Responses

PDF
Outcomes of penetrating keratoplasty in congenital hereditary endothelial dystrophy
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]
Publication Date - String

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Outcomes of penetrating keratoplasty in congenital hereditary endothelial dystrophy
    • Ajit Kumar, Cornea Fellow C L Gupta Eye Institute
    • Other Contributors:
      • Ashi Khurana, Cornea Consultant
      • Madhusmita Das, Cornea Consultant

    Dear Editor,
    We have read with interest the recently published article by Al Arrayedh H, Collum L, Murphy CC (1). The authors concluded that a poor outcome was seen after PKP for CHED in Irish population, which arises from a combination of dense amblyopia and a high risk of graft failure in the long term. This is an important study which has a unique cohort of only autosomal recessive cases from a large Irish consanguineous family.
    We want to highlight some points in this article that were not clearly described .
    Author reported 2 previously diagnosed congenital glaucoma cases, which also affects the visual outcome of the surgery and may skew results of this study. But they had not mentioned clearly about this.
    In the figure 2 , the failed DSEK case also received regrafting twice but that was not shown in the legend.Also 32 eyes received penetrating keratoplasty as per the text but in that figure , 33 was mentioned.
    In some previous studies 12 years of age (2,3) has been mentioned as the demarcation for outcome of penetrating keratoplasty in congenital hereditary endothelial dystrophy . This was not analysed in this very important study (maybe because of small numbers) but it could have been a useful clinical hint for timing of surgery in these patients.

    Thanks

    1. AlArrayedh H, Collum L, Murphy CC. Outcomes of penetrating keratoplasty in congenital hereditary endothelial dystrophy. Br J Ophthalmol. 2018 Jan;102(1):19-25
    ...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.