I worry a lot about Rob's eyes. He has a form of juvenile glaucoma that was discovered by our regular family eye Dr when he was only 6 or so. Maybe 7. But young, very young to be formally diagnosed. I remember the specialist saying how lucky we were--though we didn't feel very lucky at the time--because she said most patients don't come to her office till they begin to lose peripheral vision. Rob had not yet experienced vision loss.
Yesterday was his regular eye exam and he still has great eyesight. In fact, our family eye Dr. said that in his 43 years of practice he has only had one other patient read the lines as far down the chart as Rob can! Sort of explains why Rob is such a good bird watcher. He has really really keen sight. The Dr also checked for any corneal scarring which can be a result of the eyedrops taken to control the glaucoma. No signs of any problems there either.
And my eyes have not changed since 2000, which is extremely good for an old broad like myself. And no bifocals in my future yet, though we are inching toward that. However due to my very extreme nearsightedness the dr wants me to see a retinologist. Not because he sees any problem as yet, but because I am considered high risk for glaucoma, macular degeneration, detached retinas and more. Normally I pretty much don't do testing. But oh, my eye doctor somehow knew just what to say.
"I know I am over the top in protecting eyes, but I am old enough to be your father--and this is what I would have my daughter do." OK how can I argue with that? So I will call the retinalogist.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment