"your diabetes has caused some damage to the small vessels at the back
of your eyes. At present, it does not need treatment and is not
affecting your sight. However, we do need to monitor the damage
because if the blood vessels leak, it could spoil your vision"
bugger !
They're calling me back again in 4 months time. Has anyone else been
through this and can give me pointers?
Simon
if it's just early changes they keep a note of it and ask you to get
your regular eye exams at the opticians (nowadays they want it done at
one who has the digital camera gear), plus a poke around at the diabetes
clinic.
Ratty
> I got my annual retinopathy test results through the post today and was
> quite surprised when it said
>
> "your diabetes has caused some damage to the small vessels at the back of
> your eyes. At present, it does not need treatment and is not affecting
> your sight. However, we do need to monitor the damage because if the blood
> vessels leak, it could spoil your vision"
I got something similar a couple of years ago. I went along to the
followup appointment, despite the efforts of a receptionist to send me to
the wrong hospital. The specialist peered at my eye through a thing a bit
like the periscope on a nuclear submarine.
(Insert dramatic pause here.)
"There's nothing wrong at all. (Mutter.) The people who assess the photos
have gone off at half-cock AGAIN!"
And the receptionist, when challenged, said "I from Thpain. No speeka da
eeenglish."
I sometimes feel I'm missing the point of Blair's Britain.
DaveT
> Among the wreckage we found a fragment on which Bitstreams had scratched:
>
>> I got my annual retinopathy test results through the post today and was
>> quite surprised when it said
>>
>> "your diabetes has caused some damage to the small vessels at the back of
>> your eyes. At present, it does not need treatment and is not affecting
>> your sight. However, we do need to monitor the damage because if the blood
>> vessels leak, it could spoil your vision"
>
> I got something similar a couple of years ago. I went along to the
> followup appointment, despite the efforts of a receptionist to send me to
> the wrong hospital. The specialist peered at my eye through a thing a bit
> like the periscope on a nuclear submarine.
>
> (Insert dramatic pause here.)
>
> "There's nothing wrong at all. (Mutter.) The people who assess the photos
> have gone off at half-cock AGAIN!"
Better perhaps that they report a false positive though?
>
> And the receptionist, when challenged, said "I from Thpain. No speeka da
> eeenglish."
Count yourself lucky that she isn't working in a hotel putting sheets
on your bed.
>
> I sometimes feel I'm missing the point of Blair's Britain.
I wouldn't worry too much. So is he.
>
> I sometimes feel I'm missing the point of Blair's Britain.
>
I guess so.
Long term illness patients now have a say in their treatment, if they
know what they are talking about. You should have tried the system 10
years ago. Although the PCTs are trying to make things as difficult as
they can, at least you now do have a say.
DaveT
"Bitstreams" <bitst...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1181592748.5...@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
A different ophthalmologist and better BG control would have saved you a
lot of money. Your eyesight as well.
Just trying to make sure no one thinks it is me either writing this or
endorsing this stuff. Good BG control is the way to go after any laser
treatment. Each treatment consist of multiple burning of the areas were
new vessels are growing/leaking = over a 100 burns to each eye.
DaveT
1 lot of Laser treatment 6-8 years ago (I forget) after being diabetic
for 40+ years.
"DaveT" <jus...@private.org> wrote in message
news:5e73vfF...@mid.individual.net...
DaveT
If the blood vessels leak from sugar damage they will cauterize them via
laser, not the most unpleasant procedure and over in minutes.
Martin.
"Bitstreams" <bitst...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1181592748.5...@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...