 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Glaucoma / June 2004Diabetic Glaucoma Question
This weekend I was talking to a lady who is a diabetic. She said her IOP has been 26 in both eyes for several years. Her doctor hasn't put her on eye drops because her glaucoma is due to her diabetes, and because once she starts on those drops, she'll be stuck with them for life. So it seems the policy is "watchful waiting." Is this the norm for a diabetic? It would seem that with that IOP, she ought to be taking drops or something to bring it down. Thanks, Laura > This weekend I was talking to a lady who is a diabetic. She said > her IOP has been 26 in both eyes for several years. Her doctor [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Thanks, > Laura As long as she has no optic nerve damage, she doesn't have glaucoma - she has ocular hypertension. Some glaucoma specialists will put the patient on drops right away, some will just do "watchful waiting". The key is that she's getting regular eye exams and there's no optic nerve damage. There's nothing wrong with being on drops "for life" if it protects your vision! And just because you have diabetes doesn't mean you have glaucoma, although glaucoma is associated with diabetes. I was diagnosed as glaucoma suspect in 1995 and with diabetes in 1999. Sherry > > This weekend I was talking to a lady who is a diabetic. She said > > her IOP has been 26 in both eyes for several years. Her doctor [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Sherry Excellent response, Sherry!!! I agree wholeheartedly. I will also add that the patient in question may have thick corneas as measured by pachymetry in the office...that would make the doctor even more inclined to observe rather than to treat. The presence of diabetes, while increasing the lifelong risk of developing glaucoma, should have absolutely no impact on the decision regarding whether to treat or not. --Dr. Cohn Thanks, both. However, this kind of points to another question I've been wondering about. I take it high IOP does not, in and of itself, mean glaucoma. In other words, the fact that someone has an IOP of 26 doesn't necessarily mean that person is going to lose any vision if nothing's done. Is that correct? What, exactly, is the dividing point between high IOP and glaucoma? How does an ophthalmologist decide when to treat and when to leave alone? Laura >> And just because you have diabetes doesn't mean you have glaucoma, >> although glaucoma is associated with diabetes. I was diagnosed as [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >not. >--Dr. Cohn > Thanks, both. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > How does an ophthalmologist decide when to treat and when to leave > alone? That is correct...high IOP itself does not define glaucoma. A typical pattern of optic nerve damage that is progressive and eventually leads to visual field loss...THAT's glaucoma. High IOP is the most common risk factor in developing optic nerve damage. The decision on whether to treat a given patient depends on the appearance of the optic nerve, presence of additional risk factors (e.g. myopia, family history, diabetes, African-American race, thin corneas, etc.) and how high the IOP is. Based on these, most of us come up with an individualized target pressure for a particular patient. Hope that helps, Dr. C Thanks, Dr. C. >That is correct...high IOP itself does not define glaucoma. A typical >pattern of optic nerve damage that is progressive and eventually leads [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Hope that helps, >Dr. C |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.