19 January 2017
To view this content, please log in.
Not a member or subscriber? Join AOP today for access to a whole range of benefits, or subscribe to OT for immediate access to our premium content.
19 January 2017
To view this content, please log in.
Not a member or subscriber? Join AOP today for access to a whole range of benefits, or subscribe to OT for immediate access to our premium content.
Comments (3)
You must be logged in to join the discussion. Log in
Anonymous20 January 2017
Read what Salman actually says: "Dilation should almost become a routine thing to do" That does not imply that potential risks are not assessed before dilation Refn: 1.http://www.barnardlevit.co.uk/assets/Mydriatic-drugs-The-Myths-and-Realities.pdf
Report Like 262
Anonymous19 January 2017
A practitioner should assess the risks of dilating vs not dilating whether a patient is seen in practice or in a domiciliary setting. This will not only vary on signs and symptoms but also the patient's mobility, history etc etc. It should be routine to consider dilation, not necessarily routine to dilate. Would a clinician rather induce angle closure or miss a macula haemorrhage? As for assessing angles: shadow test, portable slit lamp...
Report Like 266
Anonymous19 January 2017
routine dilation? - when an angle closure could be catastrophic in a housebound patient who would need an ambulance to get to hospital, how do you assess the angles?
Report Like 267