About us |  Subscription |  Top cited articles |  e-Alerts  | Feedback |  Login   
  Home | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Search | Instructions Celebrating 60 Years   Print this article Email this article   Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
 
 Official publication of All India Ophthalmological Society   Users Online: 54
  Search
 
   Next article
   Previous article 
   Table of Contents
  
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Article in PDF (1,558 KB)
    Citation Manager
    Access Statistics
    Reader Comments
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  


    References
    Article Figures

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed804    
    Printed26    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded49    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 


 
LETTER TO EDITOR
Year : 2010  |  Volume : 58  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 260-261
 

Authors' reply


Department of Ophthalmology, Army Hospital (Research and Referral), Delhi Cantt -10, India

Date of Web Publication21-Apr-2010

Correspondence Address:
Jitendra K.S Parihar
Department of Ophthalmology, Army Hospital (Research and Referral), Delhi Cantt -10
India
Login to access the Email id


Get Permissions

 



How to cite this article:
Parihar JK, Vats DP, Maggon R, Mathur V, Singh A, Mishra SK. Authors' reply. Indian J Ophthalmol 2010;58:260-1

How to cite this URL:
Parihar JK, Vats DP, Maggon R, Mathur V, Singh A, Mishra SK. Authors' reply. Indian J Ophthalmol [serial online] 2010 [cited 2014 Oct 31];58:260-1. Available from: http://www.ijo.in/text.asp?2010/58/3/260/62668


Dear Editor,

We thank and highly appreciate Murali for his interest in our article [1] and their insightful and well-articulated comments.

Their observation regarding the insertion forceps is absolutely correct. In fact insertion forceps facilitate insertion of tube through 22/23 gauze needle track with precision and ease. Although we have not commented on it specifically, the insertion forceps have been used in all cases. In fact one of the photograph [Figure 6] in the original article, shows this instrument in use. [2] In our practice we found the insertion forceps designed by Dr Ahmed to be a little cumbersome while in use under moderate to high magnification of operating microscope. The author feels that these forceps are more heavy and large in size as compared to other microsurgical instruments being used in this surgery. Considering this observation, we have modified the insertion forceps which is manufactured by OVATION International, Jaipur (Rajasthan) India [Figure 1]. This modified tube insertor forceps is made up of titanium, weighing 8g as compared to 22 g of the original forceps. The groove of the forceps is further modified to hold and insert the tube much more conveniently. Over and above, the forceps are much smaller in size, having a length of 110 mm as compared to 120 mm, while also retaining all the privileges of the original insertion forceps designed by Dr Ahmed [Figure 2] and [Figure 3].

The tube extender is well reported in the literature [2] and has been used in situations as quoted by the authors. We have not had an occasion to use the extender as yet as none of our patients has had tube retraction to the extent that tube extension would be required.

The use of preserved allograft sclera is also well known, however, we are not inclined to use it routinely, since our experience has been that the use of these grafts results in increased postoperative inflammation. Over and above, the preserved allograft sclera invariably gives a discolored and elevated appearance under the cover of the conjunctiva. We have recommended constructing a scleral flap exactly in the manner that a scleral flap is constructed for trabeculectomy, which allows insertion of valve tube exactly through the site of the trabecular meshwork rather than anterior and proximal to the corneal endothelium or in proximity to the iris surface. In our view, tube insertion through site of trabecular meshwork is most ideal situation of tube into anterior chamber and minimizes the risk of postoperative complications and undue inflammation.[3]

 
   References Top

1.Murali A. The efficacy of Ahmed glaucoma valve drainage devices in cases of adult refractive glaucoma in Indian eyes. Indian J Ophthalmol 2010;58:259-60.  Back to cited text no. 1    Medknow Journal  
2.Parihar JK, Vats DP, Maggon R, Mathur V, Singh A, Mishra SK. The efficacy of Ahmed glaucoma valve drainage devices in cases of adult refractory glaucoma in Indian eyes. Indian J Ophthalmol 2009;57:345-50.  Back to cited text no. 2  [PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
3.Sarkisian SR, Netland PA. Tube extender for revision of glaucoma drainage implants. J Glaucoma 2007;16:637-9.  Back to cited text no. 3  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3]



 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
Previous article Next article

    

2005 - Indian Journal of Ophthalmology
Published by Medknow

Online since 1st April '05