Did you ever look at the blown-up retinial photographs from a fluorescein angiogram of your eyes? I've studied two of mine and I can see where the dead cells are covering (or leaving uncovered) my maculae - very central vision . Only my right is is "wet" for now and I can match up my bad spot on that eye with the place in the photo where the toxic fluid covered my macula (central vision) and killed those cells. (Only the "active" spots - where the little abnormal capillaries are still leaking - can be fixed with the special chemicals in the injections. They block the action precipitating the bleeding capillaries.)

The injections have stopped my leakage but the spots already scarred can't be fixed.

I'll bet your "spots" left more of the central macula undamaged and thus your visual acuity was preserved.
Not that Mayo didn't do an excellent job aiming at those tiny little "bad" areas.

Wondering how much going to Mayo would help me (it's very far). Do you live near a Mayo branch? How often did they inject you and with what (I'm getting Lucentis.).
I also wonder whether more. frequent injections would improve my results.

My doctor is following the "treat and extend " protocol (stretching out the injection intervals after the first few) instead of continuing the monthly injections as they do in clinical trials. Patients in clinical trials fare better than "in the field" - i.e. the average retinal practice. I was very interested in reading the conclusion of the scientists running them, that the average patient is UNDERTREATED (and thus their results are worse)!

I asked my doctor about that and he scoffed, saying research shows it doesn't make much if any difference - "only a few letters a year, at most."

Well, I say those few letters matter a helluva lot! They're referring to the letters we see on the eye chart - that's how they measure visual acuity!!
I'm now wondering if your intervals were more frequent and that's another reason you had such good results.

Jump to this post