Category: Peer-reviewed

期刊一览

Young (p. 2390) 等人对角结膜缘自体结膜移植术(LCAU)及术中使用丝裂霉素C对减少翼状胬肉复发的长期疗效进行了比较。他们也评估了丝裂霉素C对角膜内皮细胞密度(ECD)的影响。在随机、对照试验

Reporting Visual Acuities

The AJO encourages authors to report the visual acuity in the manuscript using the same nomenclature that was used in gathering the data provided they were recorded in one of the methods listed here. This table of equivalent visual acuities is provided…

Reply

We thank the authors for their interest in our recently published article. This study was strictly a microbiological study using data from the microbiology department. These data did not include any clinical information regarding etiology of endophthal…

Reply

We thank Abramson and associates for their comments regarding our report and welcome the opportunity to clarify our conclusions. In our study, only 1 of 252 patients that had received systemic chemotherapy developed pineoblastoma, while 3 of 156 patien…

Reply

The authors appreciate the questions posed by Drs. Carifi, Zygoura, Deshmuck, and Kopsakilis regarding the issues of capsule-optic overlap and whether intraoperative bleeding, iris trauma, or postoperative inflammation were considered as exclusion crit…

Reply

I have been involved at every stage in the development of the Neusidl Corneal Inserter (NCI), from the moment that a talented ophthalmologist and innovative engineer, William Neusidl, showed me his initial drawings, through laboratory testing and revis…

Endothelial Keratoplasty: Prospective, Randomized, Masked Clinical Trial Comparing an Injector With Forceps for Tissue Insertion

In regard to the recent paper by Terry and associates, I would like to point out a potential mitigating factor that limits the clinical applicability of the paper. Although the authors state, “All other steps of the surgical procedure were exactly the same,” this is not precisely correct. The authors utilized viscoelastic protection for the Charlie II forceps (Bausch & Lomb Surgical, St. Louis, Missouri, USA) group and did not utilize any viscoelastic for the Neusidl Cornea Inserter (Fischer Surgical, Imperial, Missouri, USA) group, stating that viscoelastic is not part of the standard operating procedure for the Neusidl Cornea Inserter. The authors are confusing standard or typical use with what a manufacturer can list in its labeling. As the authors know, the Charlie forceps did not require any clinical data to support its marketing and, as such, the companies do not supply any use information or suggest the use of a viscoelastic. The procedure used by the authors is their standard of practice for the Charlie forceps and not a manufacture-supplied procedure. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) required extensive clinical data from Fischer Surgical prior to their marketing of the Neusidl Cornea Inserter. The procedure the authors followed is not typical of the standard practice with the Neusidl Cornea Inserter, in which the majority of surgeons utilize viscoelastic. The original Neusidl Cornea Inserter standard operating procedure included the optional use of viscoelastic protection but that information was removed for the submission. The lack of viscoelastic use in the FDA protocol (personal communication) was based on limiting variables and potentially further data requests from the FDA as well as the belief that cell loss without viscoelastic would still be at an acceptable level. A proper or more comparative study would have used viscoelastic in both arms to better reflect the different insertion devices and techniques and would then have been more clinically meaningful.

Reply

Thank you very much for your comments concerning our article, Surgical Results of a Muscle Transposition Procedure for Abducens Palsy without Tenotomy and Muscle Splitting. As you pointed out, in Figure 3, the eyes of patient 7 in right gaze seem to…