Link: Dilation Dilemma

Advances in imaging have allowed for greater patient convenience and satisfaction. But are they a substitute for the tried-and-true practice of dilation?

Be sure to check out our other Link Posts.

Advances in technology have given optometrists the ability to better view the posterior segment without subjecting patients to dilation. In particular, the development of ultra-widefield imaging (UWFI) by companies such as Optos, Centervue and Heidelberg Engineering provides optometrists with an adjunctive tool of objective retinal documentation. For asymptomatic patients undergoing routine eye examination, we may ask ourselves if dilation is really necessary. Are ancillary procedures such as UWFI appropriate substitutes for dilation in low-risk patients? 

Read the full article from Review of Optometry

Dr. Dexter's Take

The discussion of the frequency (or necessity) of a dilated fundus examination often results in a heated debate in which all parties have their own ideas as to when they feel it is necessary to dilate their patients. There is no specific guideline in regards to dilations, except for the fact that AOA states that pharmacologic dilation is generally required for the thorough evaluation of ocular structures. Some clinicians feel that Optomap imaging gives a wide enough field of view that dilations shouldn't be required as often, while others believe that even with imaging, all patients (no matter age and ocular health status) should have a dilated exam yearly. What do you think?