|LETTER TO THE EDITOR
|Year : 2012 | Volume
| Issue : 4 | Page : 336-337
Reema Nath1, Syamanta Baruah2, Lahari Saikia1, Bhanu Devi2, Achinta K Borthakur1, Jagadish Mahanta3
1 Department of Microbiology, Assam Medical College and Hospital, Dibrugarh, India
2 Department of Ophthalmology, Assam Medical College and Hospital, Dibrugarh, India
3 Regional Medical Research Centre, Dibrugarh, Assam, India
|Date of Web Publication||19-Jul-2012|
Department of Microbiology, Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh, Assam - 786 002
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
|How to cite this article:|
Nath R, Baruah S, Saikia L, Devi B, Borthakur AK, Mahanta J. Authors' reply. Indian J Ophthalmol 2012;60:336-7
|How to cite this URL:|
Nath R, Baruah S, Saikia L, Devi B, Borthakur AK, Mahanta J. Authors' reply. Indian J Ophthalmol [serial online] 2012 [cited 2020 Jan 25];60:336-7. Available from: http://www.ijo.in/text.asp?2012/60/4/336/98733
We agree that in our study KOH sensitivity was low in comparison with studies elsewhere. However, we would like to draw the reader's attention that out of 121 cases that presented early after development of symptoms in the study, 47.1% (n = 58) had small-sized ulcers (<2 mm). Each sample in this group was subjected to culture in our study. Some of these cases yielded inadequate samples, which is the most probable reason for lowered sensitivity in KOH mount. Experience with KOH negativity in this group is similar elsewhere.  KOH preparation is undoubtedly the most reliable diagnostic tool in all centers.
We agree to the second point raised in the letter. The limitation was inadequate donor corneas for therapeutic keratoplasty as mentioned in the article.
| References|| |
Bharthi MJ, Ramakrishnan R, Meenakshi R, Mittal S, Shivakumar C, Srinivasan M. Microbiological diagnosis of infective keratitis: Comparative evaluation of direct microscopy and culture results. Br J Ophthalmol 2006;90:1271-6.