You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Letters
Authors’ response to ‘Choroidal blood flow measurement with laser speckle flowgraphy in macular disease’
  1. Michiyuki Saito1,
  2. Wataru Saito1,2,
  3. Susumu Ishida1,2
  1. 1 Department of Ophthalmology, Hokkaido University Graduate School of Medicine, Sapporo, Japan
  2. 2 Department of Ocular Circulation and Metabolism, Hokkaido University Graduate School of Medicine, Sapporo, Japan
  1. Correspondence to Dr Wataru Saito, Department of Ocular Circulation and Metabolism, Hokkaido University Graduate School of Medicine, Nishi 7, Kita 15, Kita-ku, Sapporo 060-8638, Japan; wsaito{at}med.hokudai.ac.jp

https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-303780

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    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 thank Kim and Oh for their interest in our recently published article.1 They mention about the possibility that the morphologic change of a target object (ie, choroidal thickening/thinning) may alter laser speckle phenomenon even if blood flow velocity is stable.2 Unsurprisingly, choroidal blood flow in central serous chorioretinopathy (CSC) is thought to inextricably link with choroidal thickness. As choroidal hyperperfusion is believed to thicken the choroid, a sponge-like tissue rich in blood supply, it would not be clinically relevant to argue the assumption of choroidal thickening/thinning without any change in blood flow velocity. Choroidal circulation and thickness generate the cause–effect relationship. Interestingly, the …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Acknowledgements We would like to express our deepest appreciation to Hitoshi Fujii (Softcare Ltd), who is an inventor of LSFG, for his grateful advice.

    • Contributors MS, WS and SI contributed to conception, interpretation, and drafting the manuscript.

    • Competing interests None.

    • Patient consent Obtained.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

    Linked Articles