Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Apr 21;16(4):e0249945. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249945

Changes in corneal thickness after vitrectomy—Implications for glaucoma practice

Lisika Gawas 1, Aparna Rao 1,*
Editor: Michael Mimouni2
PMCID: PMC8059830  PMID: 33882075

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate changes in central corneal thickness (CCT) following vitrectomy.

Methods

All consecutive old and new patients referred to glaucoma services for possible secondary glaucoma after vitrectomy and who had undergone corneal pachymetry between July 2013 to June 2020, were included. The eye that developed elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) and was diagnosed clinically as glaucoma after vitrectomy, was labelled as the “affected” eye. The contralateral eye of the patient with normal IOP and no history of vitrectomy was labelled as the “control” eye. The difference in CCT in the affected eye and the contralateral control eye (ΔCCT) and CCT were compared between different age groups. Correlation of CCT in the affected eye with age, diagnosis, type of surgery done, lens status and pre-existing glaucoma was done using multivariate regression analysis.

Results

Of 127 eyes of 120 patients (M:F = 85:35), the average CCT in the affected eye was significantly higher than the unaffected contralateral control eye (p<0.0001). The ΔCCT in eyes presenting at an age <25 years was higher (median 582, 497–840) than those that presented later (median 518, 384–755), p <0.0001, with maximum ΔCCT seen in eyes that had undergone vitrectomy at age<12 years. The CCT in the affected eye was significantly higher in aphakic eyes (588±81.6 microns) than in pseudophakic eyes (552±79.03 microns), p = 0.03. On multivariate analysis, age<25 years remained as a significant influencer of CCT in the affected eye (β = -1.7, p<0.001, R2 = 28.3%).

Conclusions

Young age group<25 years are more prone to corneal remodelling and CCT changes after vitrectomy.

Introduction

Central corneal thickness (CCT) has been recognized as a significant risk factor for the progression of ocular hypertension to primary open-angle glaucoma in the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study [1, 2]. It is known from several studies that intraocular pressure (IOP) may be influenced by CCT or corneal biomechanical properties, which may indirectly parallel the biomechanical properties of the optic nerve head [3, 4]. Though the role of CCT in glaucoma pathogenesis is debatable, it remains an invaluable tool in routine glaucoma practice [3, 5, 6]. This is especially important in situations where we want to accurately interpret Goldman applanation tonometry (GAT) readings to avoid over or under-treatment of glaucoma [3, 5]. Corneal remodelling or changes in CCT have been reported after anterior and posterior segment surgeries [711]. While these changes are commonly encountered after refractive surgeries, its application in glaucoma assumes importance after posterior segment surgeries where post-operative corneal remodelling may cause false diagnosis of raised intraocular pressure (IOP) or secondary glaucoma [3, 4, 7, 9].

Pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) is one of the most frequently performed ophthalmic surgeries used in the treatment of many vitreous and retinal diseases. Elevated IOP and progressive glaucomatous damage are known postoperative complications following vitreoretinal surgeries [810]. Secondary IOP elevation after pars plana vitrectomy with silicone oil injection has been reported in 5.9% to 56% of eyes [9, 11, 1214]. While it is important to identify glaucoma after vitreoretinal surgeries and initiate early treatment, it is also known that CCT may change after anterior and posterior segment surgeries. This study evaluates long-term changes in CCT after vitrectomy with its direct implication in the diagnosis of glaucoma.

Method

All consecutive old and new patients referred to the glaucoma services for possible secondary glaucoma after vitrectomy (which included anterior automated vitrectomy, AV+ 23-G pars plana vitrectomy, PPV) between July 2013 and June 2020, were identified from the hospital electronic medical records database. The study was part of a retrospective study comparing outcomes of primary and secondary glaucoma, that was approved by the Institutional Review Board of LVPEI, MTC campus, Bhubaneswar, and adhered to the tenets of the declaration of Helsinki. Of these, only patients who were advised corneal pachymetry (CCT) measurement, were included for this study. Demographic data extracted from the electronic medical records included age, gender, presence of pre-existing glaucoma, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), IOP, lens status, +90 D fundus biomicroscopy, final diagnosis, type of prior surgery before presentation to glaucoma services (anterior or posterior segment procedures included), medical or surgical management, and final outcomes. The need for additional interventions after initial glaucoma management was also obtained from the records.

By institutional protocol, all IOP readings are obtained by trained optometrists using Goldman applanation tonometer(GAT) under local anesthesia. After the patient is sitting comfortably at the slit lamp: at the right height, with their chin on the rest and their forehead against the headband, the cornea is stained with fluorescein, and measurements are taken under the cobalt blue filter with the patient fixing straight ahead. The calibrated dial on the tonometer is turned clockwise until the inner edges of the two fluorescein semi-circles touch each other. Pachymetry was done by a single technician under topical anaesthesia using ultrasound pachymetry(model-SP 3000, Japan). The probe is placed on the central portion of the cornea with the patient seated comfortably and looking straight. An average CCT is obtained after a total of 6 readings with a standard deviation between readings <5 microns. Any variability in readings with large standard deviations in irregular corneas, and uncooperative patients were excluded. All pars plana vitrectomy surgeries were done by trained surgeons under local anaesthesia, with the infusion cannula at the inferotemporal quadrant and non-contact wide-field system being used for visualization. A posterior vitreous detachment was induced in cases with an intact hyaloid. After surgery, the ports were closed with 8–0 vicryl sutures, ensuring absence of vitreous incarceration in the wound after postoperative screening of the retina before closure.

For patients with possible secondary glaucoma post-vitrectomy, glaucoma was diagnosed in the presence of >21mm Hg IOP at any visit, with no prior history of raised IOP or anti-glaucoma medications (AGM). Glaucomatous disc and corresponding visual field changes at presentation were not mandatory for a diagnosis of glaucoma in cases with no prior history of glaucoma. Medical management was initiated and surgery was advocated for uncontrolled IOP despite maximum tolerated medical therapy. Any eye that developed a raised IOP and was clinically diagnosed as glaucoma after vitrectomy was labelled as the “affected” eye, while the contralateral eye of the patient with normal IOP and no prior history of vitrectomy, was labelled as the “control” eye. If both the eyes of the same patient had undergone vitrectomy, both eyes were labelled as affected. The CCT in the affected eyes and control eyes were compared in eyes that underwent anterior and posterior vitrectomy. The difference in CCT in the affected eye and the contralateral control eye (hitherto referred to as ΔCCT) indirectly represents the amount of corneal remodelling resultant to stress or surgery (A direct ΔCCT is ideally obtained for any eye by pre and post-operative CCT measurements, which is not done routinely in for all eyes undergoing vitrectomy; this makes pre-operative CCT measurements comparisons difficult).The ΔCCT was compared in different age groups and in eyes undergoing different routes of vitrectomy (anterior versus posterior).The final diagnosis after completion of glaucoma investigations (CCT, IOP, fundus, and visual fields, if possible) and management outcomes in the affected eye and unaffected control eye were also analysed.

Statistics

All analysis was done using StataCorp (version 11, USA). Descriptive data are presented as mean+standard deviation (or median and interquartile range) with statistical significance set at p< 0.05.Normality was checked using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Comparison of CCT between the control and affected eye was done using paired t-test. The CCT and ΔCCT in the affected eye across different age groups and eyes undergoing different surgeries(pars plana vitrectomy or anterior vitrectomy)were compared. The CCT in eyes with and without a final diagnosis of glaucoma(those that were observed and presumed normal by the clinician) was compared using the independent student -t test. Relationship of CCT in the affected eye with age, diagnosis, type of surgery done, lens status, pre-existing glaucoma, and the relationship of ΔCCT with the final diagnosis of glaucoma or need for surgery/additional management was done using multivariate regression analysis.

Results

Of 286 patients presenting to the glaucoma service post-vitrectomy (anterior+pars plana),127 eyes of 120 subjects (M:F = 85:35) who had undergone pachymetry were included for this study, with a median age of 41 years (range 7–85 years) and a mean presenting IOP of 27± 11.01mmHg. Of these, 4 patients had undergone surgery in both eyes with one eye of a patient with no vision being excluded (127 affected eyes, 120 control eyes). The indications for surgery were retinal diseases (70.09%), dislocated/subluxated lens (16.54%), vitreous in the anterior chamber (11.81%) and macular disease (2.37%) with maximum affected eyes being aphakic (n = 50) or pseudophakic (n = 60). The most common surgery done in the patients was retinal detachment (42.52%) followed by diabetic vitreous haemorrhage (12.6%). Of 127 eyes, 113 eyes had a final diagnosis of glaucoma after all appropriate investigations while 14 were deemed as normal by the clinician at presentation. At the final visit, a total of 115 eyes (this included 6 eyes that were diagnosed as normal at presentation and later initiated on medicines on follow-ups for IOP control)required antiglaucoma medications, while12 eyes underwent glaucoma surgery for IOP control.

Affected eye comparisons

The average CCT in the affected eye was significantly higher than the unaffected contralateral control eye (p<0.0001), Table 1, Fig 1. The CCT in the affected eye was significantly higher in aphakic eyes (588±81.6 microns, IQR = 472–840 microns) than in pseudophakic (552±79.03 microns, IQR = 384-902microns) or phakic (532±48.4, IQR = 471–515 microns) eyes (p = 0.03). This correlated with maximum ΔCCT in aphakic eyes, Fig 2.

Table 1. Differences in baseline characteristics of affected eyes and normal eyes undergoing vitrectomy.

Variables Affected Eye* Normal Eye P value #
N = 127 N = 120
Presenting IOP (mmHg) 27 ± 11.01 14 ± 4.37 <0.0001
Visual acuity (logMAR) 1.6 ± 0.75 1 ± 2.91 0.03
CCT (microns) 566 ± 78.29 528 ± 41.17 <0.0001
Duration of follow up (months) 27.32±10.5 27.32±17.6 0.6

IOP-intraocular pressure; CCT-central corneal thickness

*-see text for definition of affected eye and normal eye

#-paired t test done for 120 eyes only-see text for full description.

Fig 1. A-shows the central corneal thickness in affected eye undergoing vitrectomy while B shows the corneal thickness in the contralateral normal eye (see text for detailed definition of affected and normal eye).

Fig 1

Fig 2. Boxplot of Δ central corneal thickness (CCT) after vitrectomy in eyes with different lens status showing maximum ΔCCT in aphakic eyes. (See text for description of ΔCCT).

Fig 2

Comparing the age-wise distribution of CCT in the affected eye, eyes undergoing vitrectomy at a younger age <25 years had thicker corneas (603±77.6 microns) as compared to those that underwent surgery at a later age (543±60.5), Table 2, p<0,001. This also paralleled with a greater ΔCCT in eyes presenting at an age<25 years, (median 582, 497–840) compared to those that presented later (median 518, 384–755),p<0.0001.Though the mean CCT was not significantly different in eyes undergoing anterior or pars-plana vitrectomy, the CCT was thickest in eyes <25 years, with maximum ΔCCT seen in eyes undergoing vitrectomy at age<12 years, Table 2. Those >40 years showed the least difference between the affected and normal eye, Table 2. Comparing eyes with or without pre-existing glaucoma, the CCT and ΔCCT were not statistically different between the two groups, S1 Table. There was no correlation of ΔCCT or extent of corneal remodelling to the need for additional surgery at follow-ups.

Table 2. Comparison of central corneal thickness and ΔCCT in eyes undergoing anterior and posterior vitrectomy (See text for details of ΔCCT description and significance levels of comparisons).

Type of surgery Age Affected eye (Microns) Normal eye (Microns) ΔCCT (Microns)
Mean±SD Mean±SD Mean±SD
Pars Plana Vitrectomy ≤12 647± 130.2 535 ± 25.1 338±109.9
13–25 587±70.35 536.± 48.9 161±52.2
26–40 574± 68.8 544 ± 34.9 123±66.5
>40 532±53.3 521±42.6 125±21.9
Anterior vitrectomy ≤12 680 ± 82.81 560+10.1 218±21.1
13–25 607± 74.2 523±57.9 63±10.6
26–40 607±96.8 528±27.1 238±49.6
>40 529±36.7 517 ±33.5 31±8.4

SD-standard deviation; CCT-central corneal thickness-see text fr explanation for ΔCCT.

Parallel to the CCT, the presenting IOP for eyes undergoing PPV was higher than those presenting after anterior vitrectomy, Table 3. This was seen in eyes <25 or >25 years signifying a minimal effect of age on the presenting IOP. Though thepresenting IOP was higher in eyes after PPV, the number of eyes requiring AGM, those that had disc/field progression did not differ across age groups or type of surgery, Table 3.

Table 3. Comparison of age-wise distribution of central corneal thickness in the affected eye and control eye after pars plana vitrectomy or anterior vitrectomy.

Age <25 years undergoing PPV Age >25 years undergoing PPV Age<25 years undergoing AV Age>25 years undergoing AV P value
N = 33 N = 72 N = 10 N = 12
Mean presenting IOP (mm Hg) 29 ± 9.9 28 ± 10.5 25±15.6 20±8.7 0.02
Number of eyes on AGM at final visit 32 72 10 12 0.6
Requirement for glaucoma surgery 2 8 1 1 0.9
Disc progression 0 5 (3 with VF progression) 0 1 0.3
Field progression 0 5 0 1 0.3

IOP-Intraocular pressure; AGM-anti-glaucoma medications.

Of 14 eyes that were observed, 6 eyes showed raised IOP >30mmHg over a mean follow-up period of 27±22.5 months and 4 of 6 eyes showed disc/field progressionmandating treatment. All the 6 eyes initiated on medical treatment (mean number of medicines = 1.5±0.4, with none of the eyes requiring more than 2 medicines) had adequate IOP control with none of the eyes requiring surgery.

Univariate analysis of CCT and ΔCCT showed significant association with age<25 years (r = -0/4, p<0.001) and aphakic lens status(r = 0.2, p = 0.02). In multivariate analysis, only age<25 years remained as a significant influencerof CCT in the affected eye (β = -1.7, p<0.001, R2 = 28.3%) and ΔCCT(β = -0.7, p = 0.01, R2 = 17.4%) with no influence of the lens status, type of surgery (PPV versus AV) or presenting IOP, gender, pre-operative diagnosis or presence of pre-existing glaucoma.

Discussion

This study found thicker CCT in affected eyes after vitrectomy, with greater ΔCCT seen in aphakic eyes and in age<25 years. Among <25 years, this change was maximally seen in the paediatric age group<12 years. There was no statistically significant difference in CCT in eyes undergoing pars plana vitrectomy and anterior vitrectomy. The CCT and ΔCCT was significantly influenced by the age at which vitrectomy was done, with the type of surgery or baseline IOP or even pre-existing glaucoma not influencing the ΔCCT, an indirect measure of corneal remodelling after vitrectomy.

The significance of corneal thickness in glaucoma though established in routine clinical practice was first highlighted by the OHTS trial [13]. Several studies have reported the utility of CCT in glaucoma [3, 1520]. Measurement of CCT remains an important tool in routine clinical glaucoma practice in identifying over or under-estimation of GAT readings and titrate target IOP range with medical therapy [3, 5, 6, 16]. The Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial (EMGT) found that thinner CCT (1.01–1.55 per 40 mm lower) may play a role in predicting progression in those with higher baseline IOP [15]. Gordon et al found that participants in the OHTS with a CCT <555 microns had a 3 fold greater risk of developing glaucoma [1]. The European glaucoma prevention study reported that CCT could be an independent risk factor for the development of open-angle glaucoma [17]. Though we understand CCT as a significant risk factor for glaucoma, it is postulated that corneal properties and stiffness mirror that of the lamina cribrosa in an indirect fashion rather than having a direct influence on IOP or glaucoma [1820].

A raised IOP after retinal interventions can be due to secondary glaucoma by various causes or simply due to these changes in CCT owing to corneal remodeling [3, 10, 11, 14]. Ascertaining the diagnosis of a disease is therefore particularly important before initiating glaucoma treatment after such surgeries where both factors may be seen together. Conventionally, a cause for secondary glaucoma after retinal surgeries entails investigating type of surgery and possibly pre-existing disease. A change in CCT causing the raised IOP is often missed in routine glaucoma practice. An increased CCT after any surgery may therefore reflect a change in the stromal thickness by stress-induced keratocyte activation or changes in the endothelial density [8, 11, 13, 14, 2029]. It is also postulated that changes in corneal curvature or axial length by retinal interventions may also contribute to changes in the corneal biomechanics or CCT [8, 9, 21, 22]. While stromal changes are commonly reported after refractive surgery, similar studies done after retinal interventions are fewer [3, 8]. Hager et al showed a significant increase in CCT after 20-G pars plana vitrectomy (34.95 ± 23.57 microns) and cataract surgery (23.76 ± 26.0 microns) [7]. In contrast, Seymenoğlu et alreported no change in CCT after 23-G vitrectomy, signifying the effect of improved surgical technique and lesser surgical stress with 23-G compared to 20-G vitrectomy [21]. Mukhtar et al reported minimal changes in CCT 6months after 23-G PPV or buckle surgery [25]. Watanabe et al reported an immediate increase in CCT after vitrectomy with a direct correlation of the change in CCT to the severity of surgical stress [8]. Other studies have reported long-term (3 months) endothelial density changes after RD surgeries or after PPV. These changes have been reported to be maximum in pseudophakic and aphakic eyes, suggesting the importance of the lens in protecting the endothelium [810]. Similar changes have been reported after the use of silicon oil or scleral buckle surgery [1214, 22, 2325]. These studies contrast with our study where long-term CCT changes were seen maximally in the younger age groups. This was presumably owing to a different study design, the inclusion of cases that were seen in the glaucoma services for raised IOP after surgery, and the direct application of CCT in glaucoma and its treatment. It may be argued that no pre-operative CCT was done in the affected eye and the contralateral eye was taken as the control eye. Yet, we do not believe that inter-eye difference in CCT would be significantly different in any patient until surgery is undertaken in any eye. Knowledge about the change in CCT after vitrectomy causing a raised IOP can avoid over-diagnosis of glaucoma in these eyes referred to the glaucoma clinic for treatment after retinal surgeries.

