Abstract
Congratulations to the EVS Group for an excellent study 1 with valuable and immediately clinically relevant conclusions. Working as I do in a sparsely populated area where referral distances can be long and time can easily be prolonged beyond the 6-hour limit used in this study, a question arises that can be answered by the data, but was not presented in the publication. In the vitreous tap or biopsy (hereafter TAP group) group, the choice of trans—pars plana vitreous needle aspiration or vitreous biopsy with a vitreous cutter was left to the surgeon. In the event that needle aspiration failed to yield adequate vitreous material, a vitreous biopsy could be performed. What proportion of the TAP group samples were obtained by each method? In my setting, since the differences between in-office needle aspiration by the referring physician and vitreous biopsy with a vitreous cutter can mean hours in delay, these
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: 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.