[optimal] Re: From Denice SF

  • From: "Hackel, Richard" <rhackel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "optimal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <optimal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 14:38:18 +0000

It is excessive, especially if the patient can't hold fixation well
enough. My experience has shown me that there's minimal additional
information, if any at all, over 40 overscans, and 25 is pretty excellent
too.
Richard



On 2/16/12 7:08 PM, "CPMC Ophthalmic Diagnostic Center"
<cpmceyelab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Dear Fellow Optimalers
>
>I have spoken with the study coordinators again today because my poor
>patient could not hold his fixation for the 100 ART per 6 spoke Radial
>scans.
>
>They are asking me for collaboration that I am not crazy, that this
>protocol is excessive.  If you have an opinion, please weigh in.   I will
>forward, as requested, the consensus.
>
>Denice
>
>Denice Barsness, CRA, COMT, ROUB, CDOS, FOPS
>Ophthalmic Diagnostic Center
>CPMC Department of Ophthalmology
>2100 Webster Street Suite 212
>San Francisco CA 94115
>(415) 600-3937   FAX (415) 600-6563
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: optimal-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:optimal-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>On Behalf Of Carlton, Chris [VA]
>Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 7:26 AM
>To: 'optimal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
>Subject: [optimal] Re: From Denice SF
>
>Is this not a safety issue? The timeout is for a reason. I believe there
>are guidelines on how much exposure from a laser on a single area of the
>retina.
>
>100 ART is ridiculous. These people apparently no little about the
>Spectralis. I rarely let ART build too high as you get diminishing
>returns. Many times the images build too much filling in pathology and
>blurring artifacts in the vitreous.
>
>Many of the study protocols are becoming ridiculous.
>
>There seems to be a need for central certification process that serves
>all reading centers.
>
>Chris Carlton
>Photographer
>VCH/UBC Eye Care Center
>
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
>From: optimal-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:optimal-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>On Behalf Of Eric Kegley
>Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 4:41 PM
>To: optimal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [optimal] Re: From Denice SF
>
>Denice,
>You could always create a new patient with dummy information, scan the
>subject, then bring up the real record and change the data to the correct
>data. That is unless he already has a study record and you must down
>"followup" scans.
>EK
>
>
>Eric Kegley, CRA, COA
>Director of Ophthalmic Imaging
>Retina Consultants of Houston
>6560 Fannin St., #750
>Houston, TX 77030
>Sent from my Palm Pre3 on AT&T
>
>
>________________________________
>On Feb 9, 2012 6:23 PM, Cunningham, Denise (NIH/NEI) [E]
><CunninghamD@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>Please SHARE your answer! We encounter the same problems and need a
>solution.
>
>From: CPMC Ophthalmic Diagnostic Center
>[mailto:cpmceyelab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 07:18 PM
>To: optimal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <optimal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [optimal] From Denice SF
>
>Got my answer!  Gotta love Optimal.
>
>Denice Barsness, CRA, COMT, ROUB, CDOS, FOPS
>Ophthalmic Diagnostic Center
>CPMC Department of Ophthalmology
>2100 Webster Street Suite 212
>San Francisco CA 94115
>(415) 600-3937   FAX (415) 600-6563
>
>
>

**********************************************************
Electronic Mail is not secure, may not be read every day, and should not be 
used for urgent or sensitive issues 


Other related posts: