Download PDFPDF

Non-penetrating glaucoma surgery: the state of play
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


  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed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:
    Re: Non-penetrating gluacoma surgery

    Dear Editor

    We thank Drs Sharawary and Mermoud for their interest in our article [1] and respect their observations. They have made significant contributions to our understanding of non penetrating surgery in the treatment of chronic open angle glaucoma.

    With any new surgical technique information changes rapidly, and much new information has appeared since our article was written. The authors note current li...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Non-penetrating gluacoma surgery

    Dear Editor

    The authors of this article (Tan J C H, and Hitchings R. Non-penetrating glaucoma surgery: the state of play. Br J Ophthalmol 2001;85:234-237) should be commended on attempting to tackle this issue. Nevertheless we do feel that their fundamental points and principal arguments merit reconsideration.

    The authors state categorically that "long term outcomes do not exit for the newer...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.