Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 3821
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page

   Table of Contents      
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 68  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 670-671

Response to comment on: Comment on: Clinical presentations and comparative outcomes of primary versus deferred intraocular lens explantation in delayed.onset endophthalmitis


Smt. Kanuri Santhamma Center for Vitreoretinal Diseases, Kallam Anji Reddy Campus, LV Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, India

Date of Web Publication16-Mar-2020

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Vivek Pravin Dave
Smt. Kanuri Santhamma Center for Vitreoretinal Diseases, Kallam Anji Reddy Campus, LV Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad - 500 034
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_2202_19

Rights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Dave VP. Response to comment on: Comment on: Clinical presentations and comparative outcomes of primary versus deferred intraocular lens explantation in delayed.onset endophthalmitis. Indian J Ophthalmol 2020;68:670-1

How to cite this URL:
Dave VP. Response to comment on: Comment on: Clinical presentations and comparative outcomes of primary versus deferred intraocular lens explantation in delayed.onset endophthalmitis. Indian J Ophthalmol [serial online] 2020 [cited 2020 Aug 12];68:670-1. Available from: http://www.ijo.in/text.asp?2020/68/4/670/280751



Dear Sir,

We would like to thank Kannan et al.[1] for the interest expressed in our article.[2] As the readers have expressed some concerns about the article, we would like to explain the points raised as below.

The readers point out that as [Table 5] shows baseline favorable visual acuity (VA) of >20/400 to be present in 7.27% cases in primary explantation group, significantly lesser than 27% in the delayed group (P = 0.046), poor presenting VA seems to be an indicator toward the requirement of earlier intraocular lens (IOL) explantation. While we appreciate the readers having done statistical calculations themselves, a point of caution and a usual mistake made in interpreting statistics is to consider P value alone without considering the 95% confidence intervals (CI). If the 95% CIs are calculated for the difference in the two groups here, the readers would see that the values range from 0.139% to 34.1%. The interpretation here is, though the P value is significant, as the lower limit of the CI is less than 1 and also due to the wide nature of the CI, the significance of the P value is questionable. As a rule in statistics, P value should never be interpreted without taking into consideration the 95% CIs. The fact that the final favorable vision improved much better in the primary explantation group has already been addressed in the manuscript and has made us propose in the last line of the manuscript that “in cases where an IOL explantation is contemplated, it is better done sooner than later”.{Table 5}

Attempts to identify the organisms were made by sending the explanted lens for culture and also sending the capsular bag and vitreous sample. In the primary explantation group, this was done at the time of explantation.

We agree with the readers' point that clear differentiation is difficult between endogenous and a late postoperative etiology in the cases pointed out. This is a limitation of the retrospective nature of the study and this limitation has already been highlighted in the manuscript.

We would also like to congratulate the readers on their experience with SFIOL implantation following IOL explantation in fungal endophthalmitis. The readers report by their experience of four cases that scleral-fixated IOL (SFIOL) is a good modality for rehabilitation of these cases. In their experience, three cases (75%) had success and one case (25%) did not. We would like to apply statistics to their experience here. The P value for the proportional difference here is 0.19 and the 95% CIs for the difference vary from -13.5% to 78.9%. As the CI straddles zero, it means that in the real world, the results as seen by the author (success-failure ratio) could very well be reversed. Hence, it is too small a number to conclude that SFIOL is a good modality for rehabilitation on the basis of the data provided.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Kannan NB, Sen S, Mishra C, Ramachandran O, Rajan RP, Kumar K. Comment on: Clinical presentations and comparative outcomes of primary versus deferred intraocular lens explantation in delayed-onset endophthalmitis. Indian J Ophthalmol 2020;68:669-70.  Back to cited text no. 1
  [Full text]  
2.
Dave VP, Pathengay A, Sharma S, Govindhari V, Karolia R, Pappuru RR, et al. Clinical presentations and comparative outcomes of primary versus deferred intraocular lens explantation in delayed-onset endophthalmitis. Indian J Ophthalmol 2019;67:1101-4.  Back to cited text no. 2
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  




 

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
    Viewed266    
    Printed0    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded59    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal