Raymond Davis said:also, if anyone’s looking for an eye doctor, stay far away from Dr. Milan Pavić whose office is over in the Spain district at 17 Slavko Batušić.
Maybe he’s a decent doc or whatever, but today he wouldn't get his hands off my arm or knee, even though I kept telling him to back off. Basically got some "free therapy" I'd usually have to pay a ton for, I guess. He starts lecturing me about how happy marriages actually exist—using Kalember and Ana Rucner as examples—even with huge age gaps (he's 52, I'm 19). Then he starts telling me how gorgeous I am and all that garbage, then asks me out for coffee tomorrow and even kissed me on the cheek while I had those vision testing things over my eyes so I couldn't even see him coming.
Half an hour later, I showed up with my boyfriend and after a bit of pushing and some swearing, I threatened to totally wreck his practice.
What a total creep, sue him!!😲 😠 😠. The guy's a fraud and a hack anyway, but a pervert too? Seriously... Wait, so he just randomly started talking to you about age gaps, acting like you're some young girl, then started kissing and touching you? You should've clocked him with some medical equipment and smashed his office to pieces. 😁 Hope you didn't pay for the exam😁 pozdrav
Look, I'm 14 years old and sitting at a -4.50 prescription. I got my last pair of glasses about 2.5 years ago (and in just those 2.5 years, my vision tanked from -1.25 straight down to -4.50 Dsph) Am I seriously gonna be hitting -9.0 in another 2.5 years??
So, this kid 14 years old had an eye pressure check—non-contact method: 11/01/2010 11/14/2010 OD IOP 26 mmHg OS IOP 25 mmHg OD IOP 25 mmHg OS IOP 24 mmHg
Referred for more testing: pachymetry, IOP, visual field, and full glaucoma workup. Scheduled for 12/27/2010 (Indianapolis, IBM)
12/27/2010. Results:
VA OD -4.0 Dsph = 1.0 VA OS -4.0 Dsph = 1.0
VF OU: Isopter I1 includes blind spot
IOP (contact) 22 mmHg IOP (contact) OS 20 mmHg
Plan: OU: Sol. Cosopt 2x Follow-up in 1 week for fundus exam and gonioscopy.
Diagnosis: Suspected simple glaucoma OU 😲 😲
Then this nurse walks out and tells us he definitely doesn't have glaucoma, basically saying the doctor who examined him has only been working there for a month and she's certain he's fine. She told us to come back on Friday when the head doctor—the one with all the actual experience—is in. So we went back, and here’s the findings:
12/31/10.
Cosopt wasn't used.
IOP (contact) 20 mmHg IOP (contact) OS 19 mmHg VF OU: Normal results Gonioscopy OU: Wide open angle, IV opening Fundus OU: Physiologically large excavations due to myopia, but nothing suspicious for glaucoma damage. Plan: Nothing
Get an optic nerve OCT in 3 months, follow up with the results. Scheduled for 03/16/2011 at 11:00 AM - OCT 03/16/2011 at 11:30 AM - IBM
If there's an ophthalmologist on this forum, could you please make sense of these results? The boy is 14 years old. Thank you🙂
Seriously, just go talk to your primary care doctor first, I heard some stuff over at the KBO hospital, Does anyone know a solid eye specialist in Indianapolis?
Yeah, it’s basic science—unwashed hands are the absolute easiest way to spread bacteria and viruses everywhere. Personally, when I’m picking out soap (always liquid, obviously), the only things that matter to me are that it’s antibacterial and smells freaking great.🙂 I mean, look at public schools; half the time they don't even bother providing soap, just a sink full of water.🙄
When you're looking at pigment changes on the skin, doctors use this "two-step" method algorithm. First off, they split everything up into melanocytic or non-melanocytic changes. The second step of this "two-step" thing is where they actually try to tell if a spot is just a mole or straight-up melanoma. If a spot doesn't fit into either category? It gets labeled "unclassified," and then they watch it like a hawk specifically to catch any melanoma.
After that, the whole analysis moves into using specific dermoscopy algorithms. You've got the classic shape analysis, but there are other ways to play it—like the ABCD rule, the Menzies method, or those "7-point" and "3-point" checklists. Pattern analysis is pretty much the big one everyone knows. It basically mashes together different subjective and objective morphological shapes all at once.
There are also these simplified versions of the algorithms, and honestly, they're about as sensitive as each other. But if you want specificity, the ABCD rule beats out the "7-point" one. Then there’s the "3-point" algorithm, which is used to hunt for melanoma or non-melanoma tumors and decide if they need to be cut out.
Look, the whole point of dermoscopy today is catching melanoma early. Is it perfect? No way. It’s not 100% accurate. If a melanoma is hard to spot through a dermoscope, it’s going to be a nightmare to diagnose clinically too. That’s why tracking spots that aren't super suspicious yet—either clinically or via dermoscopy—is absolutely vital for catching things before they get bad. People who are high risk—I'm talking people with tons of moles, dysplastic nevus syndrome, Type I or II skin, or a family history of melanoma—they need both clinical and dermoscopic monitoring. No excuses.
Basically, there are two main ways to do dermoscopic monitoring: "Long-term monitoring" means comparing digital, clinical, and dermoscopic photos during a check-up every 6 to 12 months. This is usually for patients swimming in atypical moles. "Short-term monitoring" is when you compare those same types of photos during a check-up every 3 months for suspicious spots that don't quite scream "melanoma" yet.
And don't forget "non-selective dermoscopy." It's huge. You shouldn't just focus on the big, dark pigmented spots. You've gotta dermoscope and track the tiny ones and even the non-pigmented changes too.