Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Authors’ response: surgical outcomes after epiretinal membrane peeling combined with cataract surgery
  1. Glenn Yiu1,3,
  2. Kyle V Marra2,
  3. Jorge G Arroyo2,3
  1. 1Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Boston, MA, USA
  2. 2Division of Ophthalmology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
  3. 3Department of Ophthalmology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Jorge G Arroyo, Department of Ophthalmology, Massachusetts Eye & Ear Infirmary, Harvard Medical School, Retina Service, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, 330 Brookline Avenue, CC-5, Boston, MA 02215, USA; jarroyo{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

We appreciate the comments by Drs Kahn and Rahman and agree that interpreting retrospective data must always be approached with caution.1 Indeed, properly controlled randomised prospective studies remain the gold standard for evaluating medical treatments. However, retrospective case series often provide important insights into therapies that are less commonly performed, or subject to variability in operator or technique, as is the case when comparing surgical methods. Retrospective studies also generate important preliminary data to help guide the design of future randomised trials.

Our study was devised to compare simultaneous combined phacoemulsification, PCIOL placement, pars plana vitrectomy and epiretinal membrane (ERM) peeling, with vitrectomy and membrane peeling alone.2 Patients in the membrane peeling alone group were either phakic or pseudophakic at the time of surgery. The inherent limitation of evaluating combined surgeries …

View Full Text


  • Contributors All authors contributed to drafting this article.

  • Funding Grimshaw-Gudewicz Charitable Foundation.

  • Competing interests None.

  • Patient consent Obtained.

  • Ethics approval Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; externally peer reviewed.