Responses

PDF
Non-traumatic corneal perforations: aetiology, treatment and outcomes
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Response: Non-traumatic corneal perforations: aetiology, treatment and outcomes
    • Juan Carlos Serna-Ojeda, Cornea and Refractive Surgeon Instituto de Oftalmología “Conde de Valenciana”, Mexico City, Mexico
    • Other Contributors:
      • Denise Loya-Garcia, Cornea and Refractive Surgeon
      • Aida Jimenez-Corona, Epidemiology and Visual Health Specialist
      • Enrique O Graue-Hernandez, Cornea and Refractive Surgeon

    Dear editor.

    We thank Sarmad et al. for their interest in our publication. Our study is a retrospective review of several variables regarding non-traumatic corneal perforations (1). In handling clinical records for a retrospective analysis, missing variables represent a common problem. In relation to the location of corneal perforation, information was not available in 25 eyes thus the number does not match. Hence, in consideration of this inevitable flaw we decided not to include the anatomical location of perforation into the model presented in the manuscript, therefore all the variables included in this statistical model had no missing values.

    Clinical treatment of corneal perforation is often complex and a single intervention may not address the patient full pathology, therefore more than one treatment is frequently used. (2) This explains the increased number of initial treatments in the first clinical intervention, one example of this scenario are the patients needing simultaneous tectonic penetrating keratoplasty to restore ocular integrity and concurrent amniotic membrane transplantation to aid in the control of ocular surface. (2)(3)

    These two situations might not be precise in our manuscript, but we take the opportunity of this letter to clarify them. However, that is unquestionably far from compromising the validity of the conclusions. Definitely, as any retrospective study, and as we mention in the discussion of our article, there are li...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Re: Non-traumatic corneal perforations: aetiology, treatment and outcomes
    • Ambreen Sarmad, Ophthalomologist Birmingham and Midlands Eye Centre
    • Other Contributors:
      • Monali Chakrabarti, Ophthalmologist
      • Fadi Alfaqawi, Ophthalmologist

    Dear Editor,
    We read your article titled- Non-traumatic corneal perforations: aetiology, treatment and outcomes: with great interest. Corneal perforation is an acute ophthalmic emergency. This review describes the aetiology, plausible location and the multiple ways to approach the management of this condition in a very a systematic manner.
    We do appreciate the organised mode of stratification and care of non- traumatic corneal perforation presented in the article. However, although the results are interesting, we feel that caution should be exercised when drawing conclusions from this data.
    Initially, in results there are 127 eyes of 116 patients under the review. However, while describing the anatomical location of the perforation, only 102 eyes have been accounted for, with no records for the remaining 25 eyes. This would change the calculated p value significantly.
    Similarly, where the initial treatments for perforations were being reviewed 133 eyes were mentioned as treated, thus including six extra unaccounted for eyes to the total. This would seriously jeopardise the authenticity of the calculated results.

    Hence, there appears to be serious doubts regarding the validity of the conclusions of this review. A clearer and more detailed explanation or a recalculation of the results is warranted in this regard.

    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.