Abstract
We appreciate Dr Singh et al’s comments concerning our article. We agree about the possible effect of the inferior location of retinal breaks on the anatomic results of retinal detachment surgery.1Sharma A. Grigoropoulos V. Williamson T.H. Management of primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment with inferior breaks.Br J Ophthlamol. 2004; 88: 1372-1375Crossref PubMed Scopus (84) Google Scholar The reevaluation of our study data, however, showed that there was no statistically significant difference between the 2 treatment groups regarding the distribution of retinal breaks.At least one retinal break was detected in all eyes intraoperatively in both treatment groups (29.8% refers to the cases in which retinal breaks could not be seen before surgery).2Ahmadieh H. Moradian S. Faghihi H. et al.Anatomic and visual outcomes of scleral buckling versus primary vitrectomy in pseudophakic and aphakic retinal detachment. Six-month follow-up results of a single operation—report no. 1.Ophthalmology. 2005; 112: 1421-1429Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (151) Google Scholar Hence, no case in the vitrectomy group actually underwent 2 to 3 rows of 360° endophotocoagulation as anticipated in the study protocol. The Landers contact lens system was used for fundus visualization.The buckle group showed a higher rate of anisometropia after surgery than the vitrectomy group. However, due to a high rate of variability in the refraction of the fellow eye, the statistical analysis did not show a significant difference between the 2 groups. We agree with Dr Singh et al that the measurement of axial length before and after surgery could show the surgically induced refractive error in the 2 treatment groups more precisely. We appreciate Dr Singh et al’s comments concerning our article. We agree about the possible effect of the inferior location of retinal breaks on the anatomic results of retinal detachment surgery.1Sharma A. Grigoropoulos V. Williamson T.H. Management of primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment with inferior breaks.Br J Ophthlamol. 2004; 88: 1372-1375Crossref PubMed Scopus (84) Google Scholar The reevaluation of our study data, however, showed that there was no statistically significant difference between the 2 treatment groups regarding the distribution of retinal breaks. At least one retinal break was detected in all eyes intraoperatively in both treatment groups (29.8% refers to the cases in which retinal breaks could not be seen before surgery).2Ahmadieh H. Moradian S. Faghihi H. et al.Anatomic and visual outcomes of scleral buckling versus primary vitrectomy in pseudophakic and aphakic retinal detachment. Six-month follow-up results of a single operation—report no. 1.Ophthalmology. 2005; 112: 1421-1429Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (151) Google Scholar Hence, no case in the vitrectomy group actually underwent 2 to 3 rows of 360° endophotocoagulation as anticipated in the study protocol. The Landers contact lens system was used for fundus visualization. The buckle group showed a higher rate of anisometropia after surgery than the vitrectomy group. However, due to a high rate of variability in the refraction of the fellow eye, the statistical analysis did not show a significant difference between the 2 groups. We agree with Dr Singh et al that the measurement of axial length before and after surgery could show the surgically induced refractive error in the 2 treatment groups more precisely. Scleral Buckling versus Primary VitrectomyOphthalmologyVol. 113Issue 7PreviewWe read with interest the article from the Pseudophakic and Aphakic Retinal Detachment Study Group.1 In a prospective randomized study, the authors have reported comparable results from scleral buckling and primary vitrectomy for uncomplicated pseudophakic and aphakic retinal detachment (RD) at 6 months in 225 eyes. Although we agree with the authors that primary vitrectomy can be considered as first-line surgical treatment in cases of pseudophakic and aphakic RD, it would be very useful if the authors could provide some additional information that was not provided in the report. Full-Text PDF
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
