Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 2584
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page

   Table of Contents      
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 69  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 170

Response to comments on: Glycerol-preserved corneal tissue in emergency corneal transplantation: An alternative for fresh corneal tissue in COVID-19 crisis


1 Department of Ophthalmology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh, Uttrakhand, India
2 Himalayan Institute of Medical Sciences, Swami Ram Himalayan University, Jolly Grant, Doiwala, Dehradun, Uttrakhand, India

Date of Web Publication15-Dec-2020

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Neeti Gupta
Department of Ophthalmology, AIIMS Rishikesh, Virbhadra Road Near Barrage, Shivaji Nagar, Sturida Colony, Rishikesh - 249 203, Uttarakhand
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_2901_20

Rights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Gupta N, Dhasmana R, Maitreya A, Badahur H. Response to comments on: Glycerol-preserved corneal tissue in emergency corneal transplantation: An alternative for fresh corneal tissue in COVID-19 crisis. Indian J Ophthalmol 2021;69:170

How to cite this URL:
Gupta N, Dhasmana R, Maitreya A, Badahur H. Response to comments on: Glycerol-preserved corneal tissue in emergency corneal transplantation: An alternative for fresh corneal tissue in COVID-19 crisis. Indian J Ophthalmol [serial online] 2021 [cited 2021 Jan 16];69:170. Available from: https://www.ijo.in/text.asp?2021/69/1/170/303323



Dear Editor,

We thank the readers for their interest in our study. The authors would like to clarify a few points raised in the manuscript By Raj A et al.[1] Although the data presented in the study do not belong to the COVID era, it is very pertinent to this era as there was a sudden crisis of tissues due to the closure of eye banks in most parts of the world. So in our manuscript, we are extrapolating the result of our study in an emergency situation which the COVID crisis has precipitated and was imperative at this time to use GPC to save the eyes by doing the emergency corneal transplant as mentioned in the advisory of Eye Bank Association of India.[2]

The second Chi-square test is mentioned and not a Fisher exact test in the methods. The authors admit it was omitted by mistake.

The GPC does not have a viable endothelium so the fate of the graft will always be failure although it has served its purpose, i.e., maintaining the anatomical integrity of the globe. So in a true sense, it is actually a success. There is no question of secondary graft failure as this graft will never serve an optical purpose.

The reinfection was managed medically in all but three patients who underwent retransplant. As the outcome of retransplants and the treatment of reinfections was not the objective of the study, the authors did not mention this in the manuscript.

”Slicing of single research that would form one meaningful paper into several different papers is called salami publication or salami slicing.”[3] Also as a general rule, as long as the slices of a broken study share the same hypothesis, population, and methods, this is not acceptable and if the authors have not quoted the previous study in the present manuscript, then also it is not acceptable.[3] It is very unfortunate that the readers have referred this manuscript as salami slicing. Both the studies by the authors were done in a different time frame. The first study[4] is a descriptive study that describes the anatomical success of glycerol preserved tissues in an emergency corneal transplant. The present study[5] is a comparative study that compares the glycerol preserved tissues with fresh corneal tissues in emergency corneal transplant, where the objectives and the hypothesis are different for both the study. Also, the authors have coated the previous study in the present manuscript. Although both the study was done in a different timeframe, the data of the GPC group are the same as we did only two transplants with GPC after 2015 till 2017 which did not complete 1-year follow-up. As these cases were excluded so the sample size of the GPC group is the same in both studies. The eye bank had fresh corneas available due to increase donation overtime so the requirement of GPC transplants decreased.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Raj A, Agrawal N. Comments on: Glycerol-preserved corneal tissue in emergency corneal transplantation: An alternative for fresh corneal tissue in COVID-19 crisis. Indian J Ophthalmol 2021;69:169.  Back to cited text no. 1
  [Full text]  
2.
Guidelines for Cornea and Eye Banking During COVID Era Version 1.0, March 11, 2020. Available from: https://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_ file/0011/653888/Salami-Slicing-factsheet-March-2019.pdf. [Last accessed on 2020 Sep 03].  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
4.
Gupta N, Upadhyay P. Use of glycerol-preserved corneas for corneal transplants. Indian J Ophthalmol 2017;65:569-73.  Back to cited text no. 4
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
5.
Gupta N, Dhasmana R, Maitreya A, Badahur H. Glycerol-preserved corneal tissue in emergency corneal transplantation: An alternative for fresh corneal tissue in COVID-19 crisis. Indian J Ophthalmol 2020;68:1412-6.  Back to cited text no. 5
[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
    Viewed194    
    Printed0    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded26    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal