• Users Online: 1635
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page

   Table of Contents      
Year : 2013  |  Volume : 61  |  Issue : 9  |  Page : 534-535

Authors' reply

1 Department of Vitreo-Retina, Vasan Eye Care Hospital, Mumbai Naka, Nashik, Maharashtra, India
2 Department of Vitreo-Retina, Pushpagiri Eye Institute, Secunderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India

Date of Web Publication8-Oct-2013

Correspondence Address:
Nishant Vijay Radke
11, Saptashringa, Gen. Vaidya Nagar, Pune Road, Nasik 422011, Maharashtra State
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/0301-4738.119464

Rights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Radke NV, Tandava KP. Authors' reply. Indian J Ophthalmol 2013;61:534-5

How to cite this URL:
Radke NV, Tandava KP. Authors' reply. Indian J Ophthalmol [serial online] 2013 [cited 2023 Dec 6];61:534-5. Available from: https://journals.lww.com/ijo/pages/default.aspx/text.asp?2013/61/9/534/119464

Dear Editor,

We read with great interest the article titled "Factors having implications on re-retinal detachments after silicone oil removal" by Nagpal et al. [1]

Silicone oil removal is generally done using two ports (one for infusion and the other for egress of oil using a 18/19-G needle) or a single-port infusion with a limbal incision in aphakic eyes. [2],[3] Routinely we resort to 20-G or 23-G 2-port oil removal nowadays in our practice. Three port silicone oil removal is necessarily needed when there is a need for associated procedure like epiretinal membrane or need for additional LASER and need not be done as a routine as practised in this study. A two-port silicone oil removal is generally sufficient and less invasive.

The factors for retinal re-detachment (development of new break, opening up of existing break due to PVR, accidental trauma/instrument touch while removal of silicone oil) after removal of silicone oil have not been elaborated. We feel that these reasons might also have a bearing on the outcome.

It is not readily apparent from the study if the silicone oil used was exclusively normal density (1000 cs) or had also included heavy silicone oil as the indications for the two are different and hence may impact the outcome in terms of anatomical attachment of retina. [4]

Emulsified oil losing its endotamponade action is the hypothesis in consideration. We feel that, if, average duration of patients undergoing oil removal in both emulsified and non emulsified oil, are compared for statistical significance, the data may reveal interesting findings rather than comparing duration range of 3-6 months and more than 6 months.

We agree with authors' findings that a combination of encirclage and 360 degree endolaser favor a good outcome in terms of retinal attachment.

  References Top

Nagpal MP, Videkar RP, Nagpal KM. Factors having implications on re-retinal detachments after silicone oil removal. Indian J Ophthalmol 2012;60:517-20.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
Soheilian M, Mazareei M, Mohammadpour M, Rahmani B. Comparison of silicon oil removal with various viscosities after complex retinal detachment surgery. BMC Ophthalmol 2006;6:21.  Back to cited text no. 2
Hutton WL, Azen SP, Blumenkranz MS, Lai MY, McCuen BW, Han DP, et al. The effects of silicone oil removal. Silicone Study Report 6. Arch Ophthalmol 1994;112:778-85.  Back to cited text no. 3
Heimann H, Stappler T, Wong D. Heavy tamponade 1: A review of indications, use, and complications. Eye (Lond) 2008;22:1342-59.  Back to cited text no. 4


    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

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded114    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal