Sir,

We thank Dr Raman and Dr Delhiwala for their comments and suggestion.

We noticed that the optical coherence tomography (OCT) characteristics of optic pit maculopathy can be decided into two to three categories. As the anatomical pathophysiology of the fluid is not clear, regardless of the underlying pathophysiology, sub-retinal fluid appears to gain access to the macula via the anomalous optic pit. Thus, we did the same laser treatment at the optic disc border with the purpose of blocking inflow of fluid from optic pit to retinal layers. We agree with the authors’ idea about the OCT characteristics of optic disc pit maculopathy (ODP-M) and actually we intend to analyse the relationship between different treatment to ODP-M and the OCT characteristics of it.

The laser treatment was right done in juxtapapillary area in circumferential extent by placing 2–4 confluent rows with the purpose of blocking the inflow of fluid. Furthermore, we did the laser along superior and inferior margins of detached retina to help with the adhesion of the detached retina and the region of it was decided by the detached area.

We intend to present minimally invasive surgery in ODP-M patients, thus we do not want to do PPV procedure in the treatment. That is why we did not present too much information on the OCT of vitreous and some repeated treatment was needed. But it is a good suggestion to take it into consideration.

As for the concentration of the gas tamponade, 66% C3F8 gas injection will not be absorbed too quickly and in the meantime will not induce expansion too much. Otherwise, the vitreous of the young patients will be condensed and constricted. However, it is better to do the comparison of the different concentration of the gas as long enough patients were provided. We will go on with the related study on this treatment mode. Thank you very much for your comments and discussion of the article.