Comparison of triple-DMEK to pseudophakic-DMEK: A cohort study of 95 eyes.

Previous comparative studies show that triple Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) (i.e. phacoemulsification followed immediately by DMEK) has either equivalent or better visual outcomes than DMEK in pseudophakic patients. To resolve this discrepancy, a retrospective cohort study was conducted. All consecutive patients with Fuchs Endothelial Corneal Dystrophy who underwent triple or pseudophakic DMEK in 2015-2019 in a tertiary-care hospital (France) and were followed for >12 months were compared in terms of best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), final refractive outcomes, and endothelial-cell loss at 12 months as well as rebubbling rates. The triple-DMEK (40 eyes, 34 patients) and pseudophakic-DMEK (55 eyes, 43 patients) groups were similar in terms of age and other baseline variables. They also did not differ in final BSCVA (both 0.03 logMAR), final endothelial-cell loss (54% vs. 48%), or astigmatism (-1.25 vs. -1 D). At 12 months, triple-DMEK associated with significantly smaller residual hyperopia (0.75 vs. 1 D; p = 0.04) and spherical equivalence (0 vs. 0.5 D; p = 0.02). Triple-DMEK also tended to associate with more frequent rebubbling (40% vs. 24%, p = 0.09). In conclusion, while triple-DMEK and pseudophakic-DMEK achieved similar visual acuity improvement, triple-DMEK was superior in terms of final sphere and spherical refraction but also tended to have higher complication rates.

Introduction

The management of corneal endothelial deficits secondary to Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy (FECD) and pseudophakic bullous keratopathy underwent a revolution 15 years ago when Melles [1-4] (with significant contributions from others [5-10]) developed two posterior lamellar corneal transplantation procedures, namely, Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) and Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK). Although DMEK is more difficult to perform than DSAEK, it is often the treatment of choice for FECD [1, 11, 12] because it associates with better recovery, postoperative best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) [12-14], contrast [15, 16], immune rejection [17, 18], patient satisfaction [12, 19, 20], and final posterior residual corneal higher-order aberrations [21].

FECD was first described by Ernst Fuchs in 1910 [22] and presents as loss of corneal transparency due to corneal edema. This edema is the result of the gradual loss of corneal endothelial cells, which can no longer adequately pump fluid out of the corneal stroma [23]. FECD is the most common corneal dystrophy: in 2016, it accounted for 23% of all corneal transplants in the USA [24]. Caucasians and women are particularly prone to FECD: a cohort study in Reykjavik, Iceland reported that 11% and 7% of all women and men had primary corneal guttae, respectively [25]. The disease is age-related, mostly manifesting after the fourth decade [23]. Due to this, patients with FECD often present with other age-related ocular comorbidities, including cataract [26], whose prevalence in Europeans increases from 5% in 52–62-year-olds to 64% in >70-year-olds [27]. Consequently, the advent of DMEK for FECD quickly triggered a debate about whether phacoemulsification and DMEK should be conducted in stages or in the same operation (known as phaco-DMEK or triple-DMEK). Three retrospective comparative studies on largely FECD patients have addressed this question in the last decade, with conflicting results: whereas two showed that triple-DMEK and DMEK in pseudophakic eyes yielded equivalent postoperative BSCVA [28, 29], the third showed that triple-DMEK associated with better postoperative BSCVA [30]. However, the two groups in two studies differed markedly in terms of age and/or preoperative BSCVA and one study had a small sample size (S1 Table).

Therefore, to address this issue further, we conducted a retrospective cohort study comparing triple-DMEK to pseudophakic-DMEK in terms of BSCVA and other outcomes at 12 months.

Materials and methods

Ethics

This retrospective cohort study was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Helsinki Declaration. The study was approved by the ethics committee of the French Society of Ophthalmology (IRB 00008855 Société Française d’Ophtalmologie IRB#1) and was registered in clinicaltrials.gov (No. NCT03355924). All patients provided informed consent for surgical management. All patients were informed before surgery that their surgery-related data might be used for research purposes. All consented to this possibility. The consent procedure was conducted in accordance with the reference methodology MR-004 of the National Commission for Information Technology and Liberties of France (No. 588909 v1).

Patient selection

The patient cohort consisted of all consecutive adult (≥18 years) patients with FECD and BSCVA ≤0.3 logMAR who underwent triple-DMEK or pseudophakic-DMEK in January 2015–January 2019 in the Department of Ophthalmology of the Metz-Thionville Regional Hospital Center (Metz, France) and who were followed up for at least 12 months. Patients were excluded if the patient was lost to 12-month follow-up and/or the patient had eye damage that could influence visual acuity recovery (age-related macular degeneration, advanced diabetic retinopathy, advanced glaucoma, history of uveitis, history of eye surgery other than cataract surgery, or deep amblyopia).

Preoperative assessments

All patients underwent a complete clinical examination before surgery. Distance visual acuity was determined by using Monoyer’s visual acuity scale; the scores were then converted to logMAR. Near visual acuity was determined by using the Parinaud scale. Intraocular pressure was measured. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) was used to examine the macula (RS-3000 OCT RetinaScan advance, NIDEK Co., Ltd., Japan). Anterior-segment OCT was also conducted to measure corneal thickness. Specular microscopy (CEM-530 NIDEK, Japan) was performed to assess endothelial-cell density (ECD).

Surgical techniques

In all cases, lower iridotomy with the Nd-YAG laser (Laser ex-Super Q; Ellex Europe, Medical Quantel, Cournon-d’Auvergne, France) was conducted at the preoperative consultation 1–2 months before surgery.

All surgeries were performed by the same experienced surgeon (JMP). In all cases except two, triple-DMEK and pseudophakic-DMEK procedures were performed under general anesthesia. The exceptions (one triple-DMEK, one pseudophakic-DMEK) were performed under locoregional anesthesia due to general anesthesia contraindications. All grafts were from two French regional tissue banks (Besançon or Nancy). All were preserved by organo-culture and had a requested ECD greater than 2400 cells/mm2.

All DMEK surgeries were conducted as described previously [2]. Thus, the corneal graft was prepared by 8 mm-diameter trepanation with a Hanna’s microtrepan (Busin Punch 17200D 8mm single use; Moria SA, Antony, France) and the Descemet membrane with the endothelium was dissected with a disposable curved monofilament forceps (Single Use Tying Forceps Curved 5mm Platform 17501, Moria SA, Antony, France). The graft was then stained with VisionBlue dye (VisionBlue, 0.5-ml syringe; D.O.R.C. Dutch Ophthalmic Research Center, Zuidland, Netherlands), marked on its stromal side with a capital E or F for later orientation, and inserted into the D.O.R.C injectable system (30G Curved cannula for air injection; D.O.R.C. Dutch Ophthalmic Research Center, Zuidland, Netherlands). The patient’s cornea was then prepared: the main paracentesis was conducted at a supero-temporal (for the right eye) or supero-nasal (for the left eye) location with a Worst 2.2-mm blade (Securityblade BD, Xstar 2.2-mm, 45 degrees, 37822; Beaver-Visitec International, USA). The secondary incision was then made with a Worst 15 blade (ophthalmic knife 15 degrees; ALCON, Ruel Malmaison, France). A sterile air infusion was established, and a 9-mm diameter circle of Descemet membrane was dissected by using an inverted Sinskey Price hook (Single Use Price Reverse Hook Sim 17302; Moria SA, Antony, France). The tissue was then ablated by using the same Sinskey Price hook and an inverted spatula (90th single use Spatula 17303; Moria SA, Antony, France) and the graft was installed. First, the temporal incision was slightly enlarged to >4 mm by using the Worst 2.2mm knife (SecurityKnife BD, Xstar 2.2-mm, 45 degrees, 37822; Beaver-Visitec International, USA). The graft was then injected into the anterior chamber by using the D.O.R.C. injectable system (30G Curved cannula for air injection; D.O.R.C. Dutch Ophthalmic Research Center, Zuidland, Netherlands). The graft was carefully moved and centered by external manipulation. A sterile air bubble was then injected under the graft to place it at the posterior side of the cornea. A corneal suture was placed with 10.0 Nylon and the knot was secondarily buried.

In triple-DMEK, phacoemulsification was initially performed according to a standard subluxation method [31] using an easy to remove ophthalmic viscosurgical device (Duovisc, Alcon, Rueil Malmaison, France). At the end of the procedure, the device was then completely suctioned off, MIOSTAT® 0.01% (Carbachol, ALCON, Rueil Malmaison, France) was injected, and the incision edges was hydrosutured. This procedure was then followed by DMEK, which was conducted exactly as described above. Note that the refractive target in triple-DMEK was a residual myopia of about -0.5 to -1.00 diopters to compensate for the hypermetropizing effect of the surgery.

Postoperative care

All patients were followed closely postoperatively by consultations on days 1, 8, and 15, months 1, 3, 6, and 12, and then annually. All patients received early postoperative treatment, namely, antibiotic eye drops coupled with a corticosteroid (MAXIDROL® Dexamethasone + Neomycin Polymyxine B; ALCON, Rueil Malmaison, France) 4 times a day for the first 3 months and an ophthalmic ointment with vitamin A (Vitamin A dulcis; ALLERGAN, Courbevoie, France) 3 times a day for 3 months. After 3 months, this treatment was replaced with long-term low dose corticosteroid eye drops (FLUCON®; NOVARTIS Pharma, Rueil-Malmaison, France) twice a day for about one year.

The same ophthalmic assessments that were conducted before surgery were repeated at each follow-up consultation. Postoperative complications such as cystoid macular edema (CME) or graft detachment were documented during these consultations. Patients who developed CME and experienced a drop in visual acuity were treated with oral acetazolamide (Diamox®; Sanofi, France; one 250 mg tablet 3 times/day for one month) and NSAID (indomethacin 0.1%; Chauvin, France; 4 times/day for one month). If central graft detachment was observed or more than a third of the graft had detached, rebubbling with an air tamponade was performed under topical anesthesia by puncturing the anterior chamber and then injecting air into it. If rebubbling sessions (maximum four) did not result in graft adherence or the cornea did not thin after 3 months of follow-up, the transplant was considered to have failed and a second transplant was scheduled.

Primary and secondary study outcomes

The following data were collected retrospectively from the prospectively maintained medical charts: patient age and sex; total operative time; graft donor age and ECD; the time between phacoemulsification and DMEK for the pseudophakic-DMEK patients; preoperative and postoperative (day 8 and 15 and months 3, 6, and 12) BSCVA; preoperative and 12-month refractive data; postoperative (months 3, 6, and 12) ECD; preoperative and 12-month central corneal thickness; 12-month corneal thinning; and postoperative complications, namely, CME, graft detachment that required anterior chamber rebubbling, repeated rebubbling, and graft failure.

The primary study outcome was 12-month BSCVA. The secondary study outcomes were BSCVA at earlier postoperative timepoints, endothelial cell loss (ECL) at 3, 6, and 12 months, 12-month central corneal thickness, 12-month refractive outcomes, and complication rates.

Statistical analyses

The data were complete for all patients included in the analysis. Patients who had transplant failure (defined as persistent corneal edema 3 months after transplantation) were included in the cohort but excluded from statistical analysis. The continuous data were expressed as mean±standard deviation while the categorical variables were expressed as n (%). The triple-DMEK and pseudophakic-DMEK groups were compared by using Student’s t-test for quantitative outcomes with normal distribution, Wilcoxon test for quantitative outcomes with non-normal distribution, and Fisher’s exact test for qualitative outcomes. P values <0.05 were considered to indicate statistical significance. All statistical analyses were conducted by using SAS software (version 9.4, SAS Inst., Cary, NC, USA).

Results

Patient disposition in the study

In total, 123 eyes (105 patients) underwent DMEK during the 2015–2019 study period. Of these, 48 and 75 eyes underwent triple-DMEK and pseudophakic-DMEK, respectively. Three triple-DMEK eyes (6%) were excluded because they had a non-FECD pathology. Twelve pseudophakic-DMEK eyes (16%) were excluded because they had bullous pseudophakic keratopathy (n = 4), another non-FECD pathology (n = 6), or were lost to follow-up (n = 2). Consequently, 108 eyes were included in the study. Of these, 45 eyes and 63 eyes received triple-DMEK and pseudophakic-DMEK, respectively. During the study, five (11%) and eight (13%) of these respective eyes required new transplants and were excluded from the statistical analysis. Thus, in total, 40 triple-DMEK eyes and 55 pseudophakic-DMEK eyes were included in the statistical analyses (Fig 1).

Fig 1

Flow chart depicting the disposition of the subjects during the study.

AMD, age-related macular degeneration; DMEK, Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty.

Demographic and baseline clinical characteristics of the study groups

In the pseudophakic-DMEK group, the median (range) duration between phacoemulsification surgery and DMEK surgery was 32 (1–264) months. The triple-DMEK and pseudophakic-DMEK groups were similar in age, sex, preoperative BSCVA, preoperative refractive variables, and preoperative central corneal thickness. The two groups were also similar in terms of graft donor age and graft ECD. The triple-DMEK group had a significantly longer total operative time (p<0.0001), which reflected the fact that two procedures were conducted instead of one (Table 1).

Table 1

Baseline and operative characteristics of the study groups.

Variable	Triple-DMEK 40 eyes (34 patients)	Pseudophakic-DMEK 55 eyes (43 patients)	P value*
Patient age, y	70 (52–84)	72 (54–86)	0.10
Female sex	27 (79)	37 (86)	0.98
Preop. BSCVA, logMAR	0.50 (1.7–0.3)	0.50 (1.7–0.3)	0.13
Preop. Sphere, D	1 (-8–4.75)	0.75 (-2.5–3.75)	0.50
Preop. Cylinder, D	-1 (-5.25–0)	-1.25 (-2.5–0)	0.32
Preop. Axis, degrees	82.5 (0–164)	90 (0–177)	0.39
Preop. Sph.Eq, D	0.63 (-8.6–4)	0.06 (-2.75–2.625)	0.31
Preop. CCT, μm	611 (530–775)	620 (548–786)	0.41
Graft donor age, y	77 (49–93)	76 (30–99)	0.97
Graft ECD, cells/mm2	2545 (2230–2950)	2540 (2250–2900)	0.13
Total operative time, min	35 (30–60)	30 (20–60)	<0.0001

The data are expressed as median (range) or n (%).

* The groups were compared by Student’s t-test, Wilcoxon test or Fisher’s exact test, as appropriate.

BSCVA, best spectacle corrected visual acuity; CCT, central corneal thickness; DMEK, Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty; ECD, endothelial cell density; Preop., preoperative; Sph.Eq., spherical equivalent.

The triple-DMEK and pseudophakic-DMEK groups did not differ significantly in terms of BSCVA at any of the postoperative timepoints: at 12 months, the mean BSCVAs were 0.03 and 0.03 logMAR, respectively (Fig 2). Triple-DMEK associated with slightly but consistently lower ECD but these differences did not achieve statistical significance. At 12 months, the mean ECL was 54% and 48% (p = 0.18), respectively (Table 2). However, compared to the pseudophakic-DMEK group, the triple-DMEK group had a significantly smaller residual hyperopia, namely, 0.75 (range, -1.75–5.75) D vs. 1.0 (-1.0–4.5) D (p = 0.04). Their postoperative spherical equivalent was also smaller, namely, 0 (-1.88–4.88) D vs. 0.5 (-1.5–4.25) D (p = 0.02). The groups did not differ in astigmatism (Table 3). Central corneal thickness in the two groups evolved in the same way (Fig 3). Corneal thinning at 12 months was similar (86 vs. 106 μm; p = 0.11).

Fig 2

Change in visual acuity during follow-up.

DMEK, Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty.

Table 2

Endothelial cell density and loss outcomes of the study groups.

Timepoint	Triple-DMEK 40 eyes (34 patients)	Pseudophakic-DMEK 55 eyes (43 patients)	P value*
Endothelial cell density, cells/mm 2
Preoperative	2510±200 (2000–2900)	2570±196 (2080–2950)	0.13
3 Months	1430±470 (640–2600)	1570±370 (634–2239)	0.12
6 Months	1330±430 (666–2400)	1460±360 (535–2240)	0.13
12 Months	1180±480 (509–2831)	1300±380 (494–2032)	0.19
Endothelial cell loss, % relative to baseline
3 Months	44±18	39±15	0.18
6 Months	48±16	43±15	0.17
12 Months	54±17	48±15	0.18

The data are expressed as mean±standard deviation (range).

Endothelial cell loss = % loss relative to baseline.

* The groups were compared by Student’s t-test.

DMEK, Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty.

Table 3

Refractive outcomes of the study groups at 12 postoperative months.

Variable	Triple-DMEK 40 eyes (34 patients)	Pseudophakic-DMEK 55 eyes (43 patients)	P value*
Sphere, D	0.75 (-1.75–5.75)	1 (-1.0–4.50)	0.04
Cylinder, D	-1.25 (-4.25–0)	-1 (-3.25–0)	0.37
Axis	90 (0–170)	95 (0–180)	0.22
SE, D	0 (-1.88–4.88)	0.5 (-1.5–4.25)	0.02

The data are expressed as mean±standard deviation (range).

* The groups were compared by Wilcoxon test.

DMEK, Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty; SE, Spherical equivalence.

Fig 3

Change in central corneal thickness in the study groups.

DMEK, Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty.

In terms of complications, the triple-DMEK and pseudophakic-DMEK groups required five (11%) and eight (13%) second transplants with DMEK or DSAEK (p = 0.77). All second transplants were successful. Rebubbling tended to be more frequent in the triple-DMEK group: 40% required one re-bubbling versus 24% for the pseudophakic-DMEK group (p = 0.09). The two groups did not differ in second rebubbling rates (5% vs. 7%, p = 0.69) (Fig 4). CME occurred with equivalent frequency in the two groups (n = 2 and 3, respectively; both 5%, p = 0.92).

Fig 4

Frequency of one or two rebubbling sessions after surgery.

DMEK, Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty.

Discussion

Our retrospective cohort study showed that compared to patients who underwent DMEK on average 47 months after phacoemulsification, triple-DMEK patients had similar 12-month visual acuity recovery, ECD and ECL, cylinder outcomes, central corneal thickness, and second transplantation and CME rates. However, the triple-DMEK group had significantly smaller residual hyperopia (p = 0.04) and spherical equivalent (p = 0.02) and a tendency to more frequent rebubbling (p = 0.09).

Visual acuity

To date, three retrospective cohort studies have compared triple-DMEK and pseudophakic-DMEK in FECD. Our visual recovery results are consistent with two. Thus, Shahnazaryan et al. showed that BSCVA at 1 year was excellent in 80 triple-DMEK and 34 pseudophakic-DMEK patients [28]. A small study by Ighani et al. also did not observe visual acuity differences between triple-DMEK (n = 16) and pseudophakic-DMEK (n = 8) at a mean follow-up duration of 13 months (range, 3–26) months [29]. These findings are also consistent with an earlier case-series study by Laaser et al. on 61 triple DMEK cases in FECD, which showed comparable visual outcomes to DMEK alone in the literature [32]. By contrast, the large study of Chaurasia et al. found that triple-DMEK (n = 200) associated with significantly better median BSCVA than pseudophakic-DMEK (n = 292) at 6 months (20/20 vs. 20/25; p<0.0001) [30]. The discrepancies between these studies may reflect baseline differences between the two DMEK groups, which were present in all three comparative studies. First, the triple-DMEK patients were significantly younger than the pseudophakic-DMEK patients in the studies by both Shahnazaryan et al. [28] and Chaurasia et al. [30] (both p<0.0001). Second, compared to the pseudophakic-DMEK patients, the triple-DMEK patients in the Chaurasia et al. [30] and Ighani et al. [29] studies had better and worse preoperative BSCVA, respectively (p<0.0001 and p = 0.09). These baseline differences are important because Chaurasia et al. demonstrated with multivariate analysis that a younger age associated significantly with better postoperative visual acuity [30]. Moreover, preoperative visual acuity is well-known to correlate positively with postoperative visual acuity [33]. Our study does not suffer from these baseline differences (age, p = 0.10; preoperative BSCVA, p = 0.48). Thus, our study shows that DMEK coupled with phacoemulsification yields satisfactory visual results. This has also been observed for DSAEK combined with phacoemulsification [34, 35].

Endothelial cell loss

Our study showed that while triple-DMEK had slightly but consistently lower ECD than pseudophakic-DMEK at 3, 6, or 12 months, these differences did not achieve statistical significance: at 12 months, the average ECD was 1180 and 1300 cells/mm2, respectively (p = 0.19). ECL at 6 months was 48% and 43%, respectively (p = 0.17). This is consistent with the relatively wide range reported by previous studies on 6-month ECL after DMEK (25–60%) [8, 9, 28, 30, 36, 37]. Moreover, Chaurasia et al. did not find that triple-DMEK differed from pseudophakic-DMEK in terms of 6-month ECL (both 26%) [30]. However, Shahnazaryan et al. showed that triple-DMEK associated with higher ECL (41% vs. 33%, p = 0.034) [28]. Again, this discrepancy may relate to baseline differences between the studies, which may have unpredictable effects on study outcomes. Nonetheless, the two groups in Shahnazaryan et al. had similar graft survival rates, which associates closely with ECL [38]; the two groups in our study also showed similar graft survival rates. It is unclear why the study of Shahnazaryan et al. differs from ours and Chaurasia et al. in ECL. While graft ECD and donor age associate with postoperative ECL [39, 40], the two groups did not differ in terms of these variables in our study and that of Shahnazaryan et al. and the Chaurasia et al. (the Ighani et al. paper did not compare the surgical groups in terms of donor variables) [28-30]. The discrepancy may therefore relate to other, more nebulous surgical factors such as more marked release of preoperative fibrin during triple-DMEK due to quick changes from mydriatic drugs to miotic drugs, different intervention durations, and contact between the endothelium of the graft and the new implant within the anterior chamber [28, 30].

Rebubbling

We observed that triple-DMEK tended to associate with greater rebubbling rates than pseudophakic-DMEK (40% vs. 24%; p = 0.09). It is possible that with a larger sample size, this value would have become significant. The literature regarding this issue is discordant: some studies found that triple-DMEK associates with higher levels of postoperative graft detachment [41-43] whereas others did not observe that triple-DMEK associates with worse rebubbling rates [28, 30, 44, 45]. Again, the reason for these discrepancies is unclear but it may relate to differences between studies in terms of surgical factors. For example, filling the anterior chamber with <75% air is a known risk factor for graft detachment [42, 43]. Consequently, air is often replaced with SF6 gas, since it improves tamponade time without altering the new endothelium [34, 43, 46]. Since triple-DMEK involves the repeated introduction of instruments and greater incision permeability due to the implant, it may associate with faster loss of air postoperatively [43]. To prevent this, some surgeons apply sutures to close the main incision, although this has not yet been shown to reduce rebubbling rates [43]. The use of viscoelastic substances in triple-DMEK could also increase postoperative graft detachment rates [30, 41, 42]. In our study, we strictly used air in the anterior chamber, sutured the main incisions in both groups, and very carefully washed out the viscoelastic substances at the end of phacoemulsification. Nonetheless, it should be noted that one of the graft failure cases in the triple-DMEK group was due to the central persistence of small amounts of viscoelastic substance between the graft and the underlying stroma. Thus, residual viscoelastic substance could possibly explain why we and others observed greater rebubbling rates in triple-DMEK compared to pseudophakic-DMEK. Further studies with larger sample sizes are needed to directly compare triple-DMEK and pseudophakic-DMEK in terms of rebubbling rates.

Cystoid macular edema

Our rate of postoperative CME was 5% in both groups. Other studies have also reported that triple-DMEK does not associate with higher CME rates than pseudophakic DMEK, even though the rates reported tend to be higher than ours (7.5–13.8%) [40, 47, 48].

Postoperative refractive outcomes

In our study, triple-DMEK tended to associate with less residual hyperopia (0.84 vs. 1.37 D; p = 0.06). It also associated with significantly less spherical equivalence (0.2 vs. 0.77 D; p = 0.03). To our knowledge, this is the first time these differences have been observed between triple-DMEK and pseudophakic-DMEK. In fact, very few studies seem to have compared these two surgical techniques in terms of final refractive outcomes. The only one we found was that by Ighani et al., who did not find differences in spherical equivalence [29]. However, we observed that 38% of the triple-DMEK patients (and 29% of pseudophakic DMEK patients) had less than half a spherical diopter, respectively, which is similar to that observed by Gundlach et al.: 35% of their triple-DMEK patients had less than half a spherical diopter [41]. The better spherical equivalence after triple-DMEK reflects the fact that by conducting phacoemulsification at the same time as DMEK, we can preventively correct the slight hypermetropization that is observed after DMEK (whereas we cannot do that in pseudophakic DMEK). Our findings suggest that while the residual postoperative hyperopia after triple-DMEK is good, we can compensate for it further by choosing the correct implant that will, as much as possible, yield final emmetropia. The good refractive results after triple-DMEK also make it possible to consider using toric implants for significant cylindrical abnormalities.

Overall study conclusions

In our study, triple-DMEK and pseudophakic-DMEK both associated with marked improvements in postoperative visual acuity. Triple-DMEK associated with significantly better final spherical refractive outcomes, although it also tended to induce more rebubbling and ECL. Evaluation of the long-term consequences of triple-DMEK may be needed to ensure its relative safety. Nonetheless, our findings are important because combining phacoemulsification with DMEK prophylactically prevents progression of corneal impairment and eliminates a second surgery, thus reducing surgical risk [32]. It is also more cost-effective for the patient [32, 34, 46].

Discussion of a recent third approach (DMEK in phakic patients)

Notably, there is recent debate in the field that centers on a third variation of phacoemulsification and DMEK surgery, namely, where DMEK is conducted first and is then followed by phacoemulsification at a later time point. This variation reflects the very satisfactory visual results after DMEK and the growing realization that performing DMEK before phacoemulsification could ultimately yield better refractive outcomes: this is because treating the corneal edema first makes it easier to precisely identify the refractive target and the implants (including multifocal implants) that will best meet that target [49, 50]. Moreover, DMEK in phakic and young patients will help preserve the function of accommodation [51]. However, this approach must be balanced against the fact that all phacoemulsification techniques induce 8–15% ECL [52-54], which could harm DMEK graft survival. Further research is needed to determine the benefits and disadvantages of this approach relative to triple-DMEK and pseudophakic-DMEK.

Study limitations

This study is limited by the relatively small number of patients in each cohort, which may have limited our ability to detect significant differences for some variables. In addition, the study was retrospective. However, all data were recorded prospectively. Finally, the study was conducted in a single center. However, all surgeries were conducted by the same experienced surgeon, thus minimizing inter-surgeon differences.

Characteristics of the patient cohorts in the literature.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

25 Jan 2022

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Timo Eppig

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

3. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The topic of this retrospective cohort study is of current interest.

Abstract

36-41 Separate preoperative and postoperative findings

38 (0.05 "vs." 0.05 logMAR)

Same facts should not be mentioned repeatedly in the abstract.

The following aspects should be rephrased:

- Similar complication rates <-- Rebubbling rates differ considerably (40% vs. 24%).

- “Better” spherical refraction in triple-DMEK <-- This results from different preconditions (Pre-DMEK Sph. Eq.: -0.13 vs. +0.23)

Preoperative examination

105 Why didn’t you use standard logMAR visual acuity charts (EDTRS), also for comparison with other studies

Surgical technique

154 Refractive target in triple-DMEK: "-"0.5? to -1.00

Statistical analyses

“All data were complete for each patient.” ?? “Fig. 1: 2 lost to follow up”

Mean+/-SD and Student’s t-test were used. How did you test for (and confirm) normal distribution?

Patient Selection

“Patients were excluded if the indication was not FECD and/or the patient had eye damage that could influence visual acuity…”

- 203 -212 Why did you include eyes with non-FECD and other pathologies (Fig.1: retinal detachment, AMD, vitreomacular traction,…) in the first place and excluded them afterwards?

Primary and secondary study outcomes

239 “triple-DMEK group tended to have a smaller residual hyperopia”

- But refractional target in triple-DMEK was -0.5 to -1.0 D and in the pseudophakic group preop. Sph. Eq. was already hyperopic (+0.23 D)

265 ”40% required one re-bubbling versus 24% for the pseudophakic-DMEK group (p=0.09)” - Please check significance.

Discussion

277-279 Rephrase statements regarding “the only” differences between both methods, hyperopia and rebubbling

318-319 “the greater ECL in triple DMEK may not have clinical consequences in the long term” – This sentence should be removed. See your findings: Triple-DMEK was associated with consistently lower ECD at 3, 6, 12 month and at 12 months, the mean ECL was 54% vs. 48% (236-238). The consequences of progredient cell loss (in total >1000 in the first 12 months) should not be underestimated.

330-331 Rebubbling rates (see above)

358-361 “Hyperopic differences” (see above)

374 Separate conclusion for study methods and discussion of a third approach

377 Complication rates (see above)

379-381 Repeated statement

Reviewer #2: Dear editor,

Dear authors,

thank you for inviting me to review this manuscript that analyzes outcomes in triple-DMEK and pseudophakic-DMEK based on 95 eyes.

Comments:

1 Line 56: “DMEK is the treatment of choice for FECD“. This does not apply in general: The latest 2019 Eye Banking Statistical Report of the United States of America indicates that DMEK has not yet surpassed DSEK (see: https://restoresight.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/2019-EBAA-Stat-Report-FINAL.pdf, page 7).

2 Line 63: “In 2016, 93% of all corneal transplants in the USA were conducted for FECD“. This is not true – then, there would be only 7% other corneal diseases requiring corneal transplantation in the United States for that year ... The 2016 Eye Banking Statistical Report of the United States of America reports that “Fuchs‘ dystrophy was the most common indication for keratoplasty again in 2016 (17,016, 23.3% (!)). (…) 93.1% of patients with Fuchs‘ dystrophy were treated with EK“. (see: http://restoresight.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/2016_Statistical_Report-Final-040717.pdf , page 10). The authors may would like to quote the original data from the Eye Banking Report which is freely available.

3 Lines 71: The reader would be interested in more details about these studies. How many patients were these studies based on ? How old were the patients ? Was the stage of FECD comparable in the different studies ?

4 Line 87: Typo clincaltrials.gov.

5 Line 106: I would suggest using “near visual acuity“ instead of “close visual acuity“.

6 Line 108: Which device was used for anterior segment imaging ?

7 Line 197: Were the groups examined for normal distribution before selecting the statistical test ?

8 Table 1: I do not understand the number of patients indicated under “female sex“ in the “Triple-DMEK“ group. The “Triple-DMEK“ group consisted of 34 patients. How can there be 37 patients with female sex in this group ? What do the percentages relate to ?

9 Line 329 and following: Rebubbling rates also depend on whether air or SF6-gas is used in DMEK procedure. Are the results based on air or gas tamponade ?

I hope my comments will help you to improve your manuscript.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

10 Mar 2022

Responses to reviewers

We would like to thank the reviewers very much for their thoughtful reviews of our manuscript and their helpful comments. We believe our paper is much improved after addressing these comments.

Reviewer #1:

The topic of this retrospective cohort study is of current interest.

Reply: Thank you.

Abstract

36-41 Separate preoperative and postoperative findings

Reply: We separated the preoperative and postoperative findings as follows:

“They also did not differ in final BSCVA (both 0.03 logMAR), final endothelial-cell loss (54% vs. 48%), or astigmatism (-1.25 vs. -1 D). At 12 months, triple-DMEK associated with significantly smaller residual hyperopia (0.75 vs. 1 D; p=0.04) and spherical equivalence (0 vs. 0.5 D; p=0.02).” (lines 38–41)

38 (0.05 "vs." 0.05 logMAR)

Reply: This was changed to:

“They also did not differ in final BSCVA (both 0.03 logMAR)” (line 38)

Same facts should not be mentioned repeatedly in the abstract.

The following aspects should be rephrased:

- Similar complication rates <-- Rebubbling rates differ considerably (40% vs. 24%).

Reply: To address these points, we changed the last sentences as follows:

“In conclusion, while triple-DMEK and pseudophakic-DMEK achieved similar visual acuity improvement, triple-DMEK was superior in terms of final spherical refraction but also tended to have higher complication rates.” (lines 42–45)

- “Better” spherical refraction in triple-DMEK <-- This results from different preconditions (Pre-DMEK Sph. Eq.: -0.13 vs. +0.23)

Reply: The triple-DMEK and pseudophakic-DMEK patients did not differ in terms of baseline spherical equivalent (p=0.31; Table 1).

Preoperative examination

105 Why didn’t you use standard logMAR visual acuity charts (EDTRS), also for comparison with other studies

Reply: It is standard practice in France to use the Monoyer scale. We convert the data into logMAR for statistical reasons.

Surgical technique

154 Refractive target in triple-DMEK: "-"0.5? to -1.00

Reply: Yes, it was a typo, -0.5 is correct. This change has been made. (line 155)

Statistical analyses

“All data were complete for each patient.” ?? “Fig. 1: 2 lost to follow up”

Reply: The inclusion criteria included patients who were followed up for at least 12 months. To make this point clearer, we changed the eligibility criteria as follows:

“The patient cohort consisted of all consecutive adult (≥18 years) patients with FECD and BSCVA ≤0.3 LogMAR who underwent triple-DMEK or pseudophakic-DMEK in January 2015–January 2019 in the Department of Ophthalmology of the Metz-Thionville Regional Hospital Center (Metz, France) and who were followed up for at least 12 months. Patients were excluded if the patient was lost to 12-month follow-up and/or the patient had eye damage that could influence visual acuity recovery” (lines 95–100)

We also changed a sentence in the Statistics section as follows:

“The data were complete for all patients included in the analysis.” (line 194)

Mean+/-SD and Student’s t-test were used. How did you test for (and confirm) normal distribution?

Reply: Thank you very much for this point. We apologize: due to several people working on the first draft simultaneously, we accidentally omitted to actually conduct the distribution analyses. In fact, all variables except for ECD are not normally distributed. We have repeated all analyses according to their distribution. The new results are shown in Tables 1 and 3 and Figure 2 and the corresponding changes have been made in the manuscript. There were no major changes except that the difference between the triple-DMEK and pseudophakic-DMEK groups in terms of 12-month Sphere is now statistically significant (0.75 vs. 1 D, p=0.04) (in the original paper, it was 0.84 vs. 1.37 D, p=0.06).

To address these changes, we altered some text in:

• The Abstract (lines 38–41)

• The Statistics section (lines 197–200)

• The Results (Tables 1 and 3, Figure 2, lines 221–222, 238–246)

• The Discussion (lines 282–284)

Patient Selection

“Patients were excluded if the indication was not FECD and/or the patient had eye damage that could influence visual acuity…”

- 203 -212 Why did you include eyes with non-FECD and other pathologies (Fig.1: retinal detachment, AMD, vitreomacular traction,…) in the first place and excluded them afterwards?

Reply: We deleted the non-FECD exclusion criterion. The eligibility criteria now read:

“The patient cohort consisted of all consecutive adult (≥18 years) patients with FECD and BSCVA ≤0.3 LogMAR who underwent triple-DMEK or pseudophakic-DMEK in January 2015–January 2019 in the Department of Ophthalmology of the Metz-Thionville Regional Hospital Center (Metz, France) and who were followed up for at least 12 months. Patients were excluded if the patient was lost to 12-month follow-up and/or the patient had eye damage that could influence visual acuity recovery” (lines 95–100)

Primary and secondary study outcomes

239 “triple-DMEK group tended to have a smaller residual hyperopia”

- But refractional target in triple-DMEK was -0.5 to -1.0 D and in the pseudophakic group preop. Sph. Eq. was already hyperopic (+0.23 D)

Reply: The difference between the triple-DMEK and pseudophakic-DMEK patients in terms of SE was not significant (p=0.31). The fact that pseudophakic-DMEK patients had worse SE than triple-DMEK patients after surgery (despite not differing significantly in baseline SE) is logical given that (i) DMEK is known to have a slight hypermetropizing effect and (ii) we can anticipate that in triple-DMEK and compensate for it during phacoemulsification, whereas we cannot compensate for it in patients who are already pseudophakic. This is the advantage of triple-DMEK over pseudophakic-DMEK.

To address this point, we added a further clarifying point to the Discussion text:

“The better spherical equivalence after triple-DMEK reflects the fact that by conducting phacoemulsification at the same time as DMEK, we can preventively correct the slight hypermetropization that is observed after DMEK (whereas we cannot do that in pseudophakic DMEK).” (lines 371–374)

265 ”40% required one re-bubbling versus 24% for the pseudophakic-DMEK group (p=0.09)” - Please check significance.

Reply: The p value is correct. It is possible that with a larger sample size, this p value would have become significant. To address this, we added the sentence to the Rebubbling section in the Discussion:

“We observed that triple-DMEK tended to associate with greater rebubbling rates than pseudophakic-DMEK (40% vs. 24%; p=0.09). It is possible that with a larger sample size, this value would have become significant.” (lines 334–336)

Discussion

277-279 Rephrase statements regarding “the only” differences between both methods, hyperopia and rebubbling

Reply: The text was rephrased as follows:

“However, the triple-DMEK group had significantly smaller residual hyperopia (p=0.04) and spherical equivalent (p=0.02) and a tendency to more frequent rebubbling (p=0.09).” (lines 282–284)

318-319 “the greater ECL in triple DMEK may not have clinical consequences in the long term” – This sentence should be removed. See your findings: Triple-DMEK was associated with consistently lower ECD at 3, 6, 12 month and at 12 months, the mean ECL was 54% vs. 48% (236-238). The consequences of progredient cell loss (in total >1000 in the first 12 months) should not be underestimated.

Reply: Indeed, this endothelial cell loss can be harmful in the long term and should not be underestimated. The sentence was deleted. We also added the following sentence to the Conclusions:

“Evaluation of the long-term consequences of triple-DMEK may be needed to ensure its relative safety.” (lines 384–385)

330-331 Rebubbling rates (see above)

Reply: The p value is correct. It is possible that with a larger sample size, this p value would have become significant. To address this, we added the sentence to the Rebubbling section in the Discussion:

“We observed that triple-DMEK tended to associate with greater rebubbling rates than pseudophakic-DMEK (40% vs. 24%; p=0.09). It is possible that with a larger sample size, this value would have become significant.” (lines 334–336)

358-361 “Hyperopic differences” (see above)

Reply: The difference between the triple-DMEK and pseudophakic-DMEK patients in terms of SE was not significant (p=0.31). The fact that pseudophakic-DMEK patients had worse SE than triple-DMEK patients after surgery (despite not differing significantly in baseline SE) is logical given that (i) DMEK is known to have a slight hypermetropizing effect and (ii) we can anticipate that in triple-DMEK and compensate for it during phacoemulsification, whereas we cannot compensate for it in patients who are already pseudophakic. This is the advantage of triple-DMEK over pseudophakic-DMEK.

To address this point, we added a further clarifying point to the Discussion text:

“The better spherical equivalence after triple-DMEK reflects the fact that by conducting phacoemulsification at the same time as DMEK, we can preventively correct the slight hypermetropization that is observed after DMEK (whereas we cannot do that in pseudophakic DMEK).” (lines 371–374)

374 Separate conclusion for study methods and discussion of a third approach

Reply: To address this point, we created two sections called “Overall study conclusions” and “Discussion of a recent third approach (DMEK in phakic patients)” (lines 380 and 389)

377 Complication rates (see above)

Reply: We deleted “and similarly low complication rates”.

379-381 Repeated statement

Reply: We changed the text as follows:

“In our study, triple-DMEK and pseudophakic-DMEK both associated with marked improvements in postoperative visual acuity. Triple-DMEK associated with significantly better final spherical refractive outcomes, although it also tended to induce more rebubbling and ECL. Evaluation of the long-term consequences of triple-DMEK may be needed to ensure its relative safety. Nonetheless, our findings are important because combining phacoemulsification with DMEK prophylactically prevents progression of corneal impairment and eliminates a second surgery, thus reducing surgical risk [32]. It is also more cost-effective for the patient [32,34,35].” (lines 381–387)

Reviewer #2:

Dear editor,

Dear authors,

thank you for inviting me to review this manuscript that analyzes outcomes in triple-DMEK and pseudophakic-DMEK based on 95 eyes.

Comments:

1 Line 56: “DMEK is the treatment of choice for FECD“. This does not apply in general: The latest 2019 Eye Banking Statistical Report of the United States of America indicates that DMEK has not yet surpassed DSEK (see: https://restoresight.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/2019-EBAA-Stat-Report-FINAL.pdf, page 7).

Reply: We agree. Because DMEK is more difficult to perform, DSAEK is most often used globally to treat FECD. We qualified the sentence as follows:

“Although DMEK is more difficult to perform than DSAEK, it is often the treatment of choice for FECD [1,11,12] because it associates with better recovery, postoperative best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) [12-14], contrast [15,16], immune rejection [17,18], patient satisfaction [12,19,20], and final posterior residual corneal higher-order aberrations [21].” (lines 56–60)

2 Line 63: “In 2016, 93% of all corneal transplants in the USA were conducted for FECD“. This is not true – then, there would be only 7% other corneal diseases requiring corneal transplantation in the United States for that year ... The 2016 Eye Banking Statistical Report of the United States of America reports that “Fuchs‘ dystrophy was the most common indication for keratoplasty again in 2016 (17,016, 23.3% (!)). (…) 93.1% of patients with Fuchs‘ dystrophy were treated with EK“. (see: http://restoresight.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/2016_Statistical_Report-Final-040717.pdf , page 10). The authors may would like to quote the original data from the Eye Banking Report which is freely available.

Reply: We apologize, it was a typo. The text was changed as follows:

“FECD is the most common corneal dystrophy: in 2016, it accounted for 23% of all corneal transplants in the USA” (line 64)

3 Lines 71: The reader would be interested in more details about these studies. How many patients were these studies based on ? How old were the patients ? Was the stage of FECD comparable in the different studies ?

Reply: We showed these details in a new table designated as Supplementary Table S1.

4 Line 87: Typo clincaltrials.gov.

Reply: The typo was fixed. (line 88)

5 Line 106: I would suggest using “near visual acuity“ instead of “close visual acuity“.

Reply: This change was made. (line 107)

6 Line 108: Which device was used for anterior segment imaging ?

Reply: The RS-3000 OCT RetinaScan advance NIDEK, Co., Ltd. This was added to the manuscript. (lines 108–109).

7 Line 197: Were the groups examined for normal distribution before selecting the statistical test ?

Reply: Thank you very much for this point. We apologize: due to several people working on the first draft simultaneously, we accidentally omitted to actually conduct the distribution analyses. In fact, all variables except for ECD are not normally distributed. We have repeated all analyses according to their distribution. The new results are shown in Tables 1 and 3 and Figure 2 and the corresponding changes have been made in the manuscript. There were no major changes except that the difference between the triple-DMEK and pseudophakic-DMEK groups in terms of 12-month Sphere is now statistically significant (0.75 vs. 1 D, p=0.04) (in the original paper, it was 0.84 vs. 1.37 D, p=0.06).

To address these changes, we altered some text in:

• The Abstract (lines 38–41)

• The Statistics section (lines 197–200)

• The Results (Tables 1 and 3, Figure 2, lines 221–222, 238–246)

• The Discussion (lines 282–284)

8 Table 1: I do not understand the number of patients indicated under “female sex“ in the “Triple-DMEK“ group. The “Triple-DMEK“ group consisted of 34 patients. How can there be 37 patients with female sex in this group ? What do the percentages relate to ?

Reply: We apologize, the numbers were accidentally reversed. Women accounted for 27 of the 34 triple DMEK patients (79%) and 37 of the 43 pseudophakic-DMEK patients (86%). Table 1 has been altered to reflect this.

9 Line 329 and following: Rebubbling rates also depend on whether air or SF6-gas is used in DMEK procedure. Are the results based on air or gas tamponade ?

Reply: We used air tamponade for all cases in this series (we have since switched to SF6). This point was added to the Methods:

“If central graft detachment was observed or more than a third of the graft had detached, rebubbling with an air tamponade was performed” (lines 172–175)

I hope my comments will help you to improve your manuscript.

Reply: Thank you very much for your thorough review of our manuscript, your comments have improved it significantly.

Submitted filename: Responses to reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

6 Apr 2022

8 Apr 2022

Reply to Reviewer

Reviewer #2: The authors have revised their manuscript according to the reviewers' suggestions.

However, a minor issue needs to be resolved:

The data shown in Table 1 does not correspond to the data about their own study (!) as shown in Supplemental Table S1.

Mean age of patients in the study is stated to be 70 (Triple DMEK) and 72 (Pseudophakic-DMEK) in table 1.

Supplemental Table S1 states "72 vs. 69".

Same for the number of patients (55(43) vs. 40(34) in table 1 and 55(43) vs. 34(40) in supplemental table S1).

Same for female sex (79% and 86% in table 1 versus 68% and 67% in supplemental table S1).

Same for BSCVA (0.50 in table 1 and 0.63/0.59 in supplemental table S1).

Actually, proofreading and noticing of such errors should be done by the authors themselves !

Reply: We sincerely apologize for this error and are grateful that you picked it up. The previous review identified errors in Table 1 that we corrected but then we overlooked correcting the data in Supplementary Table S1 as well. These corrections have been made.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewer.docx

Click here for additional data file.

20 Apr 2022

Comparison of triple-DMEK to pseudophakic-DMEK: a cohort study of 95 eyes

PONE-D-21-32369R2

Dear Dr. Perone,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Timo Eppig

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

26 Apr 2022

PONE-D-21-32369R2

Comparison of triple-DMEK to pseudophakic-DMEK: a cohort study of 95 eyes

Dear Dr. Perone:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Timo Eppig

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE