Glyxambi
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 4420
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page

   Table of Contents      
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Year : 2013  |  Volume : 61  |  Issue : 11  |  Page : 687-688

Author's Reply


Shri Bhagwan Mahavir Vitreoretinal Services, Sankara Nethralaya, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

Date of Web Publication16-Dec-2013

Correspondence Address:
Ekta Rishi
Shri Bhagwan Mahavir Vitreoretinal Services, Sankara Nethralaya, 18 College Road, Chennai - 600 006,Tamil Nadu
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0301-4738.121130

Rights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Rishi E, Gopal L, Rishi P, Sengupta S, Sharma T. Author's Reply. Indian J Ophthalmol 2013;61:687-8

How to cite this URL:
Rishi E, Gopal L, Rishi P, Sengupta S, Sharma T. Author's Reply. Indian J Ophthalmol [serial online] 2013 [cited 2019 Oct 23];61:687-8. Available from: http://www.ijo.in/text.asp?2013/61/11/687/121130

Sir,

We thank the authors for taking interest in our study. [1]

The authors say that inclusion of Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and non-AMD eyes in the same report can produce misleading results. We acknowledge this in our discussion and emphasize that the underlying etiology is an important predictor of long-term vision.

The authors raise a point regarding the natural history of visual improvement in eyes with AMD experiencing submacular hemorrhage (SMH). [2],[3] A variability of 20-70% success, as pointed out by the authors, is extremely large. This exemplifies that visual outcomes associated with mere observation in SMH can be very unpredictable. Hence, we argue that with such a large range, most results will appear to mimic the natural history, as do results from all three arms of our study. In addition, our study cannot be compared to the natural history studies of the 1990s as polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy was not a well-defined entity then.

The authors also cite results from the Submacular Surgery Trial (SST), to discredit our results. [4] However, there are many differences between our approach and that adopted in the SST. For example, mechanical damage to photoreceptors during removal of the choroidal neovascular (CNV) membrane itself may be responsible for visual loss and may explain differences between the studies.

Citing the study by Bennett et al., the authors erroneously state that mean visual acuity improved to 20/35 in traumatic SMH. [3] Case numbers 19 and 20 had large and thick SMH due to trauma with extremely poor outcome. Berrocal et al. had myriad causes including Proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR), Central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO), and Presumed ocular histoplasmosis syndrome (POHS) as causes of non-AMD SMH. [2] Due to the inherent heterogeneity in the etiologies and characteristics of SMH, it is unfair to compare the non-AMD group from Berrocal et al.'s study with our study.

The authors draw attention to the complications, namely retinal detachment as a complication of vitrectomy. We would expect fewer complications in the current era with use of small gauge vitrectomy techniques.

The authors misinterpret results from [Table 2] in our study. Though both follow-up period and anatomical outcome coexist in [Table 2], it does not imply that it took 6.5 months for the hemorrhage to clear in all the eyes. The authors also mention that the SMH looks worse in [Figure 3]b than at presentation (3a). We disagree and believe that it is more dispersed which, in our opinion, helps it reabsorb much faster.

There are many studies available to determine the utility of pneumatic displacement in AMD with SMH. The authors surprisingly choose a retrospective study with a sample size of only 15. [5] We do not have any similar groups to the ones cited by the authors. Hence, we do not understand the relevance of such a poorly powered study in the context of our results.

Though we realize that well-designed Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are needed to determine best approaches to manage SMH, we would like to refer the readers to an excellent review article to serve as a reference till such time as an RCT is available. [6]

 
  References Top

1.
Rishi E, Gopal L, Rishi P, Sengupta S, Sharma T. Submacular hemorrhage: A study amongst Indian eyes. Indian J Ophthalmol 2012;60:521-5.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
2.
Berrocal MH, Lewis ML, Flynn HW Jr. Variations in the clinical course of submacular hemorrhage. Am J Ophthalmol 1996;122:486-93.  Back to cited text no. 2
[PUBMED]    
3.
Bennett SR, Folk JC, Blodi CF, Klugman M. Factors prognostic of visual outcome in patients with subretinal hemorrhage. Am J Ophthalmol 1990;109:33-7.  Back to cited text no. 3
[PUBMED]    
4.
Bressler NM, Bressler SB, Childs AL, Haller JA, Hawkins BS, Lewis H, et al. Surgery for hemorrhagic choroidal neovascular lesions of age-related macular degeneration: Ophthalmic findings: SST report no. 13. Ophthalmology 2004;111:1993-2006.  Back to cited text no. 4
[PUBMED]    
5.
Hesgaard HB, Torkashvand M, la Cour M. Failure to detect an effect of pneumatic displacement in the management of submacular haemorrhage secondary to age-related macular Degeneration: A retrospective case series. Acta Ophthalmol 2012;90:e498-500.  Back to cited text no. 5
[PUBMED]    
6.
Tennant MT, Borrillo JL, Regillo CD. Management of submacular hemorrhage. Ophthalmol Clin North Am 2002;15:445-52.  Back to cited text no. 6
[PUBMED]    




 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed572    
    Printed14    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded59    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal