Glyxambi
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 8201
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page

   Table of Contents      
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Year : 2015  |  Volume : 63  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 174

Comment on: Endoilluminator-assisted scleral buckling: Our results


Private Practice, Shivam Eye Foundation, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Date of Web Publication1-Apr-2015

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Suresh Ramchandani
Private Practice, Shivam Eye Foundation, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0301-4738.154416

Rights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Ramchandani S, Ramchandani S. Comment on: Endoilluminator-assisted scleral buckling: Our results. Indian J Ophthalmol 2015;63:174

How to cite this URL:
Ramchandani S, Ramchandani S. Comment on: Endoilluminator-assisted scleral buckling: Our results. Indian J Ophthalmol [serial online] 2015 [cited 2019 Nov 19];63:174. Available from: http://www.ijo.in/text.asp?2015/63/2/174/154416

Dear Editor,

We read with interest the article "endoilluminator-assisted scleral buckling: Our results by Gogia et al. in Indian J Ophthalmol 2014;62:893-4. [1] We commend the authors on a well written article but would like a few clarifications:

  • The authors mention several times that the procedure was carried out in eyes where the break was not "localized" preoperatively. What we understand is that they are trying to say the break was not identified preoperatively. Localisation of a break in retinal detachment surgery parlance means marking of the break on the sclera, that is, the point, where the break is expected to settle on after the sub retinal fluid, is drained or when the retina reattaches eventually. This is done intraoperatively. Sometimes after the break is identified, we can attempt a rough localization preoperatively but accurate localization is only possible intraoperatively. Not able to see the breaks preoperatively is not synonymous with not able to localize
  • Why did the authors not continue to complete the surgery after identification and localization of the retinal breaks? If we have put in an endo illuminator-the surgery could well have been completed without using the indirect ophthalmoscope
  • Do the authors do a nondrainage procedure in all cases? Is this a premeditated decision or would they change their mind during surgery and if yes-then when would they drain? The results of the scleral buckle with drainage in pseudophakic eyes are poorer than vitrectomy. [2] We would imagine that with nondrainage procedures, especially in inferior detachments in pseudophakic/aphakic eyes-the results would be far from satisfactory. Hence, it is commendable that the authors got such spectacular results with a nondrainage procedure.


 
  References Top

1.
Gogia V, Venkatesh P, Gupta S, Kakkar A, Garg S. Endoilluminator-assisted scleral buckling: Our results. Indian J Ophthalmol 2014;62:893-4.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
2.
Brazitikos PD, Androudi S, Christen WG, Stangos NT. Primary pars plana vitrectomy versus scleral buckle surgery for the treatment of pseudophakic retinal detachment: A randomized clinical trial. Retina 2005;25:957-64.  Back to cited text no. 2
    




 

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
    Viewed459    
    Printed10    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded98    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal