Glyxambi
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 1209
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page

   Table of Contents      
AUTHORS REPLY
Year : 2015  |  Volume : 63  |  Issue : 10  |  Page : 805-806

Authors' reply


1 Al Bahar Eye Center, Ibn Sina Hospital; Department of Ophthalmology, Dasman Diabetes Center, Dasman Diabetes Institute, Kuwait
2 Al Bahar Eye Center, Ibn Sina Hospital, Kuwait

Date of Web Publication10-Dec-2015

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Seemant Raizada
Al Bahar Eye Center, Ibn Sina Hospital
Kuwait
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


Rights and PermissionsRights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Raizada S, Al Kandari J, Al Diab F, Al Sabah K, Kumar N, Mathew S. Authors' reply. Indian J Ophthalmol 2015;63:805-6

How to cite this URL:
Raizada S, Al Kandari J, Al Diab F, Al Sabah K, Kumar N, Mathew S. Authors' reply. Indian J Ophthalmol [serial online] 2015 [cited 2019 Dec 12];63:805-6. Available from: http://www.ijo.in/text.asp?2015/63/10/805/171529

Dear Sir,

We thank the reader for showing interest in our article, "Pars plana vitrectomy versus three intravitreal injections of bevacizumab for nontractional diabetic macular edema. A prospective, randomized comparative study." [1]

As they have correctly mentioned, our study concluded that posttreatment decrease in central macular thickness (CMT) was more in pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) group and vision improvement more in intravitreal bevacizumab group. However, no statistically significant difference between the two methods was found. We have reported in our study, a better CMT after PPV, however, did not record corresponding better vision in the same group. Our study was not powered to analyze microstructural changes (e.g., Muller cell damage) and/or to document retinal sensitivity by way of microperimetry. Hence, we hypothesized that one of the reasons for not attaining better vision could be because of damage to photoreceptors during internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling. We thank the reader for mentioning other reasons documented in published studies which reiterate our hypothesis and the fact that ILM peeling does cause anatomical and visual disturbances. However, there are contradictory reports published in scientific literature. A recent meta-analysis published by Nakajima et al. [2] concluded that the visual acuity outcomes using PPV with ILM peeling versus no ILM peeling were not significantly different in diabetic macular edema. Kumagai et al. [3] also reported that ILM peeling does not affect the postoperative best-corrected visual acuity significantly. Hence, we feel there is a need for larger randomized prospective studies to adequately address the effectiveness of PPV with ILM peeling on visual acuity outcomes in diabetic macular edema.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Raizada S, Al Kandari J, Al Diab F, Al Sabah K, Kumar N, Mathew S. Pars plana vitrectomy versus three intravitreal injections of bevacizumab for nontractional diabetic macular edema. A prospective, randomized comparative study. Indian J Ophthalmol 2015;63:504-10.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
2.
Nakajima T, Roggia MF, Noda Y, Ueta T. Effect of internal limiting membrane peeling during vitrectomy for diabetic macular edema: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Retina 2015;35:1719-25.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Kumagai K, Hangai M, Ogino N, Larson E. Effect of internal limiting membrane peeling on long-term visual outcomes for diabetic macular edema. Retina 2015;35:1422-8.  Back to cited text no. 3
    




 

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
    Viewed488    
    Printed3    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded70    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal