Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 10086
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page

   Table of Contents      
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Year : 2015  |  Volume : 63  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 364

Author response: Repeat gas insufflation for successful closure of idiopathic macular hole following failed primary surgery


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

Date of Web Publication3-Jun-2015

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Pukhraj 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


PMID: 26044488

Rights and PermissionsRights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Rishi P, Reddy S, Rishi E. Author response: Repeat gas insufflation for successful closure of idiopathic macular hole following failed primary surgery. Indian J Ophthalmol 2015;63:364

How to cite this URL:
Rishi P, Reddy S, Rishi E. Author response: Repeat gas insufflation for successful closure of idiopathic macular hole following failed primary surgery. Indian J Ophthalmol [serial online] 2015 [cited 2020 May 26];63:364. Available from: http://www.ijo.in/text.asp?2015/63/4/364/158110

Dear Editor,

We appreciate the interest of Goel et al. [1] and their remarks in response to our article "Repeat gas insufflation for successful closure of idiopathic macular hole following failed primary surgery." [2] We also congratulate them on their success in achieving closure in two cases of primarily failed macular hole closure as shared in their report.

They attribute our interpretation of type 2 macular hole closure in a case with residual foveal defect and cuff of subretinal fluid as incorrect. This needs some clarification. Tornambe et al. have classified macular hole surgery outcomes into three possible situations: Elevated/open, flat/open and flat/closed. [3] The first two situations are recognized as type 2 closure while the third situation is considered as type 1 closure; presence/absence of residual foveal defect being the prime determinant.

We would like to reemphasize that the focus of our report was on factors related to the closure of idiopathic macular hole following failed primary surgery. Preoperative optical coherence tomography configuration of the macular hole can offer predictive clues to successful re-surgery. [4]

We again thank Goel et al. for bringing up this point thus helping generate clarity on this issue.

 
  References Top

1.
Goel N, Prakash A, Gupta AK. Repeat fluid- gas exchange for failed primary macular hole surgery. Indian J Ophthalmol 2014;62:1104-5.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
2.
Rishi P, Reddy S, Rishi E. Repeat gas insufflation for successful closure of idiopathic macular hole following failed primary surgery. Indian J Ophthalmol 2014;62:363-5.  Back to cited text no. 2
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
3.
Tornambe PE, Poliner LS, Cohen RG. Definition of macular hole surgery end points: Elevated/open, flat/open, flat/closed. Retina 1998;18:286-7.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Hoerauf H. Predictive values in macular hole repair. Br J Ophthalmol 2007;91:1415-6.  Back to cited text no. 4
    




 

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
    Viewed685    
    Printed5    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded131    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal