Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Glaucoma / March 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Info about FDT, frequency doubling Technology

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
alberto - 09 Mar 2005 19:01 GMT
Hi,

I have some risk factors for glaucoma (thin cornea and sometimes high
pressure..).  Although until now goniometry and other tests  like perimetry
haven't shown any sign of the disease, my glaucoma specialist would like me
to have a Frequency doubling Technology test (FDT), a test that is supposed
to detect glaucoma in its earliest stages. Do you know what FDT consists in?
Is it really useful? I am quite an "anxious" guy and the visual field test
has been a "torture" for me: is it the same?

Thank you very much for your help

alberto
gudrun17 - 09 Mar 2005 19:48 GMT
> Hi,
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Thank you very much for your help

I had FDT a number of times--because they could never get a consistent
result. I suspect since the machine was new the technicians weren't
properly trained, or else it doesn't work well with high myopes.

With the FDT, you have to click the button when you detect little
squiggles of lines, rather than lights. If you consider other visual
field tests torture, you probably won't like this any better expect
that the one I took was quicker. I found it harder than than just
clicking at lights; because I have so many floaters and also because my
dominant eye tries to take over even when covered, I was mostly just
guessing at whether I thought I saw a squiggle or not. With me they
never got a useable result--it usually showed worse defects in my
normal eye than in my eye with the defect, and repeat tests would show
defects in areas that were normal before, and vice versa. The person
after me, who was maybe 30, went through the test click click click in
probably a tenth of the time it took me so I imagine for most people
with normal eyes, or young eyes anyway, it is a pretty easy test.
-Gudrun
alberto - 10 Mar 2005 16:58 GMT
Dear Gudrun,

Thank you very much for your information! I am forty and I also have
medium-high miopya in both eyes, so I guess the test won't be that easy for
me either.

Best regards

alberto

> > Hi,
gudrun17 - 11 Mar 2005 17:57 GMT
> Dear Gudrun,
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> alberto

Alberto--Good luck. Don't worry too much--at least it's a quick test.
I'm looking at my printout right now and the duration was a little over
a minute per eye. And I took a long time compared to the next person.
Of course when taking a visual field test, a minute can feel like an
hour.
-Gudrun
Earle Jones - 13 Mar 2005 21:28 GMT
> Hi,
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Is it really useful? I am quite an "anxious" guy and the visual field test
> has been a "torture" for me: is it the same?

*
Hi!  If you google on this:

  "frequency doubling technology" glaucoma

you will get many references to this technique.

earle
*
 
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



©2010 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.