We also found a thicker CCT in the affected eye with a greater difference in CCT in the paediatric age group. Studies have shown an increase in CCT after cataract surgery in children [24, 26, 28, 29]. The infant aphakic treatment study reported an increase in CCT after cataract extraction in both aphakic and pseudophakic with a mean CCT of aphakic eyes being higher (637 μm) than in controls (563 μm) [24]. Simon et al reported a substantial increase in CCT in aphakic and pseudophakic paediatric patients compared to paediatric or adult controls [10]. CCT values in the former ranged as high as 835 microns compared with phakic fellow eyes, which reiterates the importance of discerning if raised IOP in such situations is attributable to disease or these changes. The authors suggested revised criteria to diagnose glaucoma in such situations which may be essential in routine glaucoma practice. This study also found significant changes in age<25 years suggesting that corneal CCT changes may occur even in eyes >12 years which mandates the use of these revised criteria for diagnosing glaucoma for all eyes undergoing vitrectomy or any surgery affecting the corneal endothelium or stroma. This would also reduce false diagnosis of glaucoma and over-treatment in the paediatric age group.

Our study was a retrospective study with its inherent drawbacks. It would have been ideal to compare the increase in CCT with pre-operative CCT in the affected eye for robust results. Yet this represents a clinical scenario that is closer to the daily routine scenario that clinicians face while getting referrals for raised IOP after any surgery. Also, the variability of each eye after each surgery is expected to be extremely high suggesting that clinical decisions require a case-case customized approach. We also believe that the contralateral, surgery naïve eye that has not undergone surgery represents an indirect measure of the pre-operative CCT in the affected eye. We did not measure the viscoelastic properties of the cornea nor did we measure the CCT changes longitudinally over time. We also did not evaluate corrected IOP while diagnosing glaucoma since the relationship between CCT and glaucoma is unclear. Further, no existing published nomograms would extend into the range of CCT change as seen in this study.

In summary, this study highlights that the maximum CCT changes or corneal remodelling take place in eyes undergoing vitrectomy with maximum changes seen until age<25 years. Though aphakic and pseudophakic eyes had thicker CCT, lens status was not found to influence the changes in CCT on multivariate analysis. This highlights the need for keeping in mind the extent of CCT change in eyes undergoing surgery <25 years (or <12 years) while making a glaucoma diagnosis or deciding on treatment.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Comparison of various variables in affected eyes with and without pre-existing glaucoma.

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

Hyderabad Eye Research Foundation.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Gordon MO, Beiser JA, Brandt JD et al. The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: baseline factors that predict the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120:714–20. 10.1001/archopht.120.6.714 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Brandt JD, Beiser JA, Kass MA et al. Central corneal thickness in the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study (OHTS). Ophthalmology 2001;108:1779–1788. 10.1016/s0161-6420(01)00760-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Manni G, Oddone F, Parisi V, et al. Intraocular pressure and central corneal thickness. Prog Brain Res. 2008;173:25–301 10.1016/S0079-6123(08)01103-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Liu J, Roberts CJ. Influence of corneal biomechanical properties on intraocular pressure measurement. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005;31:146–155 10.1016/j.jcrs.2004.09.031 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Gunvant P, O’Leary DJ, Baskaran M, et al. Evaluation of tonometric correction factors. J Glaucoma. 2005;14:337–43. 10.1097/01.ijg.0000176940.81799.33 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Elsheikh A, Gunvant P, Jones SW, et al. Correction factors for Goldmann Tonometry. J Glaucoma. 2013;22:156–63. 10.1097/IJG.0b013e3182312010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Hager A, Loge K, Kutschan A, et al.The effect of cataract and vitreoretinal surgery on central corneal thickness and corneal hysteresis. KlinMonblAugenheilkd. 2008;225:207–211. 10.1055/s-2008-1027242 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Watanabe A, Shibata T, Takashina H, et al. Changes in corneal thickness following vitreous surgery. Clin Ophthalmol. 2012;6:1293–1296. 10.2147/OPTH.S33421 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Huang C, Zhang T, Liu J, et al. Changes in axial length, central cornea thickness, and anterior chamber depth after rhegmatogenous retinal detachment repair. BMC Ophthalmol. 2016; 25;16:121 10.1186/s12886-016-0296-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Simon JW, O’Malley MR, Gandham SB, et al. Central corneal thickness and glaucoma in aphakic and pseudophakic children. J AAPOS. 2005; 9:326–9 10.1016/j.jaapos.2005.02.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Chang S. LXII Edward Jackson lecture: open angle glaucoma after vitrectomy. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006; 141:1033–1043 10.1016/j.ajo.2006.02.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Leaver PK, Grey RHB, Garner A: Silicone oil injection in the treatment of massive panretinal retraction. II. Late complications in 93 eyes. Br J Ophthalmol 1979; 63:361–367. 10.1136/bjo.63.5.361 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Jackson TL, Thiagarajan M, Murthy R, et al. Pupil block glaucoma in phakic and pseudophakic patients after vitrectomy with silicone oil injection. Am J Ophthalmol. 2001;132:414–6. 10.1016/s0002-9394(01)00991-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Henderer JD, Budenz DL, Flynn HW Jr, et al. Elevated intraocular pressure and hypotony following silicone oil retinal tamponade for complex retinal detachment: incidence and risk factors. Arch Ophthalmol. 1999;117:189–95 10.1001/archopht.117.2.189 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Leske MC, Heijl A, Hyman L; EMGT Group et al. EMGT Group. Predictors of long-term progression in the early manifest glaucoma trial. Ophthalmology. 2007;114:1965–72. 10.1016/j.ophtha.2007.03.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Shih CY, Graff Zivin JS, Trokel SL, et al. Clinical significance of central corneal thickness in the management of glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2004;122:1270–5 10.1001/archopht.122.9.1270 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.European Glaucoma Prevention Study (EGPS) Group, Miglior S, Pfeiffer N, Torri V, et al. Predictive factors for open-angle glaucoma among patients with ocular hypertension in the European Glaucoma Prevention Study. Ophthalmology. 2007;114:3–9. 10.1016/j.ophtha.2006.05.075 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Wells AP, Garway-Heath DF, Poostchi A,et al. Corneal hysteresis but not corneal thickness correlates with optic nerve surface compliance in glaucoma patients. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49:3262–8. 10.1167/iovs.07-1556 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Liu B., McNally S, Kilpatrick JI, et al. Aging and ocular tissue stiffness in glaucoma. SurvOphthalmol. 2018;63:56–74 10.1016/j.survophthal.2017.06.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Lanzagorta-Aresti A, Perez-Lopez M, Palacios-Pozo E,et al. Relationship between corneal hysteresis and lamina cribrosa displacement after medical reduction of intraocular pressure. Br J Ophthalmol. 2017;101:290–294. 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2015-307428 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Seymenoğlu G, Uzun Ö, Başer E. Surgically induced changes in corneal viscoelastic properties after 23-gauge pars plana vitrectomy using ocular response analyzer. Curr Eye Res. 2013;38:35–40 10.3109/02713683.2012.707269 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Okada Y, Nakamura S, Kubo E, et al. Analysis of changes in corneal shape and refraction following scleral buckling surgery. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2000;44:132–8 10.1016/s0021-5155(99)00183-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Goezinne F, Nuijts RM, Liem AT, et al. Corneal endothelial cell density after vitrectomy with silicone oil for complex retinal detachments. Retina. 2014;34:228–36 10.1097/IAE.0b013e3182979b88 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Morrison DG, Lynn MJ, Freedman SF, et al. ; Infant Aphakia Treatment Study Group. Corneal Changes in Children after Unilateral Cataract Surgery in the Infant Aphakia Treatment Study. Ophthalmology. 2015;122:2186–92 10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.07.011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Mukhtar A, Mehboob MA, Babar ZU, et al. Change in central corneal thickness, corneal endothelial cell density, anterior chamber depth and axial length after repair of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment. Pak J Med Sci. 2017;33:1412–1417 10.12669/pjms.336.13584 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Muir KW, Jin J, Freedman SF. Central corneal thickness and its relationship to intraocular pressure in children. Ophthalmology 2004;111:2220–3. 10.1016/j.ophtha.2004.06.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Johnson CP, Keech RV. Prevalence of glaucoma after surgery for PHPV and infantile cataracts. J PediatricOphthalmol Strabismus 1996;33:14–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Egbert JE, Wright MM, Dahlhauser KF, et al. A prospective study of ocular hypertension and glaucoma after pediatric cataract surgery. Ophthalmology. 1995;102:1098–101 10.1016/s0161-6420(95)30906-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Rabiah PK. Frequency and predictors of glaucoma after pediatric cataract surgery. Am J Ophthalmol. 2004;137:30–7. 10.1016/s0002-9394(03)00871-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Michael Mimouni

