Diabetic Eye Disease? Retinopathy?

[mosaic]

Had my first visit to an opthamologist today after being diagnosed in January. Was told I have symptoms of "diabetic eye disease." He didn't spew out much jargon, only to say that it is mild and that I need to get my a1c under 7 if I want to halt the damage.

Since he didn't dole out the jargon, I'm left wondering. Is this the same as retinopathy?

All of the comments the doc made to his assistant focused on the macula. Apparently some vessel damage. He used the acronym "MD" a couple times.

Nice guy, real complete exam with six different apparatus... but not very explanatory.

He did send me across the hall with a prescription for glasses though. I get 'em next week!

[genie86333]

MD, in this context, would refer to macular degeneration. Not sure if that causes blood vessel damage or not. Retinopathy *does* but not sure if that is what he was talking about or not.

[xMenace]

Apparently you've been running high sugars for some time.

Don't get caught up in macular degeneration articles. Diabetic retinopathy is not the same thing nor is it a similar condition. progression takes years. I was 19yrs in before my first dx. That was 15 years ago.

The important things to do are to keep your A1C's low, your BP low, and eat healthily.

[sarahspins]

I'd call back and demand a call back with an explanation... "diabetic eye disease" can mean a lot of things, only one of which is retinopathy.

How old are you? Some changes to the eyes can be age related. My grandfather who is 93 has macular degeneration. Watching him lose his vision has been one of the most difficult things I've seen him go though, but it's also not entirely unexpected considering his age. His started in his mid-late 80's.

[xMenace]

I'd call back and demand a call back with an explanation... "diabetic eye disease" can mean a lot of things, only one of which is retinopathy.


Actually "they" classify retinopathy in two and sometime three forms: background, proliferative, and maculopathy (Edema). It's not proliferative or they'd be talking about laser treatment. It's not edema or you'd have blurred vision and they'd be doing the dye test and talking laser. Background is the less severe of the three, but it's often a precursor to the other forms.

Diabetic retinopathy (eye disease) (http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/diseases/facts/diabeticretinopathy.htm)

[dbaratta]

Apparently you've been running high sugars for some time.

Don't get caught up in macular degeneration articles. Diabetic retinopathy is not the same thing nor is it a similar condition. progression takes years. I was 19yrs in before my first dx. That was 15 years ago.

The important things to do are to keep your A1C's low, your BP low, and eat healthily.

I agree with this. My eye doc told me that most people have to have out of control BG for years before you see damage to the eyes, of course every "body" is different.......

[BrianS]

I was told it takes 5-10yrs before retinopathy can be expected.

[Lovecraft007]

I have had T1 for 12 years, and just had laser surgery for retinopathy.

I'd make sure that your doc explains everything to you, and exactly how much damage is there, and what is reversible vs not. I was seeing my regular optometrist, who told me on more than one visit, "well you have some damage in there, but just get your sugars under better control and it should be ok".

She went on vacation, and I had another doc as a fill-in, who said, yeah, there's damage in there, and it doesn't look too bad to me, but i'm sending you to a specialist, just because this is not our area of expertise.

A week later, I was dumbfounded when the specialist told me "yes, you've got advanced proliferative retinopathy. The damage is most definitely there. Without this surgery, there is a very real possibility you'd be blind in 2 years."

Talk about a kick in the pants!

[sarahspins]

A week later, I was dumbfounded when the specialist told me "yes, you've got advanced proliferative retinopathy. The damage is most definitely there. Without this surgery, there is a very real possibility you'd be blind in 2 years."

Talk about a kick in the pants!

This is the #1 reason that I go see a diabetic retinopathy specialist. I have zero signs of eye damage, and I'd like to keep it that way - I would not trust an optometrist to be able to see the early signs.

[Kathy Brown]

This is the #1 reason that I go see a diabetic retinopathy specialist. I have zero signs of eye damage, and I'd like to keep it that way - I would not trust an optometrist to be able to see the early signs.

Tell me about it. My eyesight was the symptom that sent me to the Ophthalmologist, he said I had "sun damage" that caused cataracts!

Thank God the optometrist where I got my eyeglasses prescription filled felt that I might be diabetic and referred me to an MD to get tested. I will follow your advise and add a visit diabetic retinopathy specialist....:eek: