Dear Editor,
We thank Sarkar and Deb[1] for the interest shown and comments on our article.[2] We agree that a prospective comparative study might provide more meaningful results, as we had mentioned in the limitations of the study. The present study was a retrospective study conducted to evaluate the outcomes of combined microincision phacoemulsification with transpupillary passive silicone oil (SO) removal using bimanual irrigation/aspiration; this less invasive technique was found to be effective based on our results.
In our study, SO was expressed till the last bubble was seen coming out in toto in continuity without meniscus break. The scleral depression technique was used to push the bubble in the central area so that it comes out passively. SO bubbles behind the iris occur in emulsified cases, and such cases were excluded from the study, as mentioned in the “Methods” section. The emulsified SO cases were taken up for pars plana three-port SO removal in our setting.
We have emphasized in the article that an experienced surgeon should perform this technique to minimize complications. The merits and demerits of the technique were described in detail. We value the additional risk factors mentioned by Sarkar and Deb, highlighting that the technique should be performed cautiously and only by an experienced surgeon.[1] Our technique avoids conjunctival and scleral incisions, provides the benefits of a shorter duration of surgery and faster visual rehabilitation, and prevents the need to perform a postoperative nd: YAG capsulotomy on a thickened posterior capsule.[3,4] The major drawback is the violation of the posterior capsule integrity, increasing the theoretical risk of capsular bag instability. However, we did not encounter any such complications. In addition, cases with preexisting zonular weakness or lens subluxation should be avoided. We appreciate the remarks put forward by Sarkar and Deb for our study.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
References
- 1.Sarkar S, Deb AK. Comment on:Microincision phacoemulsification combined with sutureless transpupillary passive silicone oil removal. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2022;70:695–6. doi: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_2270_21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Thulasidas M, Gupta H, Sachdev MS, Gupta A, Verma L, Vohra S. Microincision phacoemulsification combined with sutureless transpupillary passive silicone oil removal. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2021;69:2311–6. doi: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_3538_20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Leaver PK, Grey RHB, Garner A. Silicone oil injection in the treatment of massive preretinal retraction. II. Late complications in 93 eyes. Br J Ophthalmol. 1979;63:361–7. doi: 10.1136/bjo.63.5.361. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Federman Jay L, Schubert HD. Complications associated with the use of silicone oil in 150 eyes after retina-vitreous surgery. Ophthalmology. 1988;95:870–6. doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(88)33080-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]