Five-Year Incidence, Management, and Visual Outcomes of Diffuse Lamellar Keratitis after Femtosecond-Assisted LASIK
, Kathryn M Durnford 4, Adam L Lewis 5, Chase M Miller 6, David G West 7, R Alek Sperry 7, William B West, Jr. 4, Kathryn M Shmunes 1,8, Shannon E McCabe 1,9, MacGregor N Hall 6, Yasmyne C Ronquillo 1 and Phillip C Hoopes 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors of the underlying paper
"Five-year Incidence, Management, and Visual Outcomes of Diffuse Lamellar Keratitis after Femtosecond-Assisted LASIK" present interesting data based on a very large number of laser vision corrections performed. However, the manuscript could be strengthen addressing and revising the following issues:
- please check statistics, e.g. Tab.1 displays gender distribution of 58,4 % and 51,6 % that add up to 110 %
- Analyzing all data should separate hyperopes and myopes, e.g. mean spherical equivalent counting myopes and hyperopes together does not say anything about the amount of ablation etc.
- Revise and check data in Tab3. Stage I n= 533 does not match to 427+59+39 fs laser procedures, also Stage II n=76 does not match to 70+5+4 fs laser procedures and Stage III n= 25 does not match to 25+0+1 fs laser procedures
- Fig. 3 lacks a control group, in addition, eyes with DLK should be stratified in the four groups according to stage (I - IV) and these results should be compared with each other
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Editor,
Thank you to provide me the opportunity to contribute to your journal. The authors submitted a study about a very interesting topic such as the study of diffuse lamellar keratitis after femto LASIK.
The authors provided a very interesting 5 years study comparing different femtosecond lasers with very good methodology. Some changes are required before accepting this manuscript.
Minor issues
Lines 49-51, please rephrase these sentences because it is not so clear.
Lines 54-60, authors could avoid historical information and concentrate more about the advantages of currently available FS machines.
Major issues
Figure 3 is too confusing, I suggest providing only 12 months data in order to let the readers easier understand the meaning of the study.
Please move table 5 reference on the discussion, it is not properly located in the results section.
Figure 4 can be avoided.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
ok
