Reply to comments on: Risk factors for implant exposure after evisceration: A case-control study of 93 patients

Résumé fourni par la source

We thank Drs Dayakar et al.[1] for their interest in our article on Risk factors for orbital 45 implant exposure after evisceration: A case-control study of 93 patients.[2] We would like to clarify that the sample size calculation in the methods section outlines the minimum number of cases and controls required to achieve a power of 80, that is, 28 cases and 55 controls, a total of 83. We have not specified that we included 83 patients. Rather, as mentioned in the results section, we exceeded the minimum required sample size, and Included 93 patients. As such, there is no discrepancy in the data. As mentioned in the article, a longer duration of follow-up may result in a higher proportion of implant exposures.[34] We have matched duration of follow-up to avoid including any incipient exposure case in the control group. We agree that in a study, it is desirable to mention known confounding factors and possible biases. We have presented the demographics as similar in the two groups. As more knowledge comes to light regarding the exposure of orbital implants, further confounders may become known in the future. We also agree that the socioeconomic factors and systemic comorbidities may have an impact on the outcome of a surgical procedure. However, in the absence of previous existing literature in the context of orbital implants, we feel it would be a deviation to include these factors in the discussion. We look forward to other authors presenting more studies which may shed more light on these hypotheses. Financial support and sponsorship Nil. Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.