2 Feb 2021

PONE-D-20-37895

Changes in corneal thickness after vitrectomy -implications for glaucoma practice

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Rao,

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 Mar 19 2021 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: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Michael Mimouni

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

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: There is confusion about the methods of analysis stated in the methods and the presentation of the results. It is possible that the correct analysis was done, but that the results were presented in such a way to obscure that. I have attached details in a separate document along with a suggested alternative format for one of the tables. Either the presentation of the results should be revised or the methods should be restated to clarify what is being presented. They need to match.

Reviewer #2: The Authors provided a study on the changes of corneal thickness after vitrectomy.

The Authors reported the changes in CCT, but to help understand the pathogenesis of these changes, it will be useful to correlate the change in CCT to the type and indications for the surgery. Since they stated that they have collected these data, I think performing this analysis could be valuable to complete their study.

The manuscript is generally well written; however, I recommend an English revision for its consideration as publishable.

To follow some specific comments:

- Title: ‘Implications for glaucoma practice’. The authors did not explain how the glaucoma practice will change after their results;

- Methods section needs to be revised, authors need to be more precise and describe in detail the procedure they used for measuring IOP and the surgical techniques.

- Your criteria for the diagnosis of glaucoma are vague, are we talking about ocular hypertension or glaucoma? You need to be consistent and to follow specific diagnostic criteria.

- ‘standard glaucoma practice guidelines’. Which ones? Please reference.

- Stats: was the normality of the data checked before the use of t-test? If the case, please report it.

- Tables. Data reported are not easy to read, especially Table 2. Please be clearer.

**********

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: Yes: Sandra Stinnett

Reviewer #2: No

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

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

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review Comments (13JAN21).docx

PLoS One. 2021 Apr 21;16(4):e0249945. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249945.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


18 Feb 2021

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: There is confusion about the methods of analysis stated in the methods and the presentation of the results. It is possible that the correct analysis was done, but that the results were presented in such a way to obscure that. I have attached details in a separate document along with a suggested alternative format for one of the tables. Either the presentation of the results should be revised or the methods should be restated to clarify what is being presented. They need to match.

Answer: We have provided the tables in the same way as stated in methods, Page 6-For ex- comparison of normal versus affected eye in methods with table1,2, comparison of Anterior and posterior vitrectomy eyes comparisons in table 2 and so forth. Also, we have provided both absolute CCT and ∆CCT as detailed in the methods section again. We have still changed table format as suggested while keeping details in table 2 for benefit of readers. Table 3 and Table S1 are also those that are stated in the methods section, page 6. We have made sure we have given all relevant data in the study for the benefit of readers rather than obscure any detail.

Reviewer #2: The Authors provided a study on the changes of corneal thickness after vitrectomy.

The Authors reported the changes in CCT, but to help understand the pathogenesis of these changes, it will be useful to correlate the change in CCT to the type and indications for the surgery. Since they stated that they have collected these data, I think performing this analysis could be valuable to complete their study.

Answer: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion and we agree with the reviewer that indication of surgery may be also looked at. We would like to clarify that we looked at type of vitrectomy done- anterior versus posterior rather than look at indications of surgery which may be varied and would dilute the objectives of this study (say for example surgery for dislocated Lens versus DR versus ELM peeling +PPV- there would be too many surgical variables all of which cannot be assessed statistically for each group and would never conclude with a meaningful message with several subgroup analysis). Yet, we did stratify the CCT changes by indication of surgery like PDR and TRD and did not note any significant change between the two indications and therefore have not added that in tables or text.

The manuscript is generally well written; however, I recommend an English revision for its consideration as publishable.

Answer: The manuscript has been edited by Grammarly for correcting typos and grammar, as suggested.

To follow some specific comments:

- Title: ‘Implications for glaucoma practice’. The authors did not explain how the glaucoma practice will change after their results;

Answer: The implications of a change in CCT reflecting as “raised IOP” after VR surgeries or after paediatric surgeries have been discussed in detail in two separate paragraphs in the discussion, page 9 and 10. Basically, we feel that a false alarm of glaucoma is avoided if we know that the changed CCT can falsely present as raised IOP. We thank the reviewer and have added this in discussion highlighting this implication in glaucoma practice, as suggested, Page 11 and 12

.

- Methods section needs to be revised, authors need to be more precise and describe in detail the procedure they used for measuring IOP and the surgical techniques.

Answer: Being a retrospective study, we could not have blinded the trained optometrists in the study. The methods of IOP measurement and CCT are given in the methods section which have been modified as per suggestions.

Your criteria for the diagnosis of glaucoma are vague, are we talking about ocular hypertension or glaucoma? You need to be consistent and to follow specific diagnostic criteria.

Answer: We thank the reviewer for this observation. We have stated in the methods that for this retrospective study, we diagnosed secondary glaucoma in the event of a raised IOP >21mm Hg which is as per standard glaucoma diagnostic guidelines. We have also stated that disc/field changes at presentation were not mandatory for the diagnosis. So the reviewer is correct that initially they may seem as ocular hypertension; yet it is logical to understand disc/field changes would not appear immediately after raised IOP anyway. This is the reason a longitudinal prospective study may identify how many turned out be glaucoma versus ow many remained OHT wich wa not possible for this retrospective study. The entire premise of the study was to see if how this diagnostic criterion used in clinics for eyes with secondary glaucoma fares, keeping in mind the CCT changes after surgery. This mimics routine cincial scenarios and does not compare to matched /controlled prospective trials with strict definitions. The same has been discussed extensively in the results and the discussion. For a prospective study, we can revise the diagnosis based on disc/field changed over time.

- ‘standard glaucoma practice guidelines’. Which ones? Please reference.

Answer: The sentences has been rephrased, as suggested. As institutional protocol, we follow AAO and ISGEO guidelines among many others for glaucoma management.

- Stats: was the normality of the data checked before the use of t-test? If the case, please report it.

- Tables. Data reported are not easy to read, especially Table 2. Please be clearer.

Answer: Normality was indeed checked as per norms for systematic statistical analysis and parametric tests used only for normative data. Table 2 highlights the mean CCT comparisons in affected and normal eye in different age groups and between eyes that underwent anterior and posterior route of vitrectomy. This format was important to highlight that changes specific to a particular age group and particular route of surgery. This table also highlights one of the most important message of the study that is- greater ∆CCT in eyes presenting at an age <25 years, which could not have been possible had we presented differently. We have changed the tables with incorporation of all changes suggested by the reviewer. We further clarify that ∆CCT was calculated by seeing them in each eye rather than averaging CCT in affected and normal eye and seeing difference. This was because we realise that the difference between two eyes would be very very variable for each patient and also possibly by each surgery (wit a lot of surgical variables). This vast variability will not be highlighted had we averaged all affected eye and all normal eyes and then seen the difference, which would have hidden and smoothened out the different variability with a single mean. This also would have been a wrong way of measuring the difference caused by each surgery or in different age groups. The number of eyes are given in table 3 clearly for each group. We have incorporated all suggestions for depicting the results in the format given by the reviewer and thank the reviewer for such a nice suggestion for explaining our results in a better way.

We also thank the reviewer for the insightful suggestion on the table format, which have been changed. We have also added number in the tables as suggested and thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We would like to clarify that there were 127 eyes of 120 patients with in eye that has absolute at presentation being excluded. Yes, the reviewer is correct that paired t test ideally requires bilateral cases only which indeed is correct and has been added in the table. Also the CCT doff therefore could be done in 120 eyes only with both eyes included only. We thank the reviewer for useful tips to highlight in the tables for a better understanding and we appreciate and have incorporated the changes. ________________________________________________________________________________

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLos one reoply to reviewers comments highlighted - Copy.docx

Decision Letter 1

Michael Mimouni

10 Mar 2021

PONE-D-20-37895R1

Changes in corneal thickness after vitrectomy -implications for glaucoma practice

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Rao,

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 Apr 24 2021 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: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Michael Mimouni

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.

[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 #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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 #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

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 #2: 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 #2: 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: In the results section under “affected eye comparisons, the authors state: “The average CCT in the affected eye was significantly higher than the unaffected contralateral control eye (p<0.0001), Table 1, Figure 1.”

These are my comments from my first review:

3. In table 1, they present the IOP, visual acuity and CCT in two columns without presenting the average difference. It is the average difference that is being tested, not the difference in means between eyes. It is fine to show the means for each eye, but they need to also show the average difference. The layout in the table makes it appear that they have treated this as independent data. This is further unclear because they do not put N’s in the table. They need to show the number of eyes.

4. Their expression of the results for Table 1 also makes it appear that they did not analyze the average difference: “The average CCT in the affected eye was significantly higher than the unaffected contralateral control eye (p<0.0001).”

As I expressed in the original review, this is not a correct statement. You are not comparing the difference in means between the affected eye and the unaffected eye, as this sentence implies. This makes the reader think that you have carried out an independent t-test. I see that you have added a footnote to table 1 that indicates that a paired t-test was carried out. However, we still don’t know what the average difference was since that is not shown in the tables. Since only 120 eyes are being compared yet we see 127 for the affected eye, even the means in the tables are not reflective of what is being compared. The correct way to express that a paired t-test was done (and not an independent test) is to say that the average difference between eyes was significant and tell the reader what that was. You could leave the table the way it is if you express in the text the average difference, standard deviation of the difference along with the p-value you already have given.

The authors have made changes to Table 2 which make it easier to understand. It would be helpful to make the same changes to Table 1. Then the difference between eyes would be perfectly clear.

Reviewer #2: The Authors put a lot of efforts to improve their manuscript, and they have successfully replied to all my comments. Nevertheless, a lot of typos and formatting mistakes are still present in the manuscript (just too many to list them here) and need to be fixed. Please check this aspect carefully.

**********

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 #2: No

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

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

PLoS One. 2021 Apr 21;16(4):e0249945. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249945.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


11 Mar 2021

To,

The Editor,

Dear Sir/Madam,

We hereby submit our revised manuscript “Changes in corneal thickness after vitrectomy -implications for glaucoma practice” for review for publication in your journal. We have professionally edited the manuscript for grammar and typo errors, as suggested. We would welcome any more suggestions or queries which can further improve our manuscript. We have included all suggestions made by reviewers for wider readership and easy understanding which has improved the impact of the manuscript considerably.

All the authors have contributed equally towards preparation of the manuscript and have no financial or proprietary interest in the products used in the study. We also declare that this article has not been published previously or under review with any other journal.

a) We have made available all supplemental files/data for the reader’s benefit and can make all clinical raw data available for public repository on request.

b) All data are available with the corresponding author or the institute database/IRB which can be shared after third party inclusion for specific interested readers for data sharing by the patients.

Thanking you

Reviewer #1: In the results section under “affected eye comparisons, the authors state: “The average CCT in the affected eye was significantly higher than the unaffected contralateral control eye (p<0.0001), Table 1, Figure 1.”

These are my comments from my first review:

3. In table 1, they present the IOP, visual acuity and CCT in two columns without presenting the average difference. It is the average difference that is being tested, not the difference in means between eyes. It is fine to show the means for each eye, but they need to also show the average difference. The layout in the table makes it appear that they have treated this as independent data. This is further unclear because they do not put N’s in the table. They need to show the number of eyes.

4. Their expression of the results for Table 1 also makes it appear that they did not analyze the average difference: “The average CCT in the affected eye was significantly higher than the unaffected contralateral control eye (p<0.0001).”

As I expressed in the original review, this is not a correct statement. You are not comparing the difference in means between the affected eye and the unaffected eye, as this sentence implies. This makes the reader think that you have carried out an independent t-test. I see that you have added a footnote to table 1 that indicates that a paired t-test was carried out. However, we still don’t know what the average difference was since that is not shown in the tables. Since only 120 eyes are being compared yet we see 127 for the affected eye, even the means in the tables are not reflective of what is being compared. The correct way to express that a paired t-test was done (and not an independent test) is to say that the average difference between eyes was significant and tell the reader what that was. You could leave the table the way it is if you express in the text the average difference, standard deviation of the difference along with the p-value you already have given.

The authors have made changes to Table 2 which make it easier to understand. It would be helpful to make the same changes to Table 1. Then the difference between eyes would be perfectly clear.

Answer: We had clarified that ∆CCT was calculated by seeing them in each eye rather than averaging CCT in affected and normal eye. Yet, the mean CCT between normal and affected eyes were compared by paired t test as written in methods and reflected in Table1. We had also elaborated the reason for choosing this method and would like to add that ∆CCT is an indirect measure of the change in same patient and not a direct longitudinal measurement, meaning the control eye CCT reflects the possible baseline CCT of the affected eye, while CCT of the affected eye reflects the change induced by surgery (This is already detailed in the text in methods and discussion). So while we understand the suggestion of average differences being included in the text, this would mean a different clinical message which is very confusing readers and take away key messages and highlights. We also point here that ,as per earlier suggestions, we included N in modified table 1 earlier itself and also changed the format of the table1 along with table 2.

Let us in detail explain the above by examples

Lets say we have the below CCT from 3 pts

Affected eye Normal eye

1. 602 567

2. 602 489

3. 680 and 602 (Ou undergoing VR sx)

Here affected eye n=4, control eye n=2-----t test run between mean of Affected and normal eyes that is 617 and 528, respectively, (The N also is clear as to why we have 127 affected and 120 controls-method in revised text has included how many were both eyes)

But ∆CCT is calculated for 2 eyes only(pt 1 and 2)- ∆CCT would be calculated from diff in pt and 2 (35 and 113). This happens because the CCT in normal also is highly variable-so calculating all affected eyes and normal as one may not reflect the indirect CCT changes, as described above.

We clarify that ∆CCT was calculated by seeing them in each eye rather than averaging CCT in affected and normal eye and seeing difference in their means. Yet the Paired t test was run between means which is reflected in table1. This was because we realise that the difference between two eyes would be far too variable for each patient and also possibly by each surgery (with a lot of surgical variables). This vast variability will not be highlighted had we averaged all affected eye and all normal eyes and then seen the difference, which would have hidden and smoothened out the different variability with a single mean. This also would have been a wrong way of measuring the difference caused by each surgery or in different age groups.

Reviewer #2: The Authors put a lot of efforts to improve their manuscript, and they have successfully replied to all my comments. Nevertheless, a lot of typos and formatting mistakes are still present in the manuscript (just too many to list them here) and need to be fixed. Please check this aspect carefully.

Answer: The manuscript has now been edited by Grammarly but there may be overlapping of words that happen with diff Microsoft versions we noticed in the PDF.

Earlier reviewer comments

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: There is confusion about the methods of analysis stated in the methods and the presentation of the results. It is possible that the correct analysis was done, but that the results were presented in such a way to obscure that. I have attached details in a separate document along with a suggested alternative format for one of the tables. Either the presentation of the results should be revised or the methods should be restated to clarify what is being presented. They need to match.

Answer: We have provided the tables in the same way as stated in methods, Page 6-For ex- comparison of normal versus affected eye in methods with table1,2, comparison of Anterior and posterior vitrectomy eyes comparisons in table 2 and so forth. Also, we have provided both absolute CCT and ∆CCT as detailed in the methods section again. We have still changed table format as suggested while keeping details in table 2 for benefit of readers. Table 3 and Table S1 are also those that are stated in the methods section, page 6. We have made sure we have given all relevant data in the study for the benefit of readers rather than obscure any detail.

Reviewer #2: The Authors provided a study on the changes of corneal thickness after vitrectomy.

The Authors reported the changes in CCT, but to help understand the pathogenesis of these changes, it will be useful to correlate the change in CCT to the type and indications for the surgery. Since they stated that they have collected these data, I think performing this analysis could be valuable to complete their study.

Answer: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion and we agree with the reviewer that indication of surgery may be also looked at. We would like to clarify that we looked at type of vitrectomy done- anterior versus posterior rather than look at indications of surgery which may be varied and would dilute the objectives of this study (say for example surgery for dislocated Lens versus DR versus ELM peeling +PPV- there would be too many surgical variables all of which cannot be assessed statistically for each group and would never conclude with a meaningful message with several subgroup analysis). Yet, we did stratify the CCT changes by indication of surgery like PDR and TRD and did not note any significant change between the two indications and therefore have not added that in tables or text.

