Download PDFPDF
Postoperative outcomes of idiopathic epiretinal membrane associated with foveoschisis
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.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests


  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Re: Lam et al.: Postoperative outcomes of idiopathic epiretinal membrane associated with foveoschisis
    • Wei Gui, Vitreoretinal Surgeon VMR Institute for Vitreous Macula Retina
    • Other Contributors:
      • Jean-Pierre Hubschman, Vitreoretinal Surgeon
      • J. Sebag, Vitreoretinal Surgeon

    Recently, Lam et al. [1] concluded that patients with macular pucker and foveoschisis had a higher risk of postoperative macular oedema. Since only 5/17 cases had baseline fluorescein angiography it is unclear how they distinguished foveoschisis due to tangential traction, versus cystoid macular edema (CME). Is it possible that postoperative CME was recurrent and not new? In our experience, resolution of foveoschisis takes much longer than the relatively swift resolution in 25% and partial resolution in 68.8% of cases at 1 month, so perhaps CME was a confounding factor. Indeed, Figure 3 appears more like exudative cyst than ‘foveoschisis’.

    Previous studies [2] found that nearly half of patients with macular pucker had multiple centers of retinal contraction which were associated with a higher prevalence of intraretinal cysts and greater macular thickening. Was en face OCT performed to determine the number of contraction centers and its relationship to foveoschisis as well as outcomes of surgery? Additionally, anomalous PVD with vitreoschisis [3] and vitreo-papillary adhesion [4] may be important in the pathogenesis of macular pucker. Did the authors correlate these with foveoschisis and postoperative outcomes?

    There was no significant difference in postoperative visual acuity (VA) between the foveoschisis and control groups, but this may not be the best outcome measure in macular pucker surgery. Studies [5] have shown that quantifying contrast sensitivity fu...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.