eye tests

[cellio]

I like the technician who did some routine tests for me this morning. She talks and shares reports. :-)

They have a new machine for visual field scans, so instead of taking 10-15 minutes (feels like 30) per eye, it now takes two minutes per to map the field of vision. The interface is still the same: stare at the cross-hairs and push the button when you see a flash of light anywhere. Flashes vary in position and brightness. I saw diagrams of the results showing the location of my blind spots (apparently we all have them). The machine still has the unfortunate characteristic of making noise when lights go off, which (1) makes it obvious I'm missing things and (2) enables gaming the system for those so inclined. (Gaming is obviously bad if you actually care about accurate results, but if you're a little unscrupulous and just need to pass this test to get your pilot's license, say, there'd be incentive.) Maybe they're actually clever and some of those sounds correspond to no-ops; that would be good.

Normal cornea thickness is 5.5. ("Units?" "Um, I don't know, but I can look it up for you." "That's ok; I'll ask the internet.") Both of mine are thicker than normal (6.26 right, 6.4 left). This is better than being too thin, and also means that my pressure isn't really as high as the glaucoma test says it is. I don't know if this is well-enough understood to be able to compute my actual pressure given a reading and the thickness data.

Learned in passing: the magic number for worrying about high pressure is 20. I always test in the 18-22 range, by the way. (That's with treatment; don't know what it would be without. Not inclined to find out.) So if I'm hovering at the magic line and my real pressure is probably a point or two lower, that suggests that the treatment is calibrated right.

She also took pictures of my retinas and let me see them. We had a lot of trouble with this; apparently my pupils were clenching their little fists and whining "we don't want to be dilated!". A double dose of the drops was enough to get a good picture of my right eye, but the one of the left was still kind of dark. If it's not clear enough, they should be able to redo it when I'm there for my next exam.

Comments

[dsrtao]

Looks like corneal thickness is in tens of microns, and higher is often better. Also, random plausible looking internet source says that a higher pressure is often normal, but under-21 is an easy first discriminator.

[cellio]

I'm seeing it notated in um and mm, obviously with the decimal points in different places. :-) (Neither of those being consistent with the numbers the technician gave me, but oh well.)

[happyingreen.livejournal.com]

Now I know what you look like by your user pic:)

[cellio]

The better for you to introduce yourself should we meet on the street. :-)

[chite.livejournal.com]

I just had the same field of vision tests and retina pictures, and also had a very nice tech who talked and showed reports.

Mabe it's a new trend in optometry education.

[cellio]

Some of it might be new-office effect. My ophthamologist left a group practice to set out on her own last year -- so new toys and new people. My doctor has always been forthcoming with information, so perhaps she values that in employees.

[http://users.livejournal.com/merle_/]

That's good. The last time I had my eyes checked (local Lenscrafters or whatever their eye checkup department is called), all the staff were new. They spent most of their time chatting about how their second day on the job was going, where they were going to school, etc. Then the one doing the glaucoma test screwed it up and had to redo it four times. I was about ready to storm out of there, because that blast of air in your eye is not particularly fun.

That was years ago. I dread going back. My vision is slightly worse, but not that much worse.