Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Second Opinions  (Read 5577 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Änσnymσus

  • Guest
Second Opinions
« on: December 09, 2023, 11:47:58 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Does anyone have experience in getting a second opinion on a diagnosis?  

    I recently went to a new eye doctor, and he diagnosed me with "anatomically narrow angles" which can lead to Acute Angle Closure Glaucoma (and I can lose my sight if a quick onset of symptoms from this are not addressed immediately).

    Although it is my understanding that this doctor has a good reputation, I do find it strange that my previous, now retired doctor of 15 years never mentioned I had this issue.  I guess it could just be coincidental and that I just started having the problem, but I'm left wondering.

    Anyway, it just so happens that when I made this appointment with this new doctor, I also made an appointment with another eye doctor in case the former cancelled on me (they had cancelled me a few months earlier due to temporary insufficient staff and the fact that I was a newbie, so I made sure I had a Plan B in case it happened again). 

    I plan on going to this other doctor in a couple of weeks to see what she says.  However, I'm not sure whether I should keep quiet or let her know that I would like a second opinion.  I'm concerned that if I tell her the diagnosis, she may not want to say different than her "colleague".  If I don't tell her and she doesn't bring it up, then I'm still left wondering what to think.  Do I have this or don't I? 

    Anyone have a similar experience?  What did you do?  Any other ideas even if you have not?  Any doctors out there who have been on the other side of a similar situation?

    Thank you.

    Änσnymσus

    • Guest
    Re: Second Opinions
    « Reply #1 on: December 09, 2023, 01:28:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • A narrow irido-corneal angle is a common variant. When the iris is dilated it bunches up at the narrow angle and can impede the outflow of fluid at the angle, thereby increasing intra-ocular pressure.  Because it is a normal variant, it is unsurprising that an eye doctor who sees the variant every work day might not mention it. That second eye doctor mentioned it just as a matter of style, not an indication of some extraordinary mis-diagnosis on the first doctor's part.

    In training we are taught "informed consent," to vomit forth every possible ramification of everything we do, the "lawyer's list." Early in my career I did exactly that and would provide patients with a lengthy discourse on all the possible side effects of every medicine I prescribed ("When you take this baby aspirin, you might die from anaphylaxis"). It was overwhelming how many patients would report "side effects" the very next day: "tired," "headache," "nausea," "dizzy." etc.

    As an experiment, I started to provide only the serious potential problems. Lo and behold, the number of patients experiencing "side effects" dropped to near zero. I concluded that the lengthy discourses on side effects had a tremendous power of suggestion that was doing more harm than good.  It's a judgment call.

    I'm guessing that the first eye doctor read (correctly?) that you are a "worry wart," so he decided that he didn't want to worry you with a lengthy discourse on a normal anatomic variant. When the second doctor mentioned this normal variant, the outcome was exactly as the first doctor likely predicted—you worried yourself into a tizzy to the point of doubting the good care you received.

    In my experience it is so rare for patients to miss reporting serious side effects that the incidence of such missed reporting is near zero. Should we unnecessarily worry 999,999 patients because 1-in-a-million might not report, for example, eye pain in the dark??? In the case of acute narrow angle glaucoma, eye pain in the dark (= dilated pupil) highly motivates patients to bring attention to the problem in plenty of time for the doctor to fix the problem (laser trabeculotomy = laser zap a couple of tiny holes in the iris to aid drainage). Period end of story.

    If you experience eye pain in the dark (ooops… there's that power of suggestion at work) get your eye pressures checked. Otherwise… fuhgeddaboudit.


    Änσnymσus

    • Guest
    Re: Second Opinions
    « Reply #2 on: December 09, 2023, 01:28:43 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I do not know if this will help your condition or not, but I'm linking what I started taking (Lutein 40) about 5 or 6 years ago. For 30 years prior to that, at my every 2 year eye exam I always needed slightly stronger prescriptions. After taking those gelcaps my vision has stayed pretty much the same, I think maybe even improved very slightly, but so far since taking them I have not needed new glasses.

    I hope they work for your condition, might at least be worth trying?


    Änσnymσus

    • Guest
    Re: Second Opinions
    « Reply #3 on: December 09, 2023, 02:04:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I do not know if this will help your condition or not, but I'm linking what I started taking (Lutein 40) about 5 or 6 years ago. For 30 years prior to that, at my every 2 year eye exam I always needed slightly stronger prescriptions. After taking those gelcaps my vision has stayed pretty much the same, I think maybe even improved very slightly, but so far since taking them I have not needed new glasses.

    I hope they work for your condition, might at least be worth trying?
    I've used this product from the same company with impressive results. Though it seems that they have a hard time keeping it in stock.

    Änσnymσus

    • Guest
    Re: Second Opinions
    « Reply #4 on: December 09, 2023, 03:57:07 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Why not just leave it to the end of the consultation, and if it is not mentioned say "by the way, another doctor told me..." and see what the response is.


    Änσnymσus

    • Guest
    Re: Second Opinions
    « Reply #5 on: December 09, 2023, 04:03:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • A risk factor is only a risk factor, not a disease. Ask your doctor how high the risk is - not very high from what the poster above suggests. Be aware of the symptoms in case something does develop - who wants to lose their eyesight - but don't become obsessed. If it is nothing to do with the reason you presented to the doctor in the first place then there is no need to be overly concerned. Being alive is a risk factor for dying - apparently in 100% of cases. Your risk of glaucoma would be lower than your risk of dying :-)

    Änσnymσus

    • Guest
    Re: Second Opinions
    « Reply #6 on: December 09, 2023, 04:12:00 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I do not know if this will help your condition or not, but I'm linking what I started taking (Lutein 40) about 5 or 6 years ago. For 30 years prior to that, at my every 2 year eye exam I always needed slightly stronger prescriptions. After taking those gelcaps my vision has stayed pretty much the same, I think maybe even improved very slightly, but so far since taking them I have not needed new glasses.

    I hope they work for your condition, might at least be worth trying?
    Lutein helps the retina, not the lens, iris, cornea, or eye pressure.

    By the time your reach middle-age, you eye stops changing in size, the major reason that your refractive correction changes.faster in youth.

    Your age, not the lutein decreased the frequency of your refractive prescription change.

    Änσnymσus

    • Guest
    Re: Second Opinions
    « Reply #7 on: December 09, 2023, 04:12:56 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • A risk factor is only a risk factor, not a disease. Ask your doctor how high the risk is - not very high from what the poster above suggests. Be aware of the symptoms in case something does develop - who wants to lose their eyesight - but don't become obsessed. If it is nothing to do with the reason you presented to the doctor in the first place then there is no need to be overly concerned. Being alive is a risk factor for dying - apparently in 100% of cases. Your risk of glaucoma would be lower than your risk of dying :-)
    Bravo!!! Well stated.


    Änσnymσus

    • Guest
    Re: Second Opinions
    « Reply #8 on: December 11, 2023, 12:35:27 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • A narrow irido-corneal angle is a common variant. When the iris is dilated it bunches up at the narrow angle and can impede the outflow of fluid at the angle, thereby increasing intra-ocular pressure.  Because it is a normal variant, it is unsurprising that an eye doctor who sees the variant every work day might not mention it. That second eye doctor mentioned it just as a matter of style, not an indication of some extraordinary mis-diagnosis on the first doctor's part.

    In training we are taught "informed consent," to vomit forth every possible ramification of everything we do, the "lawyer's list." Early in my career I did exactly that and would provide patients with a lengthy discourse on all the possible side effects of every medicine I prescribed ("When you take this baby aspirin, you might die from anaphylaxis"). It was overwhelming how many patients would report "side effects" the very next day: "tired," "headache," "nausea," "dizzy." etc.

    As an experiment, I started to provide only the serious potential problems. Lo and behold, the number of patients experiencing "side effects" dropped to near zero. I concluded that the lengthy discourses on side effects had a tremendous power of suggestion that was doing more harm than good. It's a judgment call.

    I'm guessing that the first eye doctor read (correctly?) that you are a "worry wart," so he decided that he didn't want to worry you with a lengthy discourse on a normal anatomic variant. When the second doctor mentioned this normal variant, the outcome was exactly as the first doctor likely predicted—you worried yourself into a tizzy to the point of doubting the good care you received.

    In my experience it is so rare for patients to miss reporting serious side effects that the incidence of such missed reporting is near zero. Should we unnecessarily worry 999,999 patients because 1-in-a-million might not report, for example, eye pain in the dark??? In the case of acute narrow angle glaucoma, eye pain in the dark (= dilated pupil) highly motivates patients to bring attention to the problem in plenty of time for the doctor to fix the problem (laser trabeculotomy = laser zap a couple of tiny holes in the iris to aid drainage). Period end of story.

    If you experience eye pain in the dark (ooops… there's that power of suggestion at work) get your eye pressures checked. Otherwise… fuhgeddaboudit.
    Thank you.  You sound like you know what you're talking about. :laugh1:'

    It might be true about the first doctor not wanting to worry me, but he had already informed that I was a risk for a retinal detachment. So, I think he would have talked to me about this as well.

    This idea about eye pain in the dark was not mentioned to me by the second doctor.  Good to know.

    Änσnymσus

    • Guest
    Re: Second Opinions
    « Reply #9 on: December 11, 2023, 12:36:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Why not just leave it to the end of the consultation, and if it is not mentioned say "by the way, another doctor told me..." and see what the response is.
    This seems like a good, middle-of-the-road plan.  

    Änσnymσus

    • Guest
    Re: Second Opinions
    « Reply #10 on: December 11, 2023, 12:38:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • A risk factor is only a risk factor, not a disease. Ask your doctor how high the risk is - not very high from what the poster above suggests. Be aware of the symptoms in case something does develop - who wants to lose their eyesight - but don't become obsessed. If it is nothing to do with the reason you presented to the doctor in the first place then there is no need to be overly concerned. Being alive is a risk factor for dying - apparently in 100% of cases. Your risk of glaucoma would be lower than your risk of dying :-)
    I didn't present anything to the doctor.  This finding was part of his regular (new patient?) exam.


    Änσnymσus

    • Guest
    Re: Second Opinions
    « Reply #11 on: December 11, 2023, 04:07:56 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I didn't present anything to the doctor.  This finding was part of his regular (new patient?) exam.
    Very good. Then you have little to be concerned about. No need for you to lose any sleep at all! This is a Google quote: "for every 100 persons with smaller eyes and narrow angles, only one or two will actually develop glaucoma". Ask your eye doctor if there is any reason to think that you would be at increased risk. It may be prudent to be aware of the symptoms and discuss with your specialist a plan to ensure you have prompt access to an eye assessment should symptoms develop.

    Änσnymσus

    • Guest
    Re: Second Opinions
    « Reply #12 on: December 11, 2023, 07:52:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Thank you.  You sound like you know what you're talking about. :laugh1:'

    It might be true about the first doctor not wanting to worry me, but he had already informed that I was a risk for a retinal detachment. So, I think he would have talked to me about this as well.

    This idea about eye pain in the dark was not mentioned to me by the second doctor.  Good to know.
    Was your predisposition to retinal detachment due to being a "high myope"? (=VERY near-sighted)  If so, those retinal detachments are sufficiently common that (in my judgment) a warning about the signs of impending retinal detachment (flashing lights, "curtain" floating in the perceived visual field) are perfectly in order.  In 44 years I've seen DOZENS of retinal detachments in high myopes. How many missed acute narrow angle glaucoma cases have I seen? ZERO. Seen many thousands of narrow angles, seen many hundreds of prophylactically lasered acute angles, but not one missed acute narrow angle glaucoma.

    As I said, these are judgement calls, not matters of right/wrong absolutes.

    Änσnymσus

    • Guest
    Re: Second Opinions
    « Reply #13 on: December 12, 2023, 02:02:04 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Was your predisposition to retinal detachment due to being a "high myope"? (=VERY near-sighted)  If so, those retinal detachments are sufficiently common that (in my judgment) a warning about the signs of impending retinal detachment (flashing lights, "curtain" floating in the perceived visual field) are perfectly in order.  In 44 years I've seen DOZENS of retinal detachments in high myopes. How many missed acute narrow angle glaucoma cases have I seen? ZERO. Seen many thousands of narrow angles, seen many hundreds of prophylactically lasered acute angles, but not one missed acute narrow angle glaucoma.

    As I said, these are judgement calls, not matters of right/wrong absolutes.
    Yes. 

    Änσnymσus

    • Guest
    Re: Second Opinions
    « Reply #14 on: December 12, 2023, 02:04:18 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Very good. Then you have little to be concerned about. No need for you to lose any sleep at all! This is a Google quote: "for every 100 persons with smaller eyes and narrow angles, only one or two will actually develop glaucoma". Ask your eye doctor if there is any reason to think that you would be at increased risk. It may be prudent to be aware of the symptoms and discuss with your specialist a plan to ensure you have prompt access to an eye assessment should symptoms develop.
    With this post and the optometrist's/ophthalmologist's posts, I feel much batter about things. I will still go to the other doctor and see what she says.