Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Nov 28;18(11):e0294756. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0294756

Clinical outcomes of corneal neurotization using sural nerve graft in neurotrophic keratopathy

Manu Saini 1,#, Aman Kalia 1,#, Arun K Jain 1,*, Sunil Gaba 2,#, Chintan Malhotra 1,, Amit Gupta 1,, Tanvi Soni 1,, Kulbhushan Saini 3,, Parul Chawla Gupta 1,, Manpreet Singh 1,
Editor: Bhavana Sharma4
PMCID: PMC10684005  PMID: 38015881

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy of corneal neurotisation using sural nerve graft coaptation of the contralateral supratrochlear nerve in unilateral neurotrophic keratopathy and corneal anesthesia. Corneal neuralization has emerged as a potential option in the treatment of neurotropic keratopathy, however not free from the predicament. We evaluated the long-term outcome of corneal neurotisation in the treatment of unresponsive unilateral neurotropic keratopathy using surgical variations to mimic and expedient the surgical procedure.

Methods

A Prospective interventional study involving patients with unilateral neurotrophic keratopathy (NK) who did not respond to medical measures was conducted. The study parameters evaluated were best-corrected visual acuity improvement, ocular surface evaluation parameters [tear break-up time (TBUT), Schirmer’s 1, and ocular surface staining scores (corneal and conjunctival staining)], central corneal sensation (Cochet Bonnet esthesiometer), sub-basal nerve fiber length (SBNFL), and sub-basal nerve fiber density (SBNFD) determined by central confocal microscopy at recruitment and during follow-up at 1-month, 3-month, 6-month, 9-month and 12-month respectively, following corneal neurotization.

Results

Eleven eyes of 11 patients with unilateral neurotrophic keratopathy (NK) who underwent corneal neurotisation were studied. The mean follow-up was 10.09±2.31months (range, 6–12). Mean best corrected visual acuity in log MAR at baseline, 1.35±0.52 improved significantly to 1.06±0.76 (P = 0.012) at 3 months and continued to 0.55±0.60 (P = 0.027) at 12 months. There was a significant reduction in NK grade severity and improvement in the ocular surface as early as 1 month, and central corneal sensations (P = 0.024) as soon as 3 months. Mean corneal SBNF improved from 3.12±1.84 mm/mm2 to 4.49±1.88 at 1 month (P = 0.008), 13.31±3.61 mm/mm2 (P = 0.028) at 12 months. Mean central corneal SBNFD evident at 6 months was 1.83±2.54no/mm2 (P = 0.018) and 4.90±3.12no/mm2 (P = 0.028) at 12 months.

Conclusion

This study substantiates the routine practice of corneal neurotisation by simplifying the intricacies observed during the procedure.

Introduction

Neurotrophic keratopathy (NK) is a degenerative corneal condition that originates from damage to the trigeminal innervation and serves as an integral component of ocular surface homeostasis, blink reflex, corneal wound healing, tear production, and normal limbal stem cell function [1, 2]. Sensory nerves secrete many neuropeptides, such as substance P, calcitonin gene-related peptide, and cholecystokinin, which are involved in trophic effects and their depletion induced by capsaicin, on culture in new-born mice evidenced neuroparalytic-like corneal alterations [3]. Human corneal epithelial cells and keratocytes influence the survival, differentiation, and maturation of nerve fibers by releasing neuropeptides, neurotrophins, and growth factors such as nerve growth factors. This symbiotic relationship is essential to maintain the integrity and function of the ocular surface, therefore, it is imperative to restore the corneal sensation [4].

Neurotrophic keratopathy is the most intricate corneal condition that involves a stepwise therapeutic approach guided by the severity of the disease. All conventional measures are aimed at protecting the corneal surface and averting its epithelial breakdown [5]. Recombinant nerve growth factor (Cenegermin, Dompè Farmaceutici, Milan, Italy) emerges as much greeted advent in the management of NK and bestows a paradigm shift in medical management by addressing the root pathology [6]. However, its efficacy in clinical trials [7, 8], high costs, inability to address the underlying absence of corneal innervation and subsequent perpetuation of progressive vision loss confine its widespread use in routine clinical practice. Therefore, Corneal neurotization (CN) has evolved as a potential therapeutic surgical technique, being able to re-establish the corneal sensation and reverse corneal alteration by providing a functional source of innervation [9]. This can be done directly by transposing the adjacent healthy nerve or indirectly by using nerve grafts coapted to the healthy donor nerve [10, 11]. Both surgical techniques were attributed to the improvement in corneal sensations, notably 80% for direct and 83.3% success rate for indirect CN at one year [12].

However, there are clinical questions to ponder, especially in the context of longer surgical duration, intricacies, multidisciplinary team involvement, and infrastructure facilities that preclude its frequent acceptance in routine practice. Hence, it provides a great impetus to appraise the outcomes of corneal neurotisation in therapeutically non-responding unilateral NK. Because of the heterogeneous etiology of NK in the recruited eyes, we preferred sural nerve graft coaptation to the contralateral supratrochlear nerve acting as a donor nerve to avoid the use of a possibly involved ipsilateral donor nerve.

Methods

Study design and participants

A prospective interventional Corneal neurotization study using sural nerve graft coaptation to the contralateral supratrochlear nerve in 11 eyes of 11 patients with unilateral neurotrophic keratopathy, non-responding to the medical measures was performed. The patients were recruited from the period February 2021 to December 2021 from the cornea clinic and followed from February 2021 to June 2022. The study conforms to the principles of the Helsinki Declaration and has received approval from the Institute Ethics Committee at the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, dated January 25,2021, with approval number INT/IEC/2021/SPL-161. The authors also confirm that the study has been registered under Clinical Trial Registry, India with Reference no- CTRI/2021/10/037280. Neurotrophic keratopathy that was caused by viral keratitis, impairment of the trigeminal nerve following intracranial space-occupying lesions such as acoustic neuroma, the damaged ophthalmic branch of the trigeminal nerve following neurosurgical events in patients with age more than 18 years and willingness to follow up were enrolled in the study. All the recruited eyes were on preservative-free artificial tears in the form of drops and ointment at all stages of disease severity for at least 6 months before enrolment. In addition, systemic oral tetracycline in a dose of 100mg BD for two weeks was considered initially at diagnosis for stage 2 and 3 NK grades before proclaiming them medically non-respondent eyes. The use of topical antibiotic eye drops to prevent infection at NK grades 2 and 3 was considered intermittently. In the case of herpes etiology NK, patients did not have a recurrence in the past six months, before enrolment.

Eyes with associated lid malposition, prior corneal surgery, history of diabetes, leprosy or peripheral neuropathy and incomplete follow-up were excluded.

Demographic data comprises age, gender, the affected eye, diagnostic aetiology and duration of the disease recorded. Comprehensive ocular examination was performed in all the recruited eyes including best-corrected Snellen’s visual acuity, slit lamp biomicroscopic examination of the ocular adnexa, anterior segment evaluation and posterior segment examination using +90Dioptre lens or B scan ultrasound in the presence of media haze obscuring posterior segment visualization. Schirmer’s 1 test [13] for tear production, fluorescein tear break-up time {TBUT} [13] for tear film stability, National Eye Institute ocular surface staining scores [13] of cornea and conjunctiva describing ocular surface impairment and neurotrophic keratopathy grade determined by Mickie’s classification [14] were recorded. The flowchart of the study was shown in Fig 1.

Fig 1. Flowchart of enrolled eyes.

Fig 1

Flowchart of patients recruitment, follow-up and analysis who underwent corneal neurotization using sural nerve graft coaptation to the contralateral supratrochlear nerve in unilateral neurotrophic keratopathy, non-responding to the medical measures.

Corneal sensation measurement

The central and peripheral (superior, inferior, nasal, and temporal) corneal sensation thresholds were evaluated using a Cochet Bonnet Aesthesiometer (CBA; Luneau, Paris, France) by direct contact, which stimulates the corneal nerves. The longest filament (6 cm; 0.12 mm diameter) corresponding to the lowest threshold was applied gently against the anterior corneal surface. Continual stimulation was provided by reducing the filament length in 0.5 mm steps until the stimulus was felt. The corneal sensation threshold recorded was the measured filament length (cm), which provided a 50% positive response from four stimuli presentations [15].

Central corneal in vivo scanning slit confocal microscopy analysis

Confocal microscopy was performed in all eyes using the Heidelberg Retinal Tomograph with a Rostock corneal module (HRT3-RCM, Dossenhein, Germany). Central corneal images were obtained in manual gain mode using the standard setting of a 63X objective lens, utilizing a 670 nm red wavelength helium-neon diode laser as an illumination source. The three best images for each eye were selected for the analysis. Among the selected images, the best one, comprising the maximum number of nerves at the subbasal plexus level, was designated for analysis.

The subbasal nerve fiber layer was characterized by unmyelinated nerve fiber bundles consisting of straight and beaded fibers that course in the basal aspect of the basal epithelial cell layer on confocal microscopy. Subbasal nerve fiber length (SBNFL) image analysis was performed using freely downloadable ACC Metrics software(https://weillcornell.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_6o2ji0suM4jQinb). ACC Metrics V.2 automatically analyzed the central confocal microscopy images with a field of view of 400×400 mm² obtained using the Heidelberg HRT III corneal confocal microscope and quantified the nerve fiber measurements, namely subbasal nerve fiber density (the total number of major nerves per millimeter squared of corneal tissue) and subbasal nerve fiber length (the total length of all nerve fibers and branches within the area of corneal tissue) from single or multiple corneal confocal microscopy images.

Surgical procedure

The sural nerve, acting as an interpositional graft, was used for corneal neurotization, as described by Elbaz et al [10]. in all recruited eyes with unilateral NK. A Multidisciplinary team of a plastic surgeon (SG) and ophthalmologist (MS) performed the procedure in all recruited eyes (Fig 2). A longitudinal incision was made approximately 2 cm posterior and 2–3 cm proximal to the lateral malleolus to identify the sural nerve where significant branching of the nerve was not anticipated. The nerve was traced upward to obtain the desired length of 10–12 cm. Fascicles were separated by blunt dissection for a short distance at the distal end by creating a window in the epineurium, keeping the nerve under gentle traction and in the attached position itself. Fascicle separation before severing the sural nerve is infrequently performed. This facilitates smooth separation, mitigates possible collateral damage, and saves surgical time. The desired length of the sural nerve was cut at the proximal and distal ends and placed on a moist gauze piece.

Fig 2. Surgical steps of corneal neurotization.

Fig 2

(A) Identification and exposure of sural nerve, (B) Desired length of 10-12cm of the sural nerve was traced distally. (C) Careful fascicle separation through the epineurium window at the distal end. (D) Donor supra-trochlear nerve identification, (E) Reverse sural nerve tunnelling across the nasal bridge and (F) courses through sub-brow blepharotomy incision. (G) Fine segregation and recognition of separated fascicles under a microscope. (H) Secure individual fascicle sub-conjunctively at the perilimbal region, (I) End-to-side Coaptation of donor supra-trochlear nerve to inter-positional sural nerve graft.

At the same time, the supratrochlear nerve acting as the donor’s nerve was accessed on the unaffected side using a transverse sub-brow incision extending at the level of the medial canthus to the medial limbus. The supratrochlear nerve passes beneath, and medial to, the supraorbital notch. It was accessed by tracing its branches to the confluence point, and the dissection was directed downwards at the periosteum and towards the medial canthus to expedite its consolidated identification and confirmed by neurovascular bundle visualization. Fascicle separation of the graft and consolidated identification of the donor supratrochlear nerve was the most time-consuming steps of the corneal neurotization procedure and were hastened by the above-mentioned practice.

The reversed sural nerve was then tunnelled over the nasal bridge to the affected side and coursed through a sub-brow incision into the superior conjunctival fornix onto the bulbar conjunctiva. The epineurium at the distal end of the sural nerve was separated under a microscope with fine dissection, and the separated fascicles were identified. Five segregated fascicles were secured using 10–0 nylon and fibrin glue at the limbus by passing through the subconjunctival space. End-to-side coaptation of the sural nerve graft with the donor supratrochlear nerve was achieved by creating an epineural window on the supratrochlear nerve and secured with fibrin glue and 10–0 nylon sutures. The skin was closed using interrupted 6–0 silk sutures. Postoperative systemic antibiotics for seven days, topical steroid drops in the tapering dose, topical antibiotics, lubricating eye drops, and ointment were prescribed for 6 weeks in all recruited eyes with an antiviral drug in therapeutic dose till the patient was on the topical steroids (6weeks), followed by prophylactic antiviral dose for a period of total six months was prescribed to prevent reactivation of viral keratitis in viral etiology NK.

Follow-up visits

All data were recorded by a blinded evaluator using a predesigned proforma, who did not have access to identifying the recruited participants and patients were called for their follow-up visits at 1 week, 1 month, 3-month, 6-month, 9-month and 12-month. At each follow-up, best-corrected visual acuity, ocular surface evaluation [Tear film break up time (TBUT), Schirmer I test, and ocular surface staining score], corneal clarity as per Mackie’s classification of neurotrophic keratopathy, central and four peripheral corneal sensations, and in vivo scanning slit confocal microscopy of the central cornea were measured as primary outcomes. The post-operative results will be compared with the non-affected (normal) eye to determine how much normalization has been achieved by performing the procedure. Any complications related to the intervention or surgical procedure in the recruited eyes were noted as the secondary outcomes.

Statistical analysis

Sample size

Eleven patients of unilateral neurotropic keratopathy were determined for the study based on 1.6/10,000 prevalence of NK from the epidemiological data on conditions associated with NK- herpetic keratitis and post-surgical procedures [14]. 10% margin of error was preferred for sample calculation.

The following formula was used for the sample size calculation n = N*X / (X + N– 1), where, X = Zα/22 *p*(1-p) / MOE2, and Zα/2 is the critical value of the normal distribution at α/2 (e.g. for a confidence level of 99%, and α is 0.0), MOE is the margin of error, p is the sample proportion, and N is the population size

Quantitative variables are expressed as mean ± SD. Our data did not exhibit a normal distribution as assessed by the Shapiro–Wilk test, therefore non-parametric tests were performed for analysis. Ocular surface evaluation parameters comprising BCVA, TBUT, Schirmer’s 1, corneal, conjunctival staining scores and NK grade were analysed and compared at defined follow-up using the Wilcoxon signed ranks test. Similarly, corneal sensation and subbasal nerve plexus improvement after surgical intervention were compared with preoperative data at the destined follow-up, using Wilcoxon signed ranks test. Spearman’s rho correlation coefficient measure was used to assess the correlation between age/duration and corneal sensation/SBNF plexus. Central corneal sensation and SBNFD appraisal at 6 months based on etiology and NK severity grade were determined using the Mann-Whitney U test. The SPSS version 20 program (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, US) was used for statistical analysis, with significance set at p<0.05.

Results

The demographic and clinical data of the 11 patients included in this study are shown in Table 1. The average duration of the underlying disease was 2.64±0.67 years (range, 2–4 years). There were six patients (54.54%) with NK stage II and five (45.5%) with NK stage III. All patients (100%) had completed a 6-month follow-up, 9/11(81.81%) had completed 9 months, and 6/11 (54.54%) had completed a 12-month follow-up visit following the procedure.

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the eyes with neurotrophic keratopathy, underwent corneal neurotization using sural nerve graft in the study.

Demographic data Neurotrophic keratopathy eyes
No of eyes 11
Gender (M/F) 7/4 (63.6%/36.4%)
Age mean±SD, (range) 44.55±21.38, (25-74years)
Affected eye
 Right eye 8 (72.7%)
 Left eye 3 (27.3%)
Diagnosis/NK grade [mean±SD]
 HSV 6 (54.5%) [2.5±0.5]
 HZO 1 (9.1%) [1±0]
 Facial nerve palsy 4 (36.4%) [2.75±0.433]
NK grade
 Grade 1 0
 Grade 2 6 (54.54%)
 Grade 3 5 (45.5%)
Duration of aetiology
mean±SD, (range)
2.64±0.67, (2–4 years)

Data are presented as no. (%) or mean ± standard deviation unless otherwise indicated

Ocular surface parameters comprising TBUT, Schirmer’s 1 test, and corneal and conjunctival staining scores showed statistically significant improvement after the surgical intervention, notably as early as 1 month, and over each follow-up visit (Table 2). The recuperation was subsequently associated with a significant reduction in NK grade severity. Healing of the ocular surface emulated a significant improvement in best-corrected visual acuity from 1.35±0.52 (baseline) to 1.06±0.76 at 3 months (P = 0.012). Significant improvement was observed at each sequential follow-up until the last visit (Table 2).

Table 2. Result of ocular surface evaluation tests (mean±SD) following corneal neurotization using sural nerve graft in eyes with neurotrophic keratopathy.

Outcomes No of eyes BCVA TBUT (s) Schirmer’s 1 test (mm) Cornea staining scores Conjunctival staining scores NK grade
Pre-operative 11 1.35±0.52 3.00±1.94 5.45±3.35 8.18±2.44 6.64±2.54 2.45±0.522
Post-operative
 1-month 11 1.22±0.68 4.55±2.42 7.36±3.72 7.18±2.99 5.09±2.21 2.36±0.50
 3-month 11 1.06±0.76 5.36±2.42 8.27±3.69 3.73±2.00 2.18±1.16 1.64±0.80
 6-month 11 1.03±0.76 6.18±2.71 9.00±3.46 1.91±1.37 0.91±0.70 1.64±0.92
 9-month 9 0.94±0.76 7.44±2.65 10.11±3.72 1.33±1.32 0.67±0.50 1.44±0.52
 1year 6 0.55±0.60 9.50±2.81 12.83±3.92 0.50±0.54 0.33±0.51 1.00±0.63
P-value 0.030 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
 Pre vs 1-month 0.172 0.007 0.017 0.016 0.011 0.317
 Pre vs 3-month 0.012 0.012 0.016 0.003 0.003 0.007
 Pre vs 6-month 0.012 0.005 0.005 0.003 0.003 0.007
 Pre vs 9-month 0.017 0.007 0.012 0.008 0.007 0.003
 Pre vs 1 year 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.026 0.027 0.020

Upon further analysis of the enrolled patients who completed 12 months of follow-up, two patients (33.33%) attained 20/20 Snellen’s visual acuity, as shown in Figs 3 and 4.

Fig 3. Slit lamp photograph of the cornea, before and after corneal neurotization at sequential follow-up.

Fig 3

(A) Pre-operative clinical photograph showing NK grade 2 with inferior epithelial defect (arrow) and stromal oedema because of trigeminal and facial nerve involvement following brain tumour surgery. (B) One month postoperative photograph showed a marked reduction in epithelial defect and stromal oedema. (C) The six-month postoperative photograph revealed an increase in optical clarity with (D) Snellen best corrected visual acuity 20/20 at the 12-month follow-up.

Fig 4. Representative slit lamp photograph of NK grade 2 owing to herpes simplex infection.

Fig 4

(A) Pre-operative clinical photograph demonstrating stromal haze and oedema at baseline. (B) One month postoperative photograph showed a significant reduction in stromal oedema and haze. (C) Six-month clinical photograph represents an escalation in corneal transparency and (D) achievement of 20/20 Snellen’s best-corrected vision at 12 months postoperative.

Improvement in corneal sensation was statistically significant in all quadrants compared to preoperative value at follow-up visits that continued 1 year (P<0.05) (Table 3). It was demonstrated earliest in 8/11 (72.72%) patients at the 3-month follow-up and in 9/11 (81.81%) patients at the 6-month follow-up. However, two patients who had completed a 6-month follow-up failed to express improvement in corneal sensation.

Table 3. Clinical outcome of corneal neurotization [Mean±SD/Median (IQR)] on central and peripheral corneal sensation and central corneal sub-basal nerve fibre plexus in eyes with neurotrophic keratopathy.

Outcomes No of eyes CORNEAL SENSATIONS SBNFD no/mm2 SBNFL mm/mm2
Central Superior Inferior Nasal Temporal
Pre-operative 11 0.045±0.15 0.045±0.15 0.091±0.20 0.045±0.15 0.045±0.15 0.00±0.00 3.12±1.84
Median (IQR) 0.00 (0.00–0.00) 0.00 (0.00–0.00) 0.00 (0.00–0.00) 0.00 (0.00–0.00) 0.00 (0.00–0.00) 0.00 (0.00–0.00) 2.79(2.00–4.53)
Post-operative
 1-month 11 0.045±0.15 0.045±0.15 0.091±0.20 0.091±0.20 0.045±0.15 0.00±0.00 4.49±1.88
Median (IQR) 0.00 (0.00–0.00) 0.00 (0.00–0.00) 0.00 (0.00–0.00) 0.00 (0.00–0.00) 0.00 (0.00–0.00) 0.00 (0.00–0.00) 4.48(2.81–6.24)
 3-month 11 0.59±0.86 0.63±0.83 0.81±1.12 0.81±1.14 0.95±1.31 0.58±1.64 6.26±2.58
Median (IQR) 0.50 (0.00–0.50) 0.50 (0.00–0.50) 0.50(0.00–1.00) 0.50 (0.00–1.00) 0.50 (0.00–1.00) 0.00 (0.00–0.00) 5.63 (4.00–8.23)
 6-month 11 1.09±1.48 1.54±1.54 1.50±1.56 1.50±1.48 1.72±1.61 1.83±2.54 7.82±3.29
Median (IQR) 0.50 (0.00–1.00) 1.00 (0.50–3.00) 0.50 (0.50–3.00) 1.00 (0.50–3.00) 1.00 (0.50–4.00) 0.59 (0.00–4.23) 6.93 (5.16–9.34)
 9-month 9 1.33±1.58 1.94±1.62 1.94±1.62 1.88±1.70 2.11±1.85 2.59±2.92 9.41±3.13
Median (IQR) 0.50 (0.25–2.75) 2.00 (0.50–3.75) 2.00 (0.50–3.75) 1.50 (0.50–3.75) 2.00 (0.50–4.25) 1.37 (0.00–5.90) 10.03 (6.72–12.18)
 1-year 6 1.25±1.57 3.16±1.66 3.33±1.80 3.41±1.65 3.41±1.65 4.90±3.12 13.31±3.61
Median (IQR) 2.25 (0.50–4.00) 3.25 (2.00–4.62) 3.50 (2.00–5.00) 3.50 (2.12–5.00) 3.50 (2.12–5.00) 4.63 (1.93–8.11) 13.94 (10.22–15.98)
P-value 0.029 0.007 0.009 0.009 0.007 0.025 0.001
 Pre vs 1-month 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.564 1.000 1.000 0.008
 Pre vs 3-month 0.024 0.014 0.026 0.016 0.016 0.180 0.003
 Pre vs 6-month 0.018 0.011 0.011 0.007 0.007 0.018 0.003
 Pre vs 9-month 0.017 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.028 0.008
 Pre vs 1 year 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.028 0.028

*IQR- Interquartile range

Preoperatively, in all the recruited eyes subbasal nerve fiber density was not appreciated and therefore unable to calculate, however, the baseline SBNFL 3.12±1.84 was calculated. The values of SBNFL≤ 14.4mm/mm2 and SBNFD ≤ 14.7 no/mm2, calculated using ACC Metrics V.2 software, were considered abnormal [16]. Patients who had completed the 1-year follow-up showed a significant increase in SBNFD (P = 0.028) and SBNFL (P = 0.028). Moreover, the earliest significant improvement in SBNFD (P = 0.018) was detected at the 6-month follow-up in the 7/11 patients (63.63%). Nevertheless, the most significant increase in SBNFL (P = 0.00) was observed at the 1-month follow-up in 9/11 patients (81.81%) (Table 3). The 95% confidence interval (lower limit, upper limit) for SBNFD, SBNFL, central corneal sensation and an average of peripheral corneal sensation at 6 months were (0.12,3.53); (5.61,10.04); (0.09, 2.08); (0.52, 2.59),respectively, and at one year follow up were (1.62,8.17); (9.52,17.09); (-0.39, 2.89); (1.67,5.14), respectively. SBNFD and central corneal sensation in the fellow eyes of enrolled 11 patients were, expressed as mean±SD; median(IQR)- 19.18±6.08;16(16–21) and 5.91±0.30;6 (6–6), respectively. Following corneal neurotization in the affected eyes, there was a statistically significant improvement in SBNFD (p = 0.003) and central corneal sensation (p = 0.003) at 6 months compared with the fellow normal eyes assessed by Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test.

There was no association between the age of the patient and the duration of the disease with the recovery of corneal sensation and SBNFD (Table 4). On further evaluating the outcomes of corneal neurotization based on preoperative etiology, no significant difference was observed in central corneal sensation improvement (p = 1.000) and increment in SBNFD (p = 0.699) at 6 months. However, corneal sensation recovery observed was significantly better (p = 0.028) in eyes with NK grade 2 compared with NK grade 3, nonetheless, SBNFD was inconsequential (p = 0.575) in the two groups based on disease severity (Table 5).

Table 4. Correlation of age and duration with central corneal sensation and subbasal nerve fiber density (SBNFD) at follow-up visits.

Correlation Central corneal sensation (correlation coefficient) P-value SBNFD (correlation coefficient) P-value
Age
 6-month 0.057 0.86 0.072 0.833
 1-year 0.00 1.00 -0.086 0.872
Disease Duration
 6-month 0.32 0.32 0.216 0.523
 1-year -0.016 0.976 -0.185 0.725

Table 5. Effect of corneal neurotization on central corneal sensation and subbasal nerve fiber density at 6-month follow up, in all recruited eyes based on preoperative diagnosis and NK grade severity.

Characteristics Central corneal sensation Subbasal nerve fiber density
(mean±SD) Median (IQR) (mean±SD) Median (IQR)
NK grade
Grade 2 1.91±1.82 1.00 (0.50–4.12) 2.10±2.56 1.07 (0.00–4.73)
Grade 3 0.40±0.22 0.50 (0.25–0.50) 1.57±2.89 0.54 (0.00–3.65)
p-value 0.028 0.575
Preoperative diagnosis
Herpes 1.57±1.85 0.50 (-.50–4.00) 1.87±2.42 0.78 (0.00–4.23)
Facial nerve palsy 0.75±0.28 0.75 (0.50–1.00) 1.82±3.27 0.29 (0.00–5.18)
p-value 1.000 0.699

*IQR- Interquartile range

No intraoperative or postoperative complications related to the surgical techniques were noted during the follow-up. However, two patients (one was of 27 years old with a history of nasal aspergillosis and the other one was 74 years old with no systemic co-morbidity) had a reactivation of viral keratitis 3 and 6 months post-surgery, respectively. Systemic therapeutic doses of antiviral medications with topical steroids were instituted, and patients are being followed-up.

Discussion

Corneal neurotisation has evolved as an effective option in the treatment of neurotrophic keratopathy. However, these techniques are not free of predicaments. Our study observed that consolidated donor nerve identification and interpositional nerve graft fascicle separation without collateral damage were the most time-consuming and imperative steps in determining the success of corneal neurotization. Knowledge of anatomical variation and landmarks of donor supratrochlear nerve and sural nerve fascicle separation in the taut position before severing with the use of fibrin glue to secure fascicles around the limbus, perhaps measures to emulate and expedite the surgical procedure. Hence, we attempted these surgical variations in 11 recruited eyes with non-responding neurotrophic keratopathy and evaluated the long-term clinical outcome of the burgeoning corneal neurotization procedure.

In our study, a gradual resolution of corneal clouding with a corresponding significant improvement in visual acuity was observed as early as three months that continued till the last follow-up noted 1-year. However, no general acquiescence to vision improvement has been reported in the literature following corneal neurotization. Leyngold et al [17] reported noteworthy vision improvement from 20/70 to 20/20 in one operated case, whereas Jowett and Pineda [18] noticed modest vision improvement in their reported series. In contrast, Benkhatar and colleagues found no improvement in vision [19]. This incongruity can be attributed to variations in the surgical methodology used by different authors, patient selection, disease duration, the structural integrity of the cornea, and pre-existing corneal scarring [10].

At the 1-month follow-up, a statistically significant improvement in ocular surface parameters was observed before visual improvement was perceived. Amelioration in ocular surface parameters, particularly improvement in corneal staining score is pertinent to a significant improvement in NK grade, observed at the 3month clinical examination. Substantial recovery of the ocular surface is closely linked to corneal sensation restoration. Studies have shown that corneal innervation plays a pivotal role in the proliferation of corneal epithelial or limbal stem cells after injury [2]. This is supported by evidence that interactions between the corneal epithelium and corneal innervation upregulate the expression of a5 integrins and E-cadherin, which are necessary for epithelial adhesion to fibronectin in the extracellular matrix and maintain the integrity of the corneal epithelium [20].

In our study, corneal sensation improvement at a statistically significant level was noted at 3 months postoperatively (11/11eyes), consistent with Elbaz et al [10], and Malhotra R et al [21] annotations. Improvements continued for a year after the procedure; however, a longer time course has been reported in earlier studies [22]. A similar observation of corneal sensation improvement at a 3-month follow-up with maximal sensation at 6 months was reported by Kim et al [23] in herpetic NK. However, previous studies [5, 19, 22] and the recently published Rathi et al [24] interim reports observed objective improvement in corneal sensation at 5–6 months. The return of corneal sensation observed was significant in our study, although the absolute value to the contralateral normal cornea was not attained (Fig 5), which is consistent with the results of previous studies [5, 19].

Fig 5.

Fig 5

A-F. Box and whiskers plots of corneal sensations. It is showing progressive and significant improvement in central and peripheral corneal sensations at postoperative sequential follow-up.

Anatomical evidence of corneal reinnervation on in vivo confocal microscopy is a protracted process that begins with augmentation of corneal subbasal nerve fiber length, detected as early as the 1-month follow-up. Subsequently, the subbasal nerve fiber density became apparent on in vivo confocal microscopy at the 6-month follow-up and progressively increased; however, a linear improvement curve was not established (Fig 6). Our study observed the outcomes harmonized with the findings of Benkhatar et al, confocal microscopic subbasal nerve plexus improvement commenced as early as 3 months, with progressive increment over 3–6 months before stabilizing [19]. Our study documented a significant improvement in the subbasal nerve plexus for a year.

Fig 6. Box and whiskers plots of subbasal nerve fiber density over serial follow-up.

Fig 6

The graphs depict continuing improvement in subbasal nerve fiber density over serial follow-up after corneal neurotization surgery, though normal contralateral values were not obtained.

Our study speculates an initial increase in sub-basal nerve fiber length, connoting escalation of pre-existing sub-basal nerves and subsequent generation of new nerve bundles over six months and continued at one year (Fig 7). Interestingly, these budding nerve terminals were arranged chaotically and did not follow this pattern. Thus, our study reported that the chronological order of the corneal reinnervation process commenced with an escalation of pre-existing SBNFL spans from 1-month post-surgery, followed by the objective perception of corneal sensation, which spans from 3 months and improvement in SBNFD from 6-month to 1-year following corneal neurotization. The exact mechanism of corneal reinnervation following neurotization is yet to be understood completely because the distal donor nerve fascicles are laid around the limbus and not directly coapted to the remaining corneal nerves. By coaptation of the supratrochlear nerve, the new basal laminae of Schwann cells in the donor nerve graft support axonal regeneration that finds its way from the surrounding nerve graft fascicles to the corneal stroma or at least to the subepithelial level, thereby restoring sensation [10].

Fig 7. Representative in vivo confocal microscopy of central corneal subbasal nerve plexus.

Fig 7

(A) Preoperative subbasal nerve fiber plexus, scarcely detectable on ACC Metrics software. (B) One month postoperative, subbasal nerve fiber length became significantly apparent, (C and D) Significant increase in branching and subsequent subbasal nerve fiber density at 6 months and 12 months after the CN surgery.

Despite the promising results of corneal neurotization, two patients with herpes simplex neurotrophic keratopathy developed recurrence in our study. Twenty-seven-year-old male with an antecedent history of paranasal sinus Aspergillus infection developed disciform stromal keratitis at 6 months post-surgery, whereas, a seventy-four-year-old male without systemic illness reported a central epithelial defect three months after the procedure. A review of the literature on the reactivation of herpes simplex keratitis revealed that in addition to cytokines and chemokines, neuropeptide-substance-P, glycoproteins, microRNAs, and other mediators contribute to the pathological immune response of herpes simplex keratitis. All these regulators play dual roles in inhibiting and promoting disease pathogenesis [25]. Therefore, reactivation of the latent virus in the context of hypo immunity (common in both recurrent patients) during the escalation of the sub-basal nerve plexus and consequent release of neuropeptides resulted in recurrence. However, cellular immunity, inflammatory factors, and molecular assays would help clarify the immunopathological process of reactivation following neurotisation. Both patients continued a therapeutic dose of systemic antiviral medication with topical antibiotic ointment. Topical steroids were also added to the disciform stromal keratitis, and marked improvement in vision from 20/80 to 20/40 with resolution in stromal keratitis was observed in young patient, 5-months after initiation of the treatment; however, older patients showed no improvement in vision with the resolution of the epithelial defect observed at 7-months.

In the literature, young patients have been associated with faster and more complete recovery [26]. However, no discernible correlation was noted between age and improvement in corneal sensation and subbasal nerve plexus parameters. Similarly, no significant difference was perceived between herpes etiology NK and facial nerve palsy associated with NK on central corneal sensation and SBNFD. In the literature, there is a dearth of evidence regarding the comparison of two different etiology-related outcomes. Perhaps, a large sample size would have helped establish a correlation between SBNFD and disease duration and different etiology associated NK. While more significant improvement in corneal sensation was observed in NK grade 2 compared to NK grade 3 eyes, at non-significant SBNFD increment. The possible explanation was that the analogous regenerating SBNFD was only perceptible sufficient to reinnervate the less stromal depth involving cornea than deeper corneal involving NK stage.

Complications at the donor site related to sural nerve graft harvestings, such as loss of sensation, discomfort, and allodynia in the lower leg or foot [27] were anticipated; however, none of these complications were evident at three months postoperative period. The elevated cost of the procedure and multidisciplinary approach are the major limitations to the easy adoption of this novel technique [28].

Conclusion

In summary, our study demonstrated the efficacy of corneal neurotization in treating the underlying pathology of neurotrophic keratopathy and substantiated the routine practice of this technique by simplifying the intricacies observed during the procedure.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Study’s underlying data.

Data of the enrolled patients in the study.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. TREND statement checklist.

Checklist of our intervention study.

(DOCX)

S1 File. Study’s protocol.

Proposed protocol for the ethical approval of our study titled Clinical outcomes of corneal neurotization using sural nerve graft in neurotrophic keratopathy.

(DOC)

Acknowledgments

Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh-160012, India.

Data Availability

All relevant data is available in the Supporting Information file named "S1 Table".

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Heigle TJ, Pflugfelder SC. Aqueous tear production in patients with neurotrophic keratitis. Cornea. 1996; 15:135–138. doi: 10.1097/00003226-199603000-00005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Ueno H, Ferrari G, Hattori T, Saban DR, Katikireddy KR, Chauhan SK, et al. Dependence of corneal stem/ progenitor cells on ocular surface innervation. Inves Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012; 53:867–872. doi: 10.1167/iovs.11-8438 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Baker KS, Anderson SC, Romanowski EG, Thoft RA, SundarRaj N. Trigeminal ganglion neurons affect corneal epithelial phenotype: influence on type VII collagen expression in vitro. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1993; 34: 137–144. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Sacchetti M, Lambiase A. Neurotrophic factors and corneal nerve regeneration. Neural Regen Res. 2017; 12:1220–1224. doi: 10.4103/1673-5374.213534 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Giannaccare G, Bolognesi F, Pellegrini M, Spena R, Allevi F, Marchetti C, et al. Corneal Neurotization: A Novel Surgical Procedure for Neurotrophic Keratopathy. Cornea. 2022;41:403–407. doi: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000002746 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Mastropasqua L, Lanzini M, Dua HS, D’ Uffizi A, Di Nicola M, Calienno R, et al. In Vivo Evaluation of Corneal Nerves and Epithelial Healing After Treatment With Recombinant Nerve Growth Factor for Neurotrophic Keratopathy. Am J Ophthalmol. 2020. Sep;217:278–286. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Bonini S, Lambiase A, Rama P, Sinigaglia F, Allegretti M, Chao W, et al. ; REPARO Study Group. Phase II Randomized, Double-Masked, Vehicle-Controlled Trial of Recombinant Human Nerve Growth Factor for Neurotrophic Keratitis. Ophthalmology. 2018;125:1332–1343. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2018.02.022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Pflugfelder SC, Massaro-Giordano M, Perez VL, Hamrah P, Deng SX, Espandar L, et al. Topical recombinant human nerve growth factor (Cenegermin) for neurotrophic keratopathy: a Multicentre randomized vehicle-controlled pivotal trial. Ophthalmology. 2020;127:14–26. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Fung SSM, Catapano J, Elbaz U, Zuker RM, Borschel GH, Ali A. In vivo confocal microscopy reveals corneal reinnervation after treatment of neurotrophic keratopathy with corneal neurotization. Cornea. 2018;37:109–112. doi: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000001315 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Elbaz U, Bains R, Zuker RM, Borschel GH, Ali A. Restoration of corneal sensation with regional nerve transfers and nerve grafts: a new approach to a difficult problem. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2014;132:1289–1295. doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2014.2316 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Bains RD, Elbaz U, Zuker RM, Ali A, Borschel GH. Corneal neurotization from the supra- trochlear nerve with sural nerve grafts: a minimally invasive approach. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135:397e–400e. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000000994 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Fogagnolo P, Giannaccare G, Bolognesi F, Digiuni M, Tranchina L, Rossetti L, et al. Direct Versus Indirect Corneal Neurotization for the Treatment of Neurotrophic Keratopathy: A Multicenter Prospective Comparative Study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2020;220:203–214. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2020.07.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Nelson JD. In office diagnostic tests for dry eye disease. In: Asbell PA, Lemp MA (eds). Dry Eye Disease: The Clinician’s Guide to Diagnosis and Treatment. Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2006, pp 39–44. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Sacchetti M, Lambiase A. Diagnosis and management of neurotrophic keratitis. Clin Ophthalmol. 2014;8:571–9. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S45921 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Saini M, Dhiman R, Dada T, Tandon R, Vanathi M. Topical cyclosporine to control ocular surface disease in patients with chronic glaucoma after long-term usage of topical ocular hypotensive medications. Eye. 2015; 29:808–814. doi: 10.1038/eye.2015.40 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Petropoulos IN, Alam U, Fadavi H, Marshall A, Asghar O, Dabbah MA, et al. Rapid automated diagnosis of diabetic peripheral neuropathy with in vivo corneal confocal microscopy. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014;55:2071–8. doi: 10.1167/iovs.13-13787 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Leyngold IM, Yen MT, Tian J, Leyngold MM, Vora GK, Weller C. Minimally Invasive Corneal Neurotization With Acellular Nerve Allograft: Surgical Technique and Clinical Outcomes. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;35:133–140. doi: 10.1097/IOP.0000000000001181 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Jowett N, Pineda R Ii. Corneal neurotisation by great auricular nerve transfer and scleral-corneal tunnel incisions for neurotrophic keratopathy. Br J Ophthalmol. 2019;103:1235–1238. doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2018-312563 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Benkhatar H, Levy O, Goemaere I. Corneal neurotization with a great auricular nerve graft: effective reinnervation demonstrated by in vivo confocal microscopy. Cornea 2018; 37:647–50. doi: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000001549 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Nakamura M, Nagano T, Chikama T, Nishida T. Up-regulation of phosphorylation of focal adhesion kinase and paxillin by combination of substance P and IGF-1 in SV-40 transformed human corneal epithelial cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1998;242:16–20. doi: 10.1006/bbrc.1997.7899 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Malhotra R, Elalfy MS, Kannan R, Nduka C, Hamada S. Update on corneal neurotisation. Br J Ophthalmol. 2019;103:26–35. doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2018-312104 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Jacinto F, Espana E, Padilla M, Ahmad A, Leyngold. Ipsilateral supraorbital nerve transfer in a case of recalcitrant neurotrophic keratopathy with an intact ipsilateral frontal nerve: a novel surgical technique. Am J Ophthalmol Case Rep 2016; 4:14–17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Kim JS, Rafailov L, Leyngold IM. Corneal Neurotization for Postherpetic Neurotrophic Keratopathy: Initial Experience and Clinical Outcomes. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2021;37:42–50. doi: 10.1097/IOP.0000000000001676 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Rathi A, Bothra N, Priyadarshini SR, Achanta DSR, Fernandes M, Murthy SI et al. Neurotization of the human cornea—A comprehensive review and an interim report. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2022;70:1905–1917. doi: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_2030_21 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Wang L, Wang R, Xu C, Zhou H. Pathogenesis of Herpes Stromal Keratitis: Immune Inflammatory Response Mediated by Inflammatory Regulators. Front Immunol. 2020. 13;11:766. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.00766 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Park JK, Charlson ES, Leyngold I, Kossler AL. Corneal Neurotization: A Review of Pathophysiology and Outcomes. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;36:431–437. doi: 10.1097/IOP.0000000000001583 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Hallgren A, Björkman A, Chemnitz A, Dahlin LB. Subjective outcome related to donor site morbidity after sural nerve graft harvesting: a survey in 41 patients. BMC Surg. 2013;13:39. doi: 10.1186/1471-2482-13-39 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Koaik M, Baig K. Corneal neurotization. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2019;30:292–298. doi: 10.1097/ICU.0000000000000578 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Bhavana Sharma

31 May 2023

PONE-D-23-06245Clinical Outcomes of Corneal Neurotization Using Sural Nerve Graft in Neurotrophic KeratopathyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Jain,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 15 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • 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,

Bhavana Sharma, MS

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. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

3. Please amend your manuscript to include your abstract after the title page.

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Authors

Please address the enclosed comments of reviewers , following which the MS would be re-evaluated for adequacy of publication .Furthermore kindly give your comments on the following:

1.Please specify the severity grading in each diagnosis subgroup .How was homogeneity ensured wrt clinical features and severity grade in each group .

2. Was the adjunctive medication pre/postop ,uniform in all pts/study groups?

3.What preoperative treatment was accorded to each group and what was the follow up period ? whether it was uniform for all patients ,before subjecting them to study intervention. Postoperative medication , dose/ duration would be relative to the same . 

4.Was the effect of neurotization dependent on preoperative diagnosis, severity and supportive medication .If it was better in any particular group/patients ,it can be included in discussion along with pathophysiological correlation .

5.There remains a possibility of disease recurrence in HSV /HZO, how was this ruled out and adequacy of medication ensured  before subjecting the patient for neurotization .

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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: No

Reviewer #3: 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: Sample size should be calculated based on the study design and test hypothesis, especially to provide sufficient power to demonstrate efficacy. It should not be based on recruitment availability.

The statistical methods need more work. For repeated measures, a repeated measure model should be used. Where was the Fisher’s exact test used?

With a small, limited sample size, there are many outcomes and tests to consider. P-values should be adjusted. Why was the significance level set at 0.01 for the correlation, but 0.05 for other tests?

The subtitle “summary background data” in the abstract is not correct.

In Figure 1, the flowchart should not be separated into two arms after follow-up.

The method used to compare the normal group is not described.

The footnote in Table 4 can be omitted.

Reviewer #2: The authors cover a very important and interesting topic. Their results are impressive and highlight a very promising emerging treatment for neurotrophic keratopathy. The intraoperative and slit lamp images are beautiful, showcasing the potential impact for patients. The study is not unique since there have been several other similar case series, but given the still relative novelty of this treatment and the impressive results, I do think it merits publication. A few points for improvement:

1. There are numerous grammatical errors, incorrect usage of words, and awkward sentences. I recommend professional copyediting to be performed prior to publication.

2. The authors simply state that medical management had failed, but there are not enough details on what kind of medical management. Please clarify what medical treatments were used and for how long prior to surgery.

3. The authors detailed the post-operative medications prescribed to all patients, but it is not clear if other medical treatments for NK were allowed (i.e. artificial tears, serum tears, scleral lenses, etc).

4. Was there any significant difference in the results based on the etiology of NK? It may be difficult due to the already small sample size, but it would be interesting to know if certain diagnoses portend a better prognosis.

Reviewer #3: Comments to the Author

1. Overall, the manuscript requires major revision towards statistical analysis. Also, I have a great concern about 1 year conclusions because of great loss to follow-up (even 46%, 6 out of 11 patients/eyes). I recommend ending reporting with the 9th month measurement, because of the reliability of results and its potential for generalisation.

2. Introduction:

Line 47-49 – There is an explanation about evidence of neuroparalytic-like corenal alterations in mice, but it is necessary to explain this state in humans a bit. Please add an explanation and an appropriate reference.

Line 55-56 – References regarding high costs missed. Please add.

3. Methods:

Line 175-180 – Did the authors evaluate the normality of numerical data? Which of the methods did you use? Please, include this in statistical analysis subsection of the methods.

Also, report full names of applied statistical tests for comparing values of evaluated parameters within the statistical methods and in the description of all tables where appropriate. Insert symbols like €, £, etc. where more than one test was applied.

Please, explain why did you choose the significance level of 0.01 for correlation analysis. It will not change the conclusion if it is 0.05, as it is recommended for biology research.

4. Results:

Correct capital P value into small letter p value throw-out whole manuscript and in tables also.

P value can not be 0.00, so change it into number with 3 decimals. If it is 0.000 in the statistical software, report it as p<0.001.

Round all p values on 3 decimals, even when the third decimal is 0, in the whole manuscript and tables also.

Table 1. Please correct capital E into small letter e in the second column “Neurotrophic keratopathy eyes”

Table 2. Report p value for comparing all measurements pre, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, and 12 months for NK grade.

Line 220-221: Commas missed in the sentence: “…(0.52, 2.59), respectively, and at one year follow up were (1.62,8.17); (9.52,17.09); (-0.39, 2.89); (1.67,5.14), respectively”. Please add.

Line 230: bracket missed in the sentence: “However, two patients (one was of 27-year old with a history of nasal aspergillosis and the other one was 74-year-old with no systemic co-morbidity) had reactivation of viral keratitis 3 and 6 months post-surgery, respectively.”

Discussion:

Please remove p values obtained in your research from this section and reword sentences with p values within to fit well the rest of the text.

Figure 5. I am concerned about the resolution of this figure. Please make it better. It is unreadable now. Instead of making one, submit 5 figures separately.

Figure 5. Please enlarge the resolution of this figure. It is not good enough.

**********

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

Reviewer #3: 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.

PLoS One. 2023 Nov 28;18(11):e0294756. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0294756.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


12 Jul 2023

Dear Editor-in-chief,

PLOS ONE

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised manuscript titled-Clinical outcome of corneal neurotization using sural nerve graft in neurotrophic keratopathy with manuscript number- PONE-D-23-06245

We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We are grateful to the reviewers for their insightful comments on our paper. We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect the suggestions provided by you and the reviewers. We have highlighted the changes within the manuscript. Here is a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments and concerns

Journal Requirements:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

Response: Your feedbacks are valuable to us, and we have made the specified changes in the revised manuscript to meet the PLOS ONE's style, required for publication.

2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found.

Response: We are extremely sorry to hear about that and we appreciate the higher effort that you have exerted. In revised submission, minimal underlying data set as has been uploaded in the Supporting Information files.

The file name and captions are as follows- S1 Table. Study’s underlying data. Data of the enrolled patients in the study.

3. Please amend your manuscript to include your abstract after the title page.

Response: We thank you for your accommodating remark. We have inserted the abstract after the title page as per your suggestion.

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly

Response: Your feedback is much appreciated. The captions of the supporting information files have been added at the end of revised manuscript.

Editor

Thank you for the interest in our manuscript. We highly appreciate the Editor for the considerable efforts in the manuscript. We have revised the manuscript as recommended by you. We hope to hear from you shortly with a positive conclusion.

ADDITIONAL EDITOR COMMENTS

1.Please specify the severity grading in each diagnosis subgroup. How was homogeneity ensured wrt clinical features and severity grade in each group.

Response: We would like to express our gratitude for your thoughtful suggestion and comments. As per your suggestion, the severity grade of neurotrophic keratopathy (NK grade) has been added against the herpes simplex, herpes zoster and facial nerve palsy patients shown in Table 1 in yellow high lightened.

In our 11 unilateral neurotrophic keratopathy patients of herpes simplex, herpes zoster and facial nerve palsy associated with neurological insult were recruited after excluding associated lid malposition, prior corneal surgery, history of diabetes, leprosy or peripheral neuropathy. Mickie’s classification for the grading of neurotrophic keratopathy which is a persistent epithelial defect representing stage-2 and corneal ulceration with stromal involvement demonstrating stage–3 was used to maintain consistency concerning clinical features and severity grade. However, because of the small sample size equal segregation of patients and group division in respect of NK grade, and disease etiology was not feasible. Nevertheless, as per your much-appreciated suggestion, we attempt to study the effect of corneal neurotization based on preoperative diagnosis and NK grade severity.

2. Was the adjunctive medication pre/postop ,uniform in all pts/study groups?

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. Preoperatively all the recruited patients were on preservative-free lubricating eye drops and ointment for 6 months. Systemic oral tetracycline in a dose of 100mg BD for two weeks was considered initially at diagnosis for stage 2 and 3 NK grades eyes. The use of topical antibiotic eye drops was considered intermittently to prevent secondary infection. It has been added in the methodology section in yellow highlight (page no-6). None of the patients used the autologous serum, contact lens, punctal occlusion, tenon patch graft, amniotic membrane graft, any corneal surgical intervention or tarsorrhaphy.

Postoperative systemic antibiotics for seven days, topical steroid drops in the tapering dose, topical antibiotics, lubricating eye drops, and ointment were prescribed for 6 weeks in all recruited eyes. The antiviral drugs in therapeutic doses were prescribed till the patient was on the topical steroids (6 weeks), followed by a prophylactic antiviral dose for a period of a total of six months to prevent reactivation of viral keratitis in viral etiology NK. The same has been incorporated in the manuscript under the surgical procedure section in the last paragraph (page no-9).

3.What preoperative treatment was accorded to each group and what was the follow up period ? whether it was uniform for all patients ,before subjecting them to study intervention. Postoperative medication, dose/ duration would be relative to the same.

Response: We highly appreciate your comments. All the recruited patients were on preservative-free lubricating eye drops and ointment for at least 6 months, before enrolling them for the surgical procedure. In addition, systemic oral tetracycline in a dose of 100mg BD for two weeks was considered initially at diagnosis for stage 2 and 3 NK patients. The use of topical antibiotic eye drops to prevent secondary infection at NK grades 2 and 3 was considered intermittently. (page no -6). Hence, it was uniform for all the recruited patients.

Postoperative systemic antibiotics for seven days, topical steroid drops in the tapering dose, topical antibiotics (4 times a day), preservative-free lubricating eye drops (4 times a day), and ointment (3 times a day) were prescribed for 6 weeks in all recruited eyes. The antiviral drugs in therapeutic dose (Acyclovir 400mg 5 times a day) were prescribed till the patient was on the topical steroids (6 weeks), followed by prophylactic antiviral dose (Acyclovir 400mg 2 times a day) for a period of total six months to prevent reactivation of viral keratitis in viral etiology NK (page no-9).

4.Was the effect of neurotization dependent on preoperative diagnosis, severity and supportive medication. If it was better in any particular group/patients, it can be included in discussion along with pathophysiological correlation.

Response: We would like to express our gratitude for your thoughtful suggestion to study the effect of neurotization dependent on preoperative diagnosis, severity and supportive medication. Hence, on evaluating the outcomes of corneal neurotization based on preoperative etiology, no significant difference was observed in central corneal sensation improvement (p=1.000) and increment in SBNFD (p=0.699) at 6 months. However, corneal sensation recovery observed was significantly better (p=0.028) in eyes with NK grade 2 compared with NK grade 3, nonetheless, SBNFD was inconsequential (p=0.575) in the two groups based on disease severity. The evidence is supported by the provided Table 5. The same has been included in the result section (page no-15) with possible explanation in the discussion part (page no-20) of the revised manuscript.

5.There remains a possibility of disease recurrence in HSV /HZO, how was this ruled out and adequacy of medication ensured before subjecting the patient for neurotization.

Response: Thank you for the thoughtful study of our material and insightful comment. We completely agreed that there was a possibility of disease recurrence in HSV /HZO, therefore, a therapeutic dose of antiviral drugs-acyclovir 400mg 5 times a day postoperatively was prescribed till the patient was on the topical steroids (6 weeks), followed by prophylactic antiviral dose (400mg BD) for a period of a total of six months in viral etiology NK to obviate reactivation of viral keratitis (page no-9). Adherence was ensured by confirming through the medication strips at every follow-up and ensuring the dosing, was as per instructions by the patient and relatives themselves amplified by phone calls before follow-up scheduled dates.

Reviewer #1

We highly appreciate your attentive study of our manuscript and insightful remarks, which have greatly helped in the refinement of the document. We have revised the manuscript as recommended by you. We are looking forward to hearing your decision soon.

REVIEWERS' COMMENTS

� Sample size should be calculated based on the study design and test hypothesis, especially to provide sufficient power to demonstrate efficacy. It should not be based on recruitment availability.

Response: We appreciate your attentive study of our material and insightful remarks, which helped us greatly in the refinement of our manuscript. The epidemiological data of NK are scarcely reported in the literature, the prevalence and incidence of NK was estimated as 1.6/10,000 from the epidemiological data on conditions associated with NK- herpetic keratitis and post-surgical procedures1. Therefore, the above-mentioned value of epidemiological data was used to calculate the sample size with a 10% margin of error.

The following formula was used for the sample size calculation n = N*X / (X + N – 1), where, X = Zα/22 ¬*p*(1-p) / MOE2, and Zα/2 is the critical value of the Normal distribution at α/2 (e.g. for a confidence level of 99%, and α is 0.10), MOE is the margin of error, p is the sample proportion, and N is the population size. The same has been incorporated in the manuscript (page no-10,11).

1Sacchetti M, Lambiase A. Diagnosis and management of neurotrophic keratitis. Clin Ophthalmol. 2014 Mar 19;8:571-9. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S45921.

� The statistical methods need more work. For repeated measures, a repeated measure model should be used. Where was the Fisher’s exact test used?

Response: Your feedback is much appreciated. The statistical methods have been revised and names of applied statistical tests for comparing the clinical parameters have been added in the statistical section. Because of small sample size and only 6 eyes completed 1year follow-up, serve as a limitation for using repeated measure tests. Fisher’s exact test was used for assessing NK grade improvement at follow-up visits, being categorical variable.

� With a small, limited sample size, there are many outcomes and tests to consider. P-values should be adjusted. Why was the significance level set at 0.01 for the correlation, but 0.05 for other tests?

Response: We are extremely sorry to hear about that and we appreciate the higher effort that you have exerted. The correlation was calculated by SPSS software version 20 which was calculated at 0.05 as well as 0.01, however, it showed the highest level and the correlation perceived was non-significant. Therefore, a significance level of 0.01 for the correlation has been omitted and the same has been rectified in the revised submission.

The subtitle “summary background data” in the abstract is not correct.

Response: Thank you for your comments. Indeed, the subtitle “summary background data” in the abstract is not correct. Therefore, we have just deleted the subtitle from the abstract.

� In Figure 1, the flowchart should not be separated into two arms after follow-up.

Response: Thank you for your valuable comments. As per your suggestion, two arms after follow-up in the flow chart have been deleted.

� The method used to compare the normal group is not described.

Response: We highly appreciate your efforts and insight. As per your suggestion SBNFD and central corneal sensation were compared with the fellow eyes of the recruited patients using Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test. There was a statistically significant improvement in SBNFD (p=0.003) and central corneal sensation (p=0.003) at 6 months compared with the fellow normal eyes. The same has been added in the result section in highlight (page no-15).

� The footnote in Table 4 can be omitted.

Response: Thank you for your guidance. The footnote in the Table 4 has been omitted

Reviewer #2

REVIEWERS' COMMENTS

1. There are numerous grammatical errors, incorrect usage of words, and awkward sentences. I recommend professional copyediting to be performed prior to publication.

Response: Thank you for your careful checks and corrections. English grammar editing has been performed using online available software before uploading the revised manuscript for publication.

2. The authors simply state that medical management had failed, but there are not enough details on what kind of medical management. Please clarify what medical treatments were used and for how long prior to surgery.

Response: Your feedback is much appreciated, and helped in the refinement of our manuscript. All the recruited eyes were on preservative-free artificial tears in the form of drops and ointment at all stages of disease severity for at least 6 months before enrolment. In addition, systemic oral tetracycline in a dose of 100mg BD for two weeks was considered initially at diagnosis for stage 2 and 3 NK grades before proclaiming them medically non-respondent eyes. The use of topical antibiotic eye drops to prevent infection at NK grade 2 and 3 were considered intermittently. In the case of herpes etiology NK, patients did not have a recurrence in the past six months, before enrolment. It has been included in the study design and participants sub-section (page no-6).

3. The authors detailed the post-operative medications prescribed to all patients, but it is not clear if other medical treatments for NK were allowed (i.e. artificial tears, serum tears, scleral lenses, etc).

Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. None of the recruited patients used the autologous serum, contact lens, punctal occlusion, tenon patch graft, amniotic membrane graft, any corneal surgical intervention or tarsorrhaphy.

4. Was there any significant difference in the results based on the etiology of NK? It may be difficult due to the already small sample size, but it would be interesting to know if certain diagnoses portend a better prognosis.

Response: We would like to express our gratitude for your thoughtful suggestion to study the effect of neurotization based on etiology of NK. Hence, on evaluating the outcomes of corneal neurotization based on etiology, no significant difference was observed in central corneal sensation improvement (p=1.000) and increment in SBNFD (p=0.699) at 6 months. The evidence is supported by the provided Table 5. The same has been included in the result (page no-15) and discussion section (page no-20) of the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #3

REVIEWERS' COMMENTS

1. Overall, the manuscript requires major revision towards statistical analysis. Also, I have a great concern about 1 year conclusions because of great loss to follow-up (even 46%, 6 out of 11 patients/eyes). I recommend ending reporting with the 9th month measurement, because of the reliability of results and its potential for generalisation.

Response: We would like to express our gratitude for your thoughtful suggestions. The statistical analysis has been rectified in the revised manuscript and names of applied statistical tests for comparing the clinical parameters have been added.

Regarding one year follow-up, the objective improvement of corneal sensation documented in the literature was around 5–6 months. However, improvement noted was continued for about a year after the procedure, though a longer time course has been reported in the earlier studies.1,2 Hence to ensure the maximal improvement in corneal sensation, though in small sample size one-year follow-up was preferred. We completely agree with the reviewer regarding small sample size that serves as limitation. We have included references (below) to support our conclusions.

1Terzis JK, Dryer MM, Bodner BI. Corneal neurotization: a novel solution to neurotrophic keratopathy. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009;123:112–20

2Jacinto F, Espana E, Padilla M, Ahmad A, Leyngold I. Ipsilateral supraorbital nerve transfer in a case of recalcitrant neurotrophic keratopathy with an intact ipsilateral frontal nerve: a novel surgical technique. Am J Ophthalmol Case Rep 2016;4:14–7.

2. Introduction:

� Line 47-49 – There is an explanation about evidence of neuroparalytic-like corneal alterations in mice, but it is necessary to explain this state in humans a bit. Please add an explanation and an appropriate reference

Response: We highly appreciate your insight and acknowledge your contributions to improving our manuscript. As per your suggestions, neurotrophic keratopathy pathophysiology recognized in humans has been added in the introduction section (page no-4) with corresponding reference in yellow highlight.

� Line 55-56 – References regarding high costs missed. Please add.

Response: Your feedback is much appreciated. As per your valuable comment with reference regarding high costs have been added (Reference no-28) as limitation of the procedure (page no-21).

3. Methods:

� Line 175-180 – Did the authors evaluate the normality of numerical data? Which of the methods did you use? Please, include this in statistical analysis subsection of the methods.

Response: Thank you for your insightful observation regarding the evaluation of the normality of data. Our clinical data did not exhibit normality, assessed by Shapiro–Wilk test, therefore non parametric tests were performed for analysis. The same has been incorporated in the statistical section of the revised manuscript.

� Also, report full names of applied statistical tests for comparing values of evaluated parameters within the statistical methods and in the description of all tables where appropriate. Insert symbols like €, £, etc. where more than one test was applied.

Response: The names of applied statistical tests for comparing the clinical parameters (preoperative versus postoperative) at defined follow-up have been added in the subsection of statistical analysis. We believe it would provide a more accurate representation of our findings

� Please, explain why did you choose the significance level of 0.01 for correlation analysis. It will not change the conclusion if it is 0.05, as it is recommended for biology research.

Response: We are extremely sorry to hear about that and we appreciate the higher effort that you have exerted. The correlation was calculated by SPSS software version 20 which was calculated at 0.05 as well as 0.01, however, it showed the highest level and the correlation perceived was non-significant. Therefore, a significance level of 0.01 for the correlation has been omitted and the same has been rectified in the revised submission.

4. Results:

� Correct capital P value into small letter p value throw-out whole manuscript and in tables also.

Response: We are grateful for your input and suggestions. Capital P value has been replaced with small p value in the manuscript and tables as well.

� P value cannot be 0.00, so change it into number with 3 decimals. If it is 0.000 in the statistical software, report it as p<0.001.

Response: We highly appreciate your comments that would help in improving the quality of our manuscript and therefore specified changes have been included in the manuscript and accordingly high lightened.

� Round all p values on 3 decimals, even when the third decimal is 0, in the whole manuscript and tables also.

Response: Thank you for bringing attention to round all p values on 3 decibels. As per your suggestion changes have been incorporated in the revised manuscript, including tables.

� Table 1. Please correct capital E into small letter e in the second column “Neurotrophic keratopathy eyes”

Response: Thank you for your valuable comments. As per your suggestion, capital E in “Neurotrophic keratopathy eyes” has been substituted with small ‘e’.

� Table 2. Report p value for comparing all measurements pre, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, and 12 months for NK grade.

Response: We appreciate your thoughtful evaluation of our manuscript. Following your suggestion p value for NK grade has been added in the Table 2 and high lightened in the revised file.

� Line 220-221: Commas missed in the sentence: “…(0.52, 2.59), respectively, and at one year follow up were (1.62,8.17); (9.52,17.09); (-0.39, 2.89); (1.67,5.14), respectively”. Please add.

Response: Thank you for your meticulous check and remark, as per your suggestion commas has been added and high lightened in the revised manuscript.

� Line 230: bracket missed in the sentence: “However, two patients (one was of 27-year old with a history of nasal aspergillosis and the other one was 74-year-old with no systemic co-morbidity) had reactivation of viral keratitis 3 and 6 months post-surgery, respectively.”

Response: Thank you for your careful checks and corrections. Bracket has been incorporated as per your guidance.

Discussion:

� Please remove p values obtained in your research from this section and reword sentences with p values within to fit well the rest of the text.

Response: Thank you for your valuable comments. As per your suggestion, p values of the clinical parameters have been removed from the discussion section.

� Figure 5. I am concerned about the resolution of this figure. Please make it better. It is unreadable now. Instead of making one, submit 5 figures separately.

Figure 5. Please enlarge the resolution of this figure. It is not good enough.

Response: We are grateful for your input and suggestions. Figure 5 shows a collage of corneal sensation improvement plots, have been submitted separately in the revised manuscript, amenable to reading.

We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly and hope that the corrections will meet with approval. We believe that these modifications address the concern raised and contribute to the overall strength of our paper. We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience and to respond to any further questions and comments you may have.

Anticipating positive response.

Sincerely

Prof. Arun K. Jain

Professor and Head of Cornea, Cataract and Refractive Surgery

Advanced Eye Centre, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and

Research, Chandigarh-160012, India.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Bhavana Sharma

7 Aug 2023

PONE-D-23-06245R1Clinical Outcomes of Corneal Neurotization Using Sural Nerve Graft in Neurotrophic KeratopathyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Jain,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 21 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • 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,

Bhavana Sharma, MS

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Authors are requested further , to do necessary corrections/modifications as desired by reviewers .

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. 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: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

4. 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: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. 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 #3: Yes

**********

6. 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: Table 3 better report median (IQR or min max) since nonparametric method was used.

Flowchart, there are still two arms. This is one-arm study. Two-arm chart usually refers to two treatment groups.

The one year follow up box should be put underneath the 6 month box in one line.

Reviewer #3: I thank the authors for their revised manuscript. They did an extensive rework and they achieved a significant improvement, but there is more that can be done in order to improve the quality of this manuscript.

The main requirement is regarding the statistical subsection. Fisher`s exact test is recommended for categorical data, and NK grade severity is ordinal, so the more suitable statistical method in the before-after empirical situation is Wilcoxon signed rank test. So, there is need to reword the part of statistical analysis that talks about the usage of Wilcoxon signed rank test like this: “Wilcoxon signed rank test was used for …” and to change the results regarding NK grade severity and follow-up.

**********

7. 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 #3: 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.

PLoS One. 2023 Nov 28;18(11):e0294756. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0294756.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


23 Aug 2023

Dear Editor-in-chief,

PLOS ONE

We appreciate the thorough review of our manuscript PONE-D-23-06245R1 titled "Clinical Outcomes of Corneal Neurotization Using Sural Nerve Graft in Neurotrophic Keratopathy " and the valuable feedback provided by the editor and reviewers.

We believe that these revisions enhance the overall quality and accuracy of our manuscript

JOURNAL REQUIREMENTS:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Response- We have meticulously reviewed our reference list to ensure its completeness and accuracy. Reference 4 and 6, which were not identified in the PubMed search have been replaced with the relevant and appropriate citations.

REVIEW COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR

Reviewer #1

We sincerely appreciate your thorough review of our manuscript. Your feedback has been invaluable in improving the quality of our work. We have carefully considered your comments and made the necessary revisions accordingly.

Comment-: Table 3 better report median (IQR or min max) since nonparametric method was used. Flowchart, there are still two arms. This is one-arm study. Two-arm chart usually refers to two treatment groups.

The one year follow up box should be put underneath the 6 month box in one line.

Response- We are grateful for your thoughtful input, which has undoubtedly improved the quality of our manuscript. We have updated the table 3 to report the median along with the interquartile range (IQR) to provide a more accurate representation of the data.

We acknowledge the confusion created by the two-arm chart representation. Therefore, we have corrected the error and updated the flowchart to clearly reflect the one-arm study design, eliminating any ambiguity in the visual presentation

Thank you for pointing out the arrangement of the timeline boxes. We have rearranged the flow chart follow up depiction, one-year follow-up box beneath the 6-month box to ensure that the flowchart now accurately represents the temporal sequence of the study.

Reviewer #3:

We truly appreciate your diligence in reviewing our manuscript and your insightful comment on the statistical analysis section. Your expertise has been invaluable in identifying the appropriate statistical method for our study. We believe that these changes have strengthened the overall presentation and interpretation of our study findings.

Comment- The main requirement is regarding the statistical subsection. Fisher`s exact test is recommended for categorical data, and NK grade severity is ordinal, so the more suitable statistical method in the before-after empirical situation is Wilcoxon signed rank test. So, there is need to reword the part of statistical analysis that talks about the usage of Wilcoxon signed rank test like this: “Wilcoxon signed rank test was used for …” and to change the results regarding NK grade severity and follow-up.

Response- In response to your suggestion, we have carefully considered the statistical analysis and used the Wilcoxon signed rank test for before and after corneal neurotization to asses NK grade severity.

Consequently, we have reworded the statistical analysis section to accurately reflect the utilization of the Wilcoxon signed rank test for assessing the changes in NK grade severity.

Furthermore, we have recalculated and updated the results related to NK grade severity and follow-up in table 2 (Yellow highlighted). This modification ensures the statistical integrity and consistency of our study.

We are grateful for your meticulous attention to detail and your guidance in enhancing the accuracy of our research. Your insights have contributed significantly to the overall quality of the manuscript.

Thank you for your time and commitment to improving our work.

Sincerely

Prof. Arun K. Jain

Professor and Head of Cornea, Cataract and Refractive Surgery

Advanced Eye Centre, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and

Research, Chandigarh-160012, India.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers .docx

Decision Letter 2

Bhavana Sharma

9 Nov 2023

Clinical Outcomes of Corneal Neurotization Using Sural Nerve Graft in Neurotrophic Keratopathy

PONE-D-23-06245R2

Dear Dr. Jain

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,

Bhavana Sharma, MS MAMS

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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

**********

Acceptance letter

Bhavana Sharma

14 Nov 2023

PONE-D-23-06245R2

Clinical Outcomes of Corneal Neurotization Using Sural Nerve Graft in Neurotrophic Keratopathy

Dear Dr. Jain:

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 customercare@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. Bhavana Sharma

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Study’s underlying data.

    Data of the enrolled patients in the study.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. TREND statement checklist.

    Checklist of our intervention study.

    (DOCX)

    S1 File. Study’s protocol.

    Proposed protocol for the ethical approval of our study titled Clinical outcomes of corneal neurotization using sural nerve graft in neurotrophic keratopathy.

    (DOC)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers .docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data is available in the Supporting Information file named "S1 Table".


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES