We thank Iwase et al for their comments and interest in our article “Choroidal Thickness
in Both Eyes of Patients with Unilateral Idiopathic Macular Hole.”
1
They raised an important point with regard to our paper, and we appreciate their
insightful comments, as well as the opportunity to discuss our study in more detail.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Subscribe to Ophthalmology
Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Choroidal thickness in both eyes of patients with unilateral idiopathic macular hole.Ophthalmology. 2012; 119: 2328-2333
- Is axial length a risk factor for idiopathic macular hole formation?.Int Ophthalmol. 2012; 32: 393-396
- Retina.5th ed. Elsevier (Saunders), London2013: 1968
- Enhanced depth imaging optical coherence tomography of the choroid in idiopathic macular hole: a cross-sectional prospective study.Am J Ophthalmol. 2011; 151: 112-117
- Are biometric parameters a risk factor for idiopathic macular hole formation? Results of a matched case-control series.Br J Ophthalmol. 2006; 90: 117-118
- Refractive error and biometry in older Chinese adults: the Liwan eye study.Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009; 50: 5130-5136
Article Info
Identification
Copyright
© 2013 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
ScienceDirect
Access this article on ScienceDirectLinked Article
- Axial Length in Eyes with Macular HoleOphthalmologyVol. 120Issue 9
- In BriefWe read the recent article entitled “Choroidal Thickness in Both Eyes of Patients with Unilateral Idiopathic Macular Hole” by Zeng et al,1 and would like to offer our comments. The authors, in this cross-sectional study, demonstrated that choroid thickness in eyes with idiopathic macular hole (IMH) was significantly thinner in the area of the macular hole, as well as in the anatomic macular area compared with control eyes, and even compared with the unaffected contralateral eyes. There were no differences in the background including refractive error among the groups.
- Full-Text
- In Brief