The manuscript is generally well written; however, I recommend an English revision for its consideration as publishable.

Answer: The manuscript has been edited by Grammarly for correcting typos and grammar, as suggested.

To follow some specific comments:

- Title: ‘Implications for glaucoma practice’. The authors did not explain how the glaucoma practice will change after their results;

Answer: The implications of a change in CCT reflecting as “raised IOP” after VR surgeries or after paediatric surgeries have been discussed in detail in two separate paragraphs in the discussion, page 9 and 10. Basically, we feel that a false alarm of glaucoma is avoided if we know that the changed CCT can falsely present as raised IOP. We thank the reviewer for ths suggestion and have added this in discussion highlighting this implication in glaucoma practice, as suggested, Page 11 and 12

.

- Methods section needs to be revised, authors need to be more precise and describe in detail the procedure they used for measuring IOP and the surgical techniques.

Answer: Being a retrospective study, we could not have blinded the trained optometrists in the study. The methods of IOP measurement and CCT are given in the methods section which have been modified as per suggestions.

Your criteria for the diagnosis of glaucoma are vague, are we talking about ocular hypertension or glaucoma? You need to be consistent and to follow specific diagnostic criteria.

Answer: We thank the reviewer for this observation. We have stated in the methods that for this retrospective study, we diagnosed secondary glaucoma in the event of a raised IOP >21mm Hg which is as per standard glaucoma diagnostic guidelines. We have also stated that disc/field changes at presentation were not mandatory for the diagnosis. So the reviewer is correct that initially they may seem as ocular hypertension; yet it is logical to understand disc/field changes would not appear immediately after raised IOP anyway. This is the reason a longitudinal prospective study may identify how many turned out be glaucoma versus ow many remained OHT wich wa not possible for this retrospective study. The entire premise of the study was to see if how this diagnostic criterion used in clinics for eyes with secondary glaucoma fares, keeping in mind the CCT changes after surgery. This mimics routine clinical scenarios and does not compare to matched /controlled prospective trials with strict definitions. The same has been discussed extensively in the results and the discussion. For a prospective study, we can revise the diagnosis based on disc/field changed over time.

- ‘standard glaucoma practice guidelines’. Which ones? Please reference.

Answer: The sentences has been rephrased, as suggested. As institutional protocol, we follow AAO and ISGEO guidelines among many others for glaucoma management.

- Stats: was the normality of the data checked before the use of t-test? If the case, please report it.

- Tables. Data reported are not easy to read, especially Table 2. Please be clearer.

Answer: Normality was indeed checked as per norms for systematic statistical analysis and parametric tests used only for normative data. Table 2 highlights the mean CCT comparisons in affected and normal eye in different age groups and between eyes that underwent anterior and posterior route of vitrectomy. This format was important to highlight that changes specific to a particular age group and particular route of surgery. This table also highlights one of the most important message of the study that is- greater ∆CCT in eyes presenting at an age <25 years, which could not have been possible had we presented differently. We have changed the tables with incorporation of all changes suggested by the reviewer. We further clarify that ∆CCT was calculated by seeing them in each eye rather than averaging CCT in affected and normal eye and seeing difference. This was because we realise that the difference between two eyes would be far too variable for each patient and also possibly by each surgery (with a lot of surgical variables). This vast variability will not be highlighted had we averaged all affected eye and all normal eyes and then seen the difference, which would have hidden and smoothened out the different variability with a single mean. This also would have been a wrong way of measuring the difference caused by each surgery or in different age groups. The number of eyes are given in table 3 clearly for each group. We have incorporated all suggestions for depicting the results in the format given by the reviewer and thank the reviewer for such a nice suggestion for explaining our results in a better way.

We also thank the reviewer for the insightful suggestion on the table format, which have been changed. We have also added number in the tables as suggested and thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We would like to clarify that there were 127 eyes of 120 patients with in eye that has absolute at presentation being excluded. Yes, the reviewer is correct that paired t test ideally requires bilateral cases only which indeed is correct and has been added in the table. Also the CCT doff therefore could be done in 120 eyes only with both eyes included only. We thank the reviewer for useful tips to highlight in the tables for a better understanding and we appreciate and have incorporated the changes. ________________________________________

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLos one reoply to reviewers comments highlighted - Copy.docx

Decision Letter 2

Michael Mimouni

29 Mar 2021

Changes in corneal thickness after vitrectomy -implications for glaucoma practice

PONE-D-20-37895R2

Dear Dr. Rao,

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,

Michael Mimouni

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

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 #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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 #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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 #2: 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 #2: 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: I need to just let this go. I am not getting through to the authors. This is their explanation below which is even more confusing because they say that the "paired t-test was run between means." You can't ran a paired t-test between means. That's my point. A paired t-test is run on the average difference between the individual eyes. Nowhere do they say what the average difference is, only what the mean for each eye is. Suppose I wanted to use their results to power another study, I would want to know the average difference and the standard deviation of the difference. The fact that they say that the difference between individual eyes would be too variable is another point FOR (not against) using a paired t-test (the difference between eyes means that each person is their own control).

We clarify that ∆CCT was calculated by seeing them in each eye rather than averaging

CCT in affected and normal eye and seeing difference in their means. Yet the Paired t

test was run between means which is reflected in table1. This was because we realise

that the difference between two eyes would be far too variable for each patient and

also possibly by each surgery (with a lot of surgical variables). This vast variability will

not be highlighted had we averaged all affected eye and all normal eyes and then seen

the difference, which would have hidden and smoothened out the different variability

with a single mean. This also would have been a wrong way of measuring the

difference caused by each surgery or in different age groups

Reviewer #2: The Authors have addressed all the comments and revised the manuscript accordingly.

I have no additional comments.

**********

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 #2: No

Acceptance letter

Michael Mimouni

5 Apr 2021

PONE-D-20-37895R2

Changes in corneal thickness after vitrectomy -implications for glaucoma practice

Dear Dr. Rao:

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

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

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

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

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Michael Mimouni

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. Comparison of various variables in affected eyes with and without pre-existing glaucoma.

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Review Comments (13JAN21).docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PLos one reoply to reviewers comments highlighted - Copy.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PLos one reoply to reviewers comments highlighted - Copy.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES