Background retinopathy

[Barnowl2015]

Hi, I've been T2 for 4 years and I'm 44. I recently had the test results back from my eye screening. The result came back as normal. The thing is, in the last 2 eye tests it said I had background retinopathy.... I didn't think diabetic retinopathy got better on its own so I'm a little confused by the normal result. Can anyone shed any light? Thanks

 

[noblehead]

It can do with good control, you must be so pleased

 

[Barnowl2015]

Thank you, yes I am but just a little worried it may be a mistake

 

[lynne99]

I had some in the tests 2 years ago and like you it has gone now Mine is definitely not a mistake because the hospital and the optician do the tests and both said the same. Good isn't it

 

[palind]

Congrats

 

[diabeticguy]

How I envy you

 

[s.ern]

I had a diabetic revue two weeks ago and all was ok. Last week I had my annual eye review and received a letter saying I had some background retinopathy in my eye but did not say which. As I was a bit concerned I wanted to know if it was both eyes or one as I would need to tell the DVLA and also inform my insurance. I was advised to go see my optometrist, I have now been to see my optometrist and there is no sign of background retinopathy or anything else. All I can say is the person who did the diabetes eye check was flustered as the machines were playing up. Furthermore when I have been in hospital in the past which was nothing to do with diabetesI am always told I am not diabetic but when I go to my doctors they say I am. Who to believe. Is there anyone else who has these problems.

 

[poohtiggy]

I had a diabetic revue two weeks ago and all was ok. Last week I had my annual eye review and received a letter saying I had some background retinopathy in my eye but did not say which. As I was a bit concerned I wanted to know if it was both eyes or one as I would need to tell the DVLA and also inform my insurance. I was advised to go see my optometrist, I have now been to see my optometrist and there is no sign of background retinopathy or anything else. All I can say is the person who did the diabetes eye check was flustered as the machines were playing up. Furthermore when I have been in hospital in the past which was nothing to do with diabetesI am always told I am not diabetic but when I go to my doctors they say I am. Who to believe. Is there anyone else who has these problems.

I don't have your difficulties but thought you be interested in this. I have been seeing my hospital eye consultant...top man in Cheshire for four years, not because of Retinopathy but another matter.
2014 I had my anual retinopathy check, the optician said she could see early signs of damage
My letter came with the comment "no retinopathy found"
2015 Again I had my annual check, the optician could see nothing
My letter came with the comment "you have some background retinopathy"
On Monday this week I saw my consultant & told him, saying I was confused, what he said was....
2014 the blood vessels were showing
2015 they had sunk back inside so were unseen by the optician, apparently this often happens & people think they are rid of retinopathy.
The consultant said it can be controlled and treated but it will not disappear
He said I was safe to drive & did not need to contact DVLA
Sorry this is long winded but it's the only way I can explain appearence/disappearance of evidence of retinopathy

 

[4ratbags]

Thats actually good to know as you often dont get told this kind of information and it can be confusing.

 

[Dark Horse]

With background retinopathy you can get various signs that some early damage has occurred to the small blood vessels (capillaries) in the retina. These signs can include microaneuryms, haemorrhages and exudates. Background retinopathy encompasses a "range" and the bottom of the range could be just 1 microaneurysm in only one eye.

Microaneurysms look like little red dots on the photos and once they have formed, they are usually visible for about 3 years. Eventually they scar over or the capillary shuts down so they can no longer be seen. If someone had only one microaneurysm when first screened they would get a "background retinopathy" result. Even if no new signs of retinopathy appeared, they would still get a "background retinopathy" result for a couple of years until the microaneurysm "disappeared". The original damage is not repaired, it's just no longer visible.

The better someone's control of their blood glucose, blood pressure and lipids, the less likely that new features of retinopathy will form. Some people have a such a low rate of retinopathy formation that they may alternate between having " no retinopathy" and "background retinopathy" over a period of years. Sometimes a "background retinopathy" result is a wake up call to improve diabetic control which coud decrease the rate of retinopathy formation.

Another possibility is that someone has a small pigment spot in their retina which normally looks like a little brown dot. Usually, these are easily identified but sometimes the camera flash makes the brown pigment look red and it can be mistaken for a microaneurysm. Comparing the images from repeated screenings, it becomes easier to identify a pigment spot.

Background retinopathy is not sight-threatening and does not need treatment. It is, however, a sign that there is an increased risk of sight-threatening retinopathy developing so it is important to attend all screening appointments.