super field vs super vitreo fundus vs digital wide field

[lvlygngstr]

hi guys, i'm a fourth year optom student looking for advice about the purchase of a lens for fundoscopy.

i currently have a super66 lens which i find works really well in dilated pupils, and undilated in younger patients, but i really struggle to get a view in older patients who aren't dilated and when i can, i can't scan much of the periphery, so i'm looking to purchase a second lens with better peripheral scanning and undilated capabilities.

i've tried a superfield in undilated patients, and still struggled a bit with small pupils (~3mm) although my supervisor said she had a satisfactory view.

i've also tried the digital wide field but had problems with a lot of reflections, although my supervisor said that the DWF is a very difficult lens to master the technique, but once you do the views are excellent, so i'm thinking maybe i should hold up on that until my technique has improved.

the only thing that puts me off about the super vitreo fundus is the reduced magnification, although i guess as i have the mag of the 66 to back it up it might not be so bad. has anyone used the SVF before and was it significantly easier to use on small pupils than the superfield?

thanks in advance for any help and apologies for the lengthy post. 🙂

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[KHE]

hi guys, i'm a fourth year optom student looking for advice about the purchase of a lens for fundoscopy.

i currently have a super66 lens which i find works really well in dilated pupils, and undilated in younger patients, but i really struggle to get a view in older patients who aren't dilated and when i can, i can't scan much of the periphery, so i'm looking to purchase a second lens with better peripheral scanning and undilated capabilities.

i've tried a superfield in undilated patients, and still struggled a bit with small pupils (~3mm) although my supervisor said she had a satisfactory view.

i've also tried the digital wide field but had problems with a lot of reflections, although my supervisor said that the DWF is a very difficult lens to master the technique, but once you do the views are excellent, so i'm thinking maybe i should hold up on that until my technique has improved.

the only thing that puts me off about the super vitreo fundus is the reduced magnification, although i guess as i have the mag of the 66 to back it up it might not be so bad. has anyone used the SVF before and was it significantly easier to use on small pupils than the superfield?

thanks in advance for any help and apologies for the lengthy post. 🙂

Don't worry about lenses. Use stronger dilating agents in elderly patients.

 

[Commando303]

hi guys, i'm a fourth year optom student looking for advice about the purchase of a lens for fundoscopy.

i currently have a super66 lens which i find works really well in dilated pupils, and undilated in younger patients, but i really struggle to get a view in older patients who aren't dilated and when i can, i can't scan much of the periphery, so i'm looking to purchase a second lens with better peripheral scanning and undilated capabilities.

i've tried a superfield in undilated patients, and still struggled a bit with small pupils (~3mm) although my supervisor said she had a satisfactory view.

i've also tried the digital wide field but had problems with a lot of reflections, although my supervisor said that the DWF is a very difficult lens to master the technique, but once you do the views are excellent, so i'm thinking maybe i should hold up on that until my technique has improved.

the only thing that puts me off about the super vitreo fundus is the reduced magnification, although i guess as i have the mag of the 66 to back it up it might not be so bad. has anyone used the SVF before and was it significantly easier to use on small pupils than the superfield?

thanks in advance for any help and apologies for the lengthy post. 🙂

From what I hear (not from my own experience), you hardly can beat a 90D for views through an undilated pupil. Volk does, however, market their SuperPupil XL as being the best for this purpose; perhaps you'd wish to check it out.

 

[Visionary]

From what I hear (not from my own experience), you hardly can beat a 90D for views through an undilated pupil. Volk does, however, market their SuperPupil XL as being the best for this purpose; perhaps you'd wish to check it out.

I'd agree with Commando303. If you're having trouble with the DWF (the best small pupil lens, in my opinion), you need easy and effective. That's the 90D, plus it's cheaper than the other options. You already have a lens for hi-mag viewing.

 

[JMK2005]

I use a 90D in undilated pupils. I had the DWF, but hated that I had to get so close in. Lashes kept dirtying the lens.

 

[Visionary]

I use a 90D in undilated pupils. I had the DWF, but hated that I had to get so close in. Lashes kept dirtying the lens.

I've actually never had that problem. Maybe I don't hold the lens as close to the eye. Else, my patients just have short eyelashes!

 

[vitrectomy]

I am a retina attending now, and I remember having these questions. For dilated pupils, the supervitreofundus is more useful than any other lens for the periphery. I find more tears with it than anything else including my 20D lens. Even though the spec sheets say the field of view is equivalent to the digital wide field but in practice the supervitreofundus can see farther out. When I need more mag to see something subtle I take out a digital wide field but if I only had one lens it would be the supervitreofundus. I have a second lens for the macula (plain 78D- better for students, or digital high mag- trickier but better 3d).

It does have a bit of glare in undilated pupils. But the field of view of the periphery is outstanding- buy it! unless you never look at dilated pupils.