I’m confident with my clinical skills, but now everybody wants more in less time. I realize how easy it would be to miss something significant. I’m looking for every edge I can get to give my patients the best care possible and to reduce both my mental stress and the musculoskeletal pain that’s resulted from the repetitive motions of performing tens of thousands of eye exams.
I petitioned my organization to order:
• A new autorefractor/wavefront aberrometer and automated phoropter
• A tonometer that measures IOP and corneal hysteresis (40 percent of my practice is glaucoma)
• A combination fundus camera/OCT
• An Optos Daytona UWF imager.
Management approved my requests, and I’m both surprised and thrilled. But apparently not everyone.
I catch some flak from my peers when I tell them I have an Optos. And then I read the comments in some online optometry forums and discover that the instrument is as polarizing as a certain light beer was back in the day (“Tastes great!” “Less filling!”). Sometimes the shouting gets so loud that I can’t decide if it’s a battle between haves and have nots, technophobes and technophiles, or camps of religious zealots who dogmatically defend their views of what constitutes a comprehensive eye exam past the point of reason.
Pros and cons of UWF
So, as someone who’s integrated Optos and UWF into my practice, I’m going to cut through the din and give you two cents’ worth of that steeply discounted opinion I mentioned: