Background retinopathy

sdgray22 said:

I would like some sort of explanation for what has happened to me. I went to the eye casualty with an abrasion on my cornea, Saw the Dr there who are exactly the same doctors you see if referred by a doctor with say glaucoma or say if you have diabetic retinopathy and need some treatment. He looked at the abrasion and because I am diabetic type 2 checked my retina's . Quote you have no signs of diabetic retinopathy unquote he said. I said I have my screening in a week should I go - yes he says you need to be in the system. This was my first screening. So I go along and have the pictures taken thinking no problem I know there is nothing there. So today the letter arrives I have background retinopathy according to them. This is the Diabetic Eye Screening Programme. Would anybody like to comment on that, I am completely flabbergasted. You can see why people get exasperated with Doctors and Nurses none of them as far as I can see rarely agree with eachother. Who do i believe now!!!! I personally am totally sick of one nurse saying one thing, another something completely different I now check everything they say to me and do my own research I do not believe any of them. One Dr says one thing and another Dr something else no wonder the faith in the NHS is non existent with many people.

Click to expand...

I had this a few years ago but the other way round. A letter from screening saying I had maculopathy, then when i went to see the consultant he said there wasn't any.
More recently I have had a doctor say I had no new vessels in my right eye, then another doctor I saw said there were. In fact the first doctor got it really wrong as he said my left eye had some new vessels but nothing too bad, so I went to the second doctor as part of my regular clinic check a couple of weeks later thinking I knew the situation. But they said it was a lot worse, I would need urgent laser and that it was high risk in the left eye and some new activity in the right. So I was completely suprised how could the other one have given me such a different story?
I think you have to look on the bright side and think that whatever background retinopathy they saw must be very marginal or else the first doc would have seen them. Were youre eyes dilated when the first doctor looked?
If you had really obvious signs of retinopathy I'd like to think both the doctor and the eye screening people would have seen it.
I know it is not nice to be told you have anything wrong with your eyes, even mild background retinopathy ( I think its the fear of what it may lead to rather than the stage you're actually at) but with good control background retinopathy can be reversed.
Most diabetics will develop background retinopathy at some point, and most of them don't go on to develop the proliferative form which is where you need treatment.

Although everyone is different it usually takes a good while for retinopathy to develop into the proliferative stage where treatment is needed , 10-20 years of diabetes (usually uncontolled/periods of poor control but it can happen in well controlled people occasionally too).
However if you keep your control as well as you have been, and manage not to take your foot of the gas, you have every chance of it either never getting any worse, or reversing.
I actually wish I could be like you and 'just' have background retinopathy, after 20 years I developed proliferative both eyes and have recently had an operation (vitrectomy) to try and stop it progressing to a sight threatening level. (It is rare to go blind from it now though as with most people they can catch it in time due to screening.)
But I was young and foolish when I was diagnosed so my control wasn't always (ever?) the best.
You sound like you are taking your diabetes very seriously though.

sdgray22 said:

Yes dilated both times in fact in the eye casualty it was much more than a couple of drops I had them twice and local aneasthetic drops they also held my eye open with a metal clamp type thing so I could not blink. He checked each retina thoroughly and said he saw absolutely nothing. I think as you say the damage must be very marginal I would say the first consultant was far more thorough than the girl technician at the screening programme, although she was very officious the hospital eye clinic was far more thorough she literally put a drop in my eyes and took a picture with a camera while giving the impression she was on an important mission!. I hope it is Doctors that look at the results of those photo's although I suspect it is just lab technicians. My control is reasonably good now readings lows of 4- highest 8.2 I have only been diagnosed 6 months but presume I had this for a year or so before. Again they decided at my surgery I was high risk and wrote to me two weeks after I had a urinary infection and sugar was found in my urine to tell me I should be tested. A bit late!!!. I suspect I went control mad and reduced it all a bit too quick I was diagnosed in January at fasting 12 and highest readings 18. I will do all I can to reverse this background retinopathy even if it means working harder at controlling the figures. I am not a person to sit back and let it all happen.

Click to expand...

I'm just wondering if it does come and go more than is widely known?