Content area
Full Text
Correspondence474Sir,Reply to GW AylwardI would like to thank Bill Aylward and Catey Bunce fortheir helpful comments. Our study was a small clinicalstudy which showed that noncontact slit-lampexamination was less reliable in my hands whencompared to indirect ophthalmoscopy with scleralindentation in identifying retinal tears. I believe thatperipheral retinal examination is enhanced by scleralindentation. In another surgeons hands things maybe different and I await the study, with or withoutstatistical analysis, which will take an alternativepoint of view.R Goble, M Natkunarajah and C GoldsmithIpswich HospitalDepartment of OphthalmologyHeath Road Ipswich, Suffolk IP4 5PD UKCorrespondence: R GobleTel: 044 1473 703504Fax: 044 1473 703528E-mail: [email protected] (2005) 19, 474. doi:10.1038/sj.eye.6701520Published online 6 August 20041 Natkunarajah M, Goldsmith C, Goble R. Diagnostic
effectiveness of non-contact slit lamp examination in the
identifying of retinal tears. Eye 2003; 17: 607609.J Shankar and N KaushikDepartment of OphthalmologyMaelor Hospital Wrexham LL13 7TD, UKCorrespondence: NC KaushikTel: 44 1978 725829
E-mail: [email protected] (2005) 19, 474. doi:10.1038/sj.eye.6701521Published online 6 August 2004Sir,Diagnostic effectiveness of noncontact slit-lampexamination in the identifying of retinal tearsWe read with interest the article by Natkunarajah et al.1We agree that indirect ophthalmoscopy with indentationremains the gold standard for the detection of retinalbreaks.It is not clear if the initial examination by trainees wasperformed on slit lamp biomicroscope or with abinocular indirect ophthalmoscope? It would be easy topick up relatively non-peripheral tears on slit-lampbiomicroscopy. The authors acknowledge that the highpick-up rate by the consultant using the slit-lampbiomicroscopy could be attributable to the fact thathe/she was aware of the presence of a retinal tear. Abetter alternative would be to examine...