Retinopathy Vanished

[Lucyr]

So I’ve been having some eyesight problems recently, with my distance vision, my close up vision is fine and unchanged. I arranged an optician appointment today to check everything is okay, since barely a month ago I was diagnosed with background retinopathy for the first time in 13 years so seemed best to check out the vision issues. The eye test was at specsavers and I paid the extra £10 for the OCT scans.

What the optician found, and showed me, was that the back of my eyes are completely healthy, no signs of retinopathy whatsoever, no sign of glaucoma, macula all fine, everything perfectly healthy other than a bit of astigmatism and short sightedness. So I had to choose some new glasses and that should cure things, he advised using my old glasses for computer work and new glasses for tv, driving, non computer life.

What does this mean - how could I have had retinopathy a month ago for the first time in 13 years that has totally vanished just a few weeks later? Were the hospital wrong? Are the specsavers OCT scans as good as the hospital retinopathy test? They both seemed the same in terms of no eye drops needed for either, put your chin on this big white machine, flash of light, etc.

 

[grovesy]

I would not pay for the OCT Specsavers scan when I had my last eye test just over a year ago, as they were a bit vague on what it could pick up, they certainly did not mention Retinopathy to me. Though they did take pictures of my Retina and as I had previous ones on record so they can could compare, and did show me those.
I believe the Retinopathy Service pictures are looked at more closely, than the standard Optician picture.

 

[Lucyr]

The OCT scan did seem pretty detailed and he said it was as good as the hospital scan but more in depth, he enlarged on the screen and compared to last years photos to make sure no changes. Below is their description of the test but i guess they want to sell it so want it to sound good. I guess you're saying the hospital test is more reliable though so i do still have retinopathy?

 

[Amity Island]

So I’ve been having some eyesight problems recently, with my distance vision, my close up vision is fine and unchanged. I arranged an optician appointment today to check everything is okay, since barely a month ago I was diagnosed with background retinopathy for the first time in 13 years so seemed best to check out the vision issues. The eye test was at specsavers and I paid the extra £10 for the OCT scans.

What the optician found, and showed me, was that the back of my eyes are completely healthy, no signs of retinopathy whatsoever, no sign of glaucoma, macula all fine, everything perfectly healthy other than a bit of astigmatism and short sightedness. So I had to choose some new glasses and that should cure things, he advised using my old glasses for computer work and new glasses for tv, driving, non computer life.

What does this mean - how could I have had retinopathy a month ago for the first time in 13 years that has totally vanished just a few weeks later? Were the hospital wrong? Are the specsavers OCT scans as good as the hospital retinopathy test? They both seemed the same in terms of no eye drops needed for either, put your chin on this big white machine, flash of light, etc.

I've had this conversation with a few consultants before as I've always asked lots of questions about diabetes, treatments, technology at appointments (it's the only chance to learn directly from an expert), they said it's quite normal for background retinopathy to self heal, provided blood sugars are kept in a decent range for a decent length of time. the body is good at healing itself, provided it has favourable conditions and a good diet etc. From what I uderstand, if the retinopathy is really bad, then it may require treatments, but for minor problems, there is a good chance it can resolve itself.

 

[Lucyr]

I've had this conversation with a few consultants before as I've always asked lots of questions about diabetes, treatments, technology at appointments (it's the only chance to learn directly from an expert), they said it's quite normal for background retinopathy to self heal, provided blood sugars are kept in a decent range for a decent length of time. the body is good at healing itself, provided it has favourable conditions and a good diet etc. From what I uderstand, if the retinopathy is really bad, then it may require treatments, but for minor problems, there is a good chance it can resolve itself.

My blood sugars have been great since the retinopathy letter, so i'm really hoping this is the case and it's not just that the opticians retinopathy photos and scans didn't spot it

 

[grovesy]

The OCT scan did seem pretty detailed and he said it was as good as the hospital scan but more in depth, he enlarged on the screen and compared to last years photos to make sure no changes. Below is their description of the test but i guess they want to sell it so want it to sound good. I guess you're saying the hospital test is more reliable though so i do still have retinopathy?

View attachment 16307

Well the young woman who tried to sell it to me never gave any written information, and when I asked what did screened for did not mention any specifics and did not mention any specific conditions. Which sounded just like sales pitch to me.
I would not know what they do at the hospital, as my Retinopathy Screening has never been done in a hospital , mine is done by technicians, and the photos are sent electronically to be examined centrally like the Breast Screening. I always have drops at Retinal Screening.

 

[Drummer]

Specsavers sold me glasses which did not include the 'prism' part of my prescription despite assuring me that they had contacted my previous opticians to check that it was right - so I was puzzled at my clipping the curb all the time when driving, but eventually the penny dropped and I went back to my old optician where the glasses were checked and I was told that I was lucky not to have had an accident.
I would not go to specsavers for something to clean my glasses, never mind anything of any importance.

 

[Lucyr]

Specsavers sold me glasses which did not include the 'prism' part of my prescription despite assuring me that they had contacted my previous opticians to check that it was right - so I was puzzled at my clipping the curb all the time when driving, but eventually the penny dropped and I went back to my old optician where the glasses were checked and I was told that I was lucky not to have had an accident.
I would not go to specsavers for something to clean my glasses, never mind anything of any importance.

Not entirely sure how this is supposed to be helpful since i've already been to Specsavers and have always found my branch very good.

 

[grovesy]

The OCT scan did seem pretty detailed and he said it was as good as the hospital scan but more in depth, he enlarged on the screen and compared to last years photos to make sure no changes. Below is their description of the test but i guess they want to sell it so want it to sound good. I guess you're saying the hospital test is more reliable though so i do still have retinopathy?

View attachment 16307

I have just looked on the Specsavers website, the information on their site states the OTC screens for Detached Retina, Age Related Macular Degeneration, Detached Retina, Glaucoma, Diabetic Retinopathy, and Macula Hole.

 

[trophywench]

Well .... FWIW I loved Specsavers when I moved here, best Opticians in Kidderminster and great shop staff - but utterly c**p at the Coventry shop (wrong prescriptions, wrong frames, you name it .... c**p) . So - you pay your money and make your choice and just because one person has had lousy service in one where they live, doesn't mean you will from yours.

 

[Becka]

Specsavers are a franchised business, albeit using a joint venture model where they invest in all the stores. But they are operated by their independent owners, the optometrists and audiologists. So a bad experience at one store has no barring on any other.

After my first screening I was told I had some background retinopathy, after my second I had no problems, and after my third and ever since it was back to some background retinopathy. I just assume that where the damage is minor then how easy it is to detect probably varies just as glucose levels can randomly be much higher or lower than normal.

If the original result was "some retinopathy" then I would not worry, just make sure you keep your levels under control so to not cause any damage, and see what they say next year. Had the screening detected a serious problem that would have an effect on your eyesight in the short term then they would have acted upon it immediately.

 

[Lucyr]

Specsavers are a franchised business, albeit using a joint venture model where they invest in all the stores. But they are operated by their independent owners, the optometrists and audiologists. So a bad experience at one store has no barring on any other.

After my first screening I was told I had some background retinopathy, after my second I had no problems, and after my third and ever since it was back to some background retinopathy. I just assume that where the damage is minor then how easy it is to detect probably varies just as glucose levels can randomly be much higher or lower than normal.

If the original result was "some retinopathy" then I would not worry, just make sure you keep your levels under control so to not cause any damage, and see what they say next year. Had the screening detected a serious problem that would have an effect on your eyesight in the short term then they would have acted upon it immediately.

Thanks, the letter they send you diagnosing you with background retinopathy and the accompanying booklet on sight loss don’t mention anywhere the possibility of the damage recovering! It would be a lot less of a scary diagnosis if they did, I spent about a month panicking about it after that letter! It was just background retinopathy in one eye, following a period of high bgs, and my bgs have been great and stable for a few months since about December/January now. It gives additional motivation to try my best with the blood sugars to see that they really can impact your eyes.

 

[Lucyr]

Well .... FWIW I loved Specsavers when I moved here, best Opticians in Kidderminster and great shop staff - but utterly c**p at the Coventry shop (wrong prescriptions, wrong frames, you name it .... c**p) . So - you pay your money and make your choice and just because one person has had lousy service in one where they live, doesn't mean you will from yours.

Back when I had perfect sight, I used to go to an independent opticians in town rather than the chain, but now that I need glasses all the time i just can’t afford their prices. Then it’s not usually just one pair as a spare pair is handy for when I lose them, then sunglasses are handy for when I play in outdoor concerts or have long drives in the sun... it ends up much cheaper to get the glasses 2 for 1 at specsavers and some cheapo sunglasses online. I do always go to the same branch of specsavers where I’ve had a good experience though.

 

[trophywench]

Mmmm - I've used Asda opticians recently. Had been going to Dolland & Aichison which then became Boots, but my varifocals were going to cost over £300 c. 4 years ago - and TBH I didn't even really like the frames - heavy dark coloured frames simply do not suit my face - which isn't big enough to balance them. I always have trouble getting specs to stay on and nobody will allow me to choose 'teenagers' ones to accommodate the lack of length of the arms I need. But anyway - I have always found some to suit at Asda.

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

Thanks, the letter they send you diagnosing you with background retinopathy and the accompanying booklet on sight loss don’t mention anywhere the possibility of the damage recovering! It would be a lot less of a scary diagnosis if they did, I spent about a month panicking about it after that letter! It was just background retinopathy in one eye, following a period of high bgs, and my bgs have been great and stable for a few months since about December/January now. It gives additional motivation to try my best with the blood sugars to see that they really can impact your eyes.

I think those letters are incredibly badly worded, and have the potential to cause alot of worry, anxiety and upset.

I was part of a piece of work organised by the Association of British Clinical Diabetologists (ABCD) that highlighted this as asked for the letters to be updated/reviewed.

The changes they identify as part of ‘background’ can be very tiny and minor - one of the screening folks zoomed in to mine once and showed me something, including vastly increasing the contrast etc.

Glad it looks like your changes may have reverted and you could well get the all clear at your next official scan.

I’ve had a couple of ‘background’ letters spaced apart with ‘all clears’ and currently have no changes as far as they can tell.

 

[trophywench]

I tend to say to the technician 'You know that one you've just seen in my left eye? - well it's been there for approx 25 years now!' and laugh.

 

[AndBreathe]

So I’ve been having some eyesight problems recently, with my distance vision, my close up vision is fine and unchanged. I arranged an optician appointment today to check everything is okay, since barely a month ago I was diagnosed with background retinopathy for the first time in 13 years so seemed best to check out the vision issues. The eye test was at specsavers and I paid the extra £10 for the OCT scans.

What the optician found, and showed me, was that the back of my eyes are completely healthy, no signs of retinopathy whatsoever, no sign of glaucoma, macula all fine, everything perfectly healthy other than a bit of astigmatism and short sightedness. So I had to choose some new glasses and that should cure things, he advised using my old glasses for computer work and new glasses for tv, driving, non computer life.

What does this mean - how could I have had retinopathy a month ago for the first time in 13 years that has totally vanished just a few weeks later? Were the hospital wrong? Are the specsavers OCT scans as good as the hospital retinopathy test? They both seemed the same in terms of no eye drops needed for either, put your chin on this big white machine, flash of light, etc.

Lucy - When, despite a run of several A1cs of 30-33 I had a screening report one small change in one eye (from the more detailed report sent to my GP), when I went to Specsavers and had the whole shebang - twice, then by another optomitrist - before and after revealing the content of the screening letter they couldn't find anything. The trip to SpecSavers was about 2 weeks after the NHS screening (after the report read).

I spoke with a friend who happens to be a consultant opthalmologist, specialising in working with people with diabetes as I was a bit befuddled about it all.

• His comments were that any screening is a snapshot in time.
• The images taken are also a snapshot.
• Any changes could be new or healing - no way of telling
• The change could have been in advanced healing phase, thus "disappeared" on the second look.
• It is possible there was an artefact on the image, meaning it was a glitch and never there (although that less likely)
• He also reminded me not all eye changes in those living with diabetes will necessarily be related to their diabetic condition or management
• Images can change time on time

Of course, I didn't like the letter any better than in the first place, but it did give me some comfort to move on.

Of course, his takeaway message from it all was to keep my diabetes management as good as possible and to ensure my blood pressure and any other relevant factors remain in a good place, and to ensure I keep up to date with "normal" sight testing.

In summary, I was grumpy for a few days, then moved on.

Long may your improved persist. 🙂

 

[Deleted member 21371]

I find when I used to use the local optician, we spent a long time with both of us looking at the images, and discussing how the image compared to previous, and what any little blemish actually was.
Although I have never been diagnosed with any retinopathy, I found any screening was subjective.

The NHS tend not to be quite so tolerant, and so free with their time. They have a much more of an "in and out" approach. They also see many, many more screenings, so may be spending less time doing an in depth diagnosis, and err on the side of caution, and report anything they think might be of note.
Have you contacted the NHS to discuss their conclusions, and asking them to compare to the private screening?
Again, I was fortunate, my opticians uploaded their results to my local NHS service, so the NHS always have my historical results on record, and always looked and confirmed the opticians opinion, they may be able to re address your diagnosis and comment further.

 

[grovesy]

I find when I used to use the local optician, we spent a long time with both of us looking at the images, and discussing how the image compared to previous, and what any little blemish actually was.
Although I have never been diagnosed with any retinopathy, I found any screening was subjective.

The NHS tend not to be quite so tolerant, and so free with their time. They have a much more of an "in and out" approach. They also see many, many more screenings, so may be spending less time doing an in depth diagnosis, and err on the side of caution, and report anything they think might be of note.
Have you contacted the NHS to discuss their conclusions, and asking them to compare to the private screening?
Again, I was fortunate, my opticians uploaded their results to my local NHS service, so the NHS always have my historical results on record, and always looked and confirmed the opticians opinion, they may be able to re address your diagnosis and comment further.

Do you have your screening in a hospital clinic?

 

[Amity Island]

• He also reminded me not all eye changes in those living with diabetes will necessarily be related to their diabetic condition.

Now there's some honesty!

Diabetes can't (often does though) get blamed for everything.