The authors agree with Kirkby and Scott that in the management of macula-on retinal detachment, there should not be ‘undue delay’ and that the surgery should occur in a ‘timely fashion’. But of course these are very vague terms. Undue delay in one case might be reasonably timely in another.
The whole point of the MORD (macular-on retinal detachment) study1 was to try to determine what degree of surgical delay is acceptable in these cases, and what interval to surgery would be considered ‘timely’.
It is the authors' contention that immediate surgery may not be indicated in all cases.
The MORD study has limitations because it was not constructed as a randomised controlled trial, but it might be considered as paving the way for such a trial, and that would then answer the concerns of vitreoretinal surgeons regarding what is ‘timely’ and what actually constitutes ‘undue delay’.
References
Ho SF, Fitt A, Frimpong-Ansah K, Benson MT . The management of primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment not involving the fovea. Eye 2006; 20: 1049–1053.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ho, S., Fitt, A., Frimpong-Ansah, K. et al. Reply to Scott and Kirkby. Eye 21, 1009 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.eye.6702811
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.eye.6702811