Responses

Download PDFPDF
Prevalence of guttae in the graft following corneal transplantation
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:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses [https://authors.bmj.com/after-submitting/rapid-responses/].
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses [https://www.bmj.com/company/journals-terms-and-conditions-for-rapid-responses/] and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice [https://www.bmj.com/company/your-privacy/].
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Preoperative guttae screening of the donor corneas
    • Tarek Safi, Ophthalmology resident Department of Ophthalmology, Saarland University Medical Center, Homburg, Germany
    • Other Contributors:
      • Loay Daas, Senior attending Ophthalmologist
      • Berthold Seitz, professor and director of the Department of Ophthalmology

    We read with great interest the article entitled ‘Prevalence of guttae in the graft following corneal transplantation’ by Nahum et al, published in the May 2015 issue of the British Journal of Ophthalmology [1] . The authors reported the prevalence of cornea guttata postkeratoplasty in a large population of 1116 patients to be 4%. They also found that guttae postkeratoplasty do not negatively affect the visual acuity, endothelial cell density, or graft survival during the initial two postoperative years. The content of this article is important and well put, since this is the first study to reveal the prevalence and sequelae of postkeratoplasty guttae on the corneal graft.

    Based on our clinical experience and on multiple published studies, the prevalence of cornea guttata in the normal population is estimated to be higher than 4% [2]. However, the low prevalence reached by Nahum et al, is explained mainly by the preoperative screening of the donor corneas for guttae, as stated in the article. Therefore, it would be very interesting if the authors can provide an estimation of the percentage of donor corneas that are usually discarded by the guttae screening in their eye bank.

    Up to our knowledge, guttae are very often not detectable using inverted light microscopy, thus guttae screening as a part of the routine examination of the donor corneas is a challenging task. There is only one study performed by Borderie et al in 2001 [3], that aimed to detect the pres...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.