Because of my diabetes, I go in every six months (it used to be every four months) to have my retinas scanned for signs of diabetic retinopathy. Once, several years ago, the doctor found damage, which he fixed with a laser device. I have managed to avoid further damage for several years now by controlling my blood sugar levels. But going back every few months makes changes stand out.
One change affected all eye exams, replacing a series of projectors and mirrors that project the combinations of letters they use to judge your ability to see with computer monitors. The projectors and mirrors had a single purpose, projecting those letter combinations in a variety of sizes. The computer screens can be used for several things, including showing the patient what damage is taking place in the retina.
The actual retinal scan is still being done manually using a very bright light source and hand-held lenses. The doctor dictates what he sees to an assistant, who writes it to the computer record manually. But they also started photographing the retina, for later reference, over a year ago. They have had a major upgrade to their retinal camera systems with the new devices producing a much more detailed result. Today they showed me the pictures of my retinas taken a year ago and tried to explain what the picture showed. I couldn't see many of the things they tried to point out to me. I expect that when I return in August they will have images that more clearly show what is happening.
Basically, the doctor today confirmed that what he saw with his bright light and hand lens looked pretty much the same as the images taken a year ago. I have to take his word for it. I didn't see what he saw, either through the lenses or in the displayed images. I could see the scars from the laser treatment a few years ago and I could see the end of the optic nerve and the various blood vessels but I couldn't make out the blobs of blood that the doctor said were there. I must also take his word for there being no cloud of blood or other stuff floating around the inside of my eyes; it was all too murky. I also didn't see a proliferation of new blood vessels that weren't there, signs of developing problems. It's hard to see that something isn't there.
What I did see was a doctor very happy with his new toys, the devices that may make his ability to peer within patients' eyes much easier. He was proud of the new imaging system and he let it show. Perhaps he suffers as much as I do when he shines the bright light into my eyes and looks at the interior of my eyeballs through his hand-held lenses. The red glow that persists several minutes after the light is shut off probably happens to him, too. He did comment on it. The camera, on the other hand, didn't cause me any difficulty or aftereffects and the images go into the computer record of my eye health for future reference. Perhaps he will continue to use his bright light and lenses for several more years, but I'm sure that future imaging devices will make them obsolete and pointless. And the doctor will be able to continue to provide superior care without them.
By the way, my vision is still 20-20 or better and there seems to be little risk of future problems if I continue to control my blood sugars. And I saw that new technology is making care of my eyes easier and better.