Dear Sir,We are grateful for the comments about our manuscript entitled: “Surgical treatment of superior oblique palsy: predictors of outcome” published in IJO.[1]First, as we wrote in the material and methods section, a logistic regression analysis of the surgical outcome – dependent variables and the number of procedures were carried out. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. None of the variables evaluated (age, torticollis, vertical deviation, etiology of palsy, presence of amblyopia, number of muscles operated on, type of anesthesia, and SR fibrosis) could be identified as a factor predicting good surgical outcomes in superior oblique palsy, however, amblyopic patients had a greater risk of reoperation, with 54.54% requiring more than 1 surgical procedure compared with 26.15% of nonamblyopic patients (P = 0.04). Although we did not analyze the vertical deviation separately for amblyopic and nonamblyopic patients, vertical deviation could not be identified as a factor predicting good surgical outcome.Second, we wrote in the material and methods section: “Our criteria for surgical treatment of intravenous (IV) nerve palsy included individualization of each case according to the cover test in the 11 positions of gaze, the position of maximum diplopia, and the results of the Lancaster test.” IV nerve palsy has been misprinted and we want to clarify this point.Finally, a total of 76 patients were enrolled in this study, but only data of 75 patients is given for initial inferior oblique overaction and data of 74 patients for initial superior oblique underaction, because as we stated in the end of the discussion, our study has a retrospective design, which prevented us from recording specific data such as those. Nevertheless, we were able to collect the data of final inferior oblique overaction and superior oblique underaction.