Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 5487
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page

   Table of Contents      
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 64  |  Issue : 6  |  Page : 479-480

Authors' reply


Department of Ophthalmology, Adana Numune Training and Research Hospital, Adana, Turkey

Date of Web Publication3-Aug-2016

Correspondence Address:
Sezer Helvaci
Elbistan Devlet Hastanesi, Kahramanmaraş, 46100
Turkey
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0301-4738.187696

Rights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Helvaci S, Demirdüzen S, Öksüz H. Authors' reply. Indian J Ophthalmol 2016;64:479-80

How to cite this URL:
Helvaci S, Demirdüzen S, Öksüz H. Authors' reply. Indian J Ophthalmol [serial online] 2016 [cited 2020 Feb 26];64:479-80. Available from: http://www.ijo.in/text.asp?2016/64/6/479/187696

Sir,

We thank the readers for showing interest in our article [1],[2] and for their suggestions. First, assessment of endothelial cell density and follow-up after the surgery is definitely an efficacious strategy. It was the weakness of our study. However, assessment of clinical signs of corneal decompensation should also be helpful to compare both methods. In this study, we didn't interest in structural changes. The outcomes of structural changes - if there is - such as iridocyclitis, hyphema, glaucoma, or pupillary block were more determining for basic evaluation. [3]

Second, it is definitely indispensable to assess the macula and central macula thickness during the follow-up. We evaluated the macula with the optical coherence tomography (Opko/OTI, Miami, FL, USA).

Last but not least, our preliminary study was the short-term results. Since it was the first in literature, our study was important to give an idea to the researchers in future studies. We will appreciate to see more studies to learn about the long-term results which compare these two methods.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 
  References Top

1.
Lee SJ, Kim M, Han SB. Iris-claw intraocular lens implantation: Anterior chamber versus retropupillary implantation. Indian J Ophthalmol 2016;64:478-9.  Back to cited text no. 1
  Medknow Journal  
2.
Helvaci S, Demirduzen S, Oksuz H. Iris-claw intraocular lens implantation: Anterior chamber versus retropupillary implantation. Indian J Ophthalmol 2016;64:45-9.  Back to cited text no. 2
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
3.
Sekundo W, Bertelmann T, Schulze S. Retropupillary iris claw intraocular lens implantation technique for aphakia. Ophthalmologe 2014;111:315-9.  Back to cited text no. 3
[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
    Viewed566    
    Printed3    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded91    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal