Author Affiliation: Department of Ophthalmology, Retina Service, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University Eye Center, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand.
We appreciate the discussion of Coe and colleagues on the single-procedure reattachment rate and the incidence of new or missed breaks in our study.1 We concluded that pneumatic retinopexy using filtered air was associated with a nonsignificantly lower single-procedure reattachment rate than using perfluoropropane. This can be attributed to shorter duration of air. We used equal volume of air and perfluoropropane (0.3 mL) because the design was a double-blind, randomized, clinically controlled noninferiority trial. However, we demonstrated an equivalent final reattachment rate and final visual recovery. We believe that larger air volume will yield better reattachment rate, as reported in previous studies.2,3
Yospaiboon Y. Pneumatic Retinopexy—Reply. Arch Ophthalmol. 2011;129(8):1110-1111. doi:10.1001/archophthalmol.2011.207