Dear Editor

I commend the authors for yet another treatment for this potentially disabling and common affliction. I note that one important component of this treatment requires the mapping of the site of the erosion during an attack with this area being singled out for the localised 4-6mm of treatment. However, in most patients that I have treated over the years the area of erosion is healed by the time they seek ophthalmic care (microerosions) and at the most there may be left some intraepithelial microcysts but no epithelial defect. I would have thought that this would make it difficult to ascertain where the treatment should be applied in these cases. The patients who present with a large epithelial defect (macro-erosions), in whom the mapping of involved epithelium is possible, are in the minority in my practice. Perhaps the authors are seeing a selection bias in their cases and it would be interesting if they could indicate whether they would treat these “microerosions” and if so where on the cornea. They also describe using a dry surgical sponge to debride the treated area resulting in a single sheet removal of the treated area. In my experience, attempted removal of the loose sheet of epithelium in a recurrent erosive patient most often results in removal of the entire corneal epithelium which can be seen to be non-adherent out to the limbus in all directions. It would be useful if the authors could indicate how they restrict the removal of the treated epithelium only without ending up removing the entire corneal epithelium.