Doctor Blather

So, on Olivia's NF1 update I did a week ago I mentioned the opthamologist used too many medial/technical terms for me to really understand or be able to relay the information on to others. Well, towards the end of the visit I was trying to get him to explain it all for me again, and he said he was going to be dictating a letter to another doctor (Olivia's neurosurgeon) explaining everything so he would just do that now. He then proceeded to dictate the letter to his handheld thing-a-ma-jig as a way of explaining it to me. Yesterday I received my copy of the letter. Here is what is says:

I saw Olivia Richards today who as you know was diagnosed with a left optic nerve glioma on recent scans that were done incidentally because of an injury that she got from falling out of a shopping cart in November. (A little fancy doctor talk but so far I'm with him)

On Olivia's exam today, she has very slightly reduced vision in the left eye compared to the right but no clear-cut afferent pupillary defect and no optic nerve atrophy or edema on the left. (I'm lost, are you?) She has no strabismus. Her ocular rotations were full. Her cycloplegic refraction did show hyperopic anisometropia with more hyperopia on the left, compared to the right. I think Olivia is not having any impact on her vision thus far because of the optic glioma (That sentence I understood). I think she does have hyperopic anisometropia and mild amblyopia in the left eye secondary to it, but I recommended glasses wear and I will see her again in two months to check her vision. (Glasses and go back- check!)

We certainly could do a visually evoked potential in the future if we suspect that the glioma is a problem with her vision but I am not sure that we would do any treatment anyway. I hope this letter is of help to you and I will keep you updated.

Warmest regards,

blah, blah, blah.

Obviously there was a lack of communication/understanding on both sides for him to think this would clear things up for me.

I have been looking up all these terms on MedicineNet, if you want to try it I suggest using full terms such as "afferent pupillary defect" instead of single words. Or you can go to this Eye Glossary. Or you can wait until I have it explained to me by someone else and I'll try to explain it again here.