had the numbing drops, which feels weird but is okay otherwise. It's kind of cool to see all the veins in your eye when the doctor puts the lightbulb on it. I had the puff test when the doctor didn't tell me what was coming (and I didn't know what it was; I had always had the nummy-nummy drops) and I lit into him like a bulldog savaging an old piece of rawhide.
What is this puff test?! I have always had the one where they numb your eye and push on the cornea. Oh my god, it's the worst. I hate it. You put your chin and forehead in the rests and they shoot a blast of air into your eye. I once kicked the doctor as a reflex reaction to the puff of air. They often have to do four or five puffs on each eye for me because I blink or jerk back or move. It's barbaric. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
terpsichore
|
|
« Reply #11 on: June 15, 2010, 11:23:27 AM » |
|
My uncle's had it for thirty years; also wears glasses but sees fine otherwise. Because of him I'm always tested for it at every eye exam. I've also had the numbing drops, which feels weird but is okay otherwise. It's kind of cool to see all the veins in your eye when the doctor puts the lightbulb on it. I had the puff test when the doctor didn't tell me what was coming (and I didn't know what it was; I had always had the nummy-nummy drops) and I lit into him like a bulldog savaging an old piece of rawhide.
What is this puff test?! I have always had the one where they numb your eye and push on the cornea. A little puff of air is directed at your eye and the response of the eye provides a rough estimate of the pressure. The advantage is that nothing in the instrument touches the eye, so I guess it's easier for an optometrist to have this equipment. But some people hate the sensation of the puff of air, as you can see from the responses here. It's never bothered me, but it's not very accurate so I prefer the more accurate test. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
post_functional
|
|
« Reply #12 on: June 15, 2010, 11:41:56 AM » |
|
Just because it's air doesn't mean it doesn't have mass. It's basically getting poked in the eye. Which is about as much fun as a poke in the eye.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Action is his reward.
|
|
|
|
redhound
|
|
« Reply #13 on: June 15, 2010, 11:46:42 AM » |
|
Thank you for all the suggestions. I made an appointment to see a highly regarded opthamologist in town this Thursday and one a few hours away (we live in a really rural area) who specializes in glaucoma research in a month just in case I get bad news.
And I am so glad I am not the only one who has a heart attack from the puff test. I survived 12 hours+ of child labor but I can't seem to handle a puff test. Go figure!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
redhound
|
|
« Reply #14 on: June 17, 2010, 05:12:23 PM » |
|
Just an update. Saw a well respected opthamologist in the area and he ran a ton of really high-tech tests that made the puff test look like medieval torture. It was so easy. He said I absolutely positively do not have glaucoma, nor am I on the "borderline" for it. Thank you everyone for the support!!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
