15 March 2018
Letter to Editor
Dear Editor in Chief,
It is in reference to PJO Vol.33, Issue No.4 Oct to Dec 2017. Following are my observation regarding article “Comparison of Complication between Forceps and Injector delivery for Acrylic Multi piece IOL”.
Study does not justify this topic.
Conclusion is also questionable since literature proves otherwise. Astigmatism & endothelium count is more important in this study.
This topic requires to focus on power of IOL as well. Since 26 D lens is quite thicker than 14 D lens. There is no mention of dioptric power in this study.
How 3.0 mm wound was enlarged to 4.00 mm.
Descemet’s member tear & corneal edema is not accounted for on first day on slit lamp examination. No mention of hydration or stich to 4.00 mm wound.
Limitations in study are not mentioned.
The Acrys MA 60 AC was introduced in 2003 in Pakistan. But this study started in year 2002.
In introduction section author told about advancement in cataract surgery while the references are of year 1999.
Statement given (Cataract surgery during past decades) does not match with study quoted in reference 4. Reference 3&5 sequence not shown anywhere in the text.
“Hyrophobic acrylic IOL with square edge design produces the least posterior capsular opacification” (8 & 9 reference). This is an irrelevant statement to the study topic with unmatched quoted references.
Statement for reference no 6 & 7 do not matched with the actual studies quoted.
The rationale of the study described is actually the purpose of the study, hence rationale is not actually justified.
In the material method. Study is approved by ethical board of which hospital?
Author stated that all data was recorded in the electronic records of the patient. How Performa was designed electronically for individual patients.
Was this a retrospective or prospective study? (15 years electronic recorded data).
Students “t” test with p value was applied (as per stated in material & method) for the statistical analysis. But in the result section, it was not mention anywhere.
In the result average age was stated, which is actually the mean age with standard deviation.
Does this enlargement of incision up to 4.00 mm caused any astigmatism? As author agreed in discussion that enlargement of incision badly effect the amount of
Percentages were shown in the text only, not in tables.
In table 1, total IOL placed in the sulcus were shown 16 while the total comes 17. How does this happened? In the text section of the result 04 IOLs were shown flipped back to front while in the table II only two IOL were shown front to back.
Similarly, only two optic & haptic damage were mentioned in the text of results, while in table II, 3 IOL seems damaged.
At various places author agreed with the more benefits of injector (see page no 204 of introduction & 306 of discussion) as compared with forceps delivery of IOL. Author also seems convinced about surgical induced astigmatism by enlarging incision (see reference 8 & 9) but did not mentioned this important observation/ complication anywhere in the results.
Irrelevant references are given in the text with entirely wrong sequence. Out of 22 references, 11 (50%) are older than year 2000.
Pakistan Journal of Ophthalmology |
Vol. 34, No. 2, Apr – Jun, 2018 131 |
