Dear Editor,We read with interest the article “endoilluminator-assisted scleral buckling: Our results by Gogia et al. in Indian J Ophthalmol 2014;62:893-4.[1] We commend the authors on a well written article but would like a few clarifications:The authors mention several times that the procedure was carried out in eyes where the break was not “localized” preoperatively. What we understand is that they are trying to say the break was not identified preoperatively. Localisation of a break in retinal detachment surgery parlance means marking of the break on the sclera, that is, the point, where the break is expected to settle on after the sub retinal fluid, is drained or when the retina reattaches eventually. This is done intraoperatively. Sometimes after the break is identified, we can attempt a rough localization preoperatively but accurate localization is only possible intraoperatively. Not able to see the breaks preoperatively is not synonymous with not able to localizeWhy did the authors not continue to complete the surgery after identification and localization of the retinal breaks? If we have put in an endo illuminator-the surgery could well have been completed without using the indirect ophthalmoscopeDo the authors do a nondrainage procedure in all cases? Is this a premeditated decision or would they change their mind during surgery and if yes-then when would they drain? The results of the scleral buckle with drainage in pseudophakic eyes are poorer than vitrectomy.[2] We would imagine that with nondrainage procedures, especially in inferior detachments in pseudophakic/aphakic eyes-the results would be far from satisfactory. Hence, it is commendable that the authors got such spectacular results with a nondrainage procedure.