whew, I guess

[cellio]

Last Thursday I started seeing "floaters" in one eye (the good one, natch). That can mean nothing (it happens as you age), or it can be an early sign of retinal damage. Friday morning I saw an opthamologist (not my usual one, but one who was available), and she said she didn't see any damage but she couldn't get a good look due to quirks of my eyes. She said to assume it's normal and call if things get worse. Sunday I started seeing cloudiness in that eye and called, and she said to come in the next day. So Monday I saw yet another opthamologist (again, luck of the draw), who gave what felt to me like a cursory exam and then said things are fine. He was rather dismissive and rude (it was clear he thought I was over-reacting), and I intend to complain to my own doctor about him. He attributed the cloudiness to some drops they'd given me on Friday, and said the effects can last five or six days (which they didn't tell me on Friday).

Yesterday I called my own doctor to discuss the continuing problem. She said the symptoms are consistent with a torn retina, and sent me to a retinal specialist, who I saw this morning. He performed a thorough exam, including taking pictures of my retinas with some high-tech gizmo where they tell you not to move your eyes for several minutes (easier said than done).

He found no tears, no bleeding, and no signs of fluid accumulating behind the retina (which would happen if there were a tear that he couldn't see for some reason). He believes that the vitreous fluid in that eye has detatched from the retina, which happens to everyone eventually but usually a lot later. While the retina detatching from whatever is behind it is very bad, the vitreous detatching from the retina is nothing special.

Ok, I said, but what about my impeded vision? He thinks the cloudiness is actually another floater (obviously a less-dense one), and that eventually floaters tend to settle to the bottom of the eye and/or your brain gets used to them and you stop noticing them. Either way, all I can do is wait. I see him again in six weeks. Meanwhile, he showed me how to test my peripheral vision; I'm to do that daily and call immediately if there's a change.

So the good news is that there's no obvious damage, but in a way, the bad news is that there's no obvious damage. If there were a small tear, that would give them something to fix. But on the other hand, I'm just as glad not to be facing eye surgery this week, as that always has the potential to end badly.

While annoying, the floaters don't affect my distance vision in any noticable way. However, they affect my close vision quite a bit. Reading is a challenge, particularly against white backgrounds (paper or online). Larger fonts help, as do reverse video and lowering the contrast. (A yellow background is better than a white one, for instance.) Alas, many web sites (including the company wiki, but maybe I can get that fixed) and software packages impose black text on white backgrounds with nothing you can do about it. I've already got monitor brightness cranked way down; I'm going to need to figure out what else I can do.

If the problem doesn't go away and it's deemed serious enough, there is something the specialist can do for me -- but it's risky. The vitreous fluid doesn't serve a function other than to be there (keeping the various bits of your eye away from each other, I gather). There is a surgical procedure where they can remove the gunked-up fluid and replace it with something artificial. There is, however, a risk that it can affect vision in the wrong direction. I don't know the specifics; it's early to be thinking about that. (It can also cause glaucoma, but I already have glaucoma so I don't know if I have to care.)

The doctor I saw today seemed to be very ept and personable. He answered the questions I thought to ask at the time, and used teacher's aids to explain what was going on (a model of the eye). He was recording a running commentary as he examined me, so he could send it to my own doctor, which meant I got to hear everything he thought important during the exam. (When the recorder was off he then translated med-speak for me without my having to ask.) So far, kudos to this doctor.

Comments

[eub.livejournal.com]

I have to say, I am really not impressed with the early treatment you got. I could be wrong, but my understanding is that good practice after a vitreous detachment is to examine the retina (successfully), not just to wait for visual symptoms of any tear that occurred, and your symptoms I'd think should have been treated as a likely VD until that had been ruled out -- much less when you did start showing visual clouding of unknown origin.

[cellio]

Yeah, I agree. I plan to have a conversation with my opthamologist -- so far the only known-good doctor at the practice -- about this. I cannot rely on her colleagues, so if I can't have access to her in an emergency I'll need to find another provider. I've been with her for eight or nine years without previous problems, and she knows that I have referred several people to her, so I hope that she can address the problem somehow. (Really, she should be yelling rather severely at those other two doctors, but I'll settle for her protecting me from them.)

[cellio]

I talked with my father today (he also uses the drug that turned out to be a problem for me), and when I told him the name of the specialist (he asked) he said they're the people who fixed his retinal tear 20 years ago and they kick ass. (Ok, my father did not actually say "kick ass", but that was the clear meaning.)

(My father had a retinal tear 20 years ago? I knew he'd had a serious problem, but I thought I remembered it being glaucoma-related. Ok, one more similarity between us -- not surprising, as he and I have very similar optical conditions.)