Changes in horizontal strabismus after inferior rectus muscle recession with or without nasal transposition in thyroid eye disease: A retrospective, observational study

Aric Vaidya; Hirohiko Kakizaki; Yasuhiro Takahashi

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0240019

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 1, 2020
24 Aug 2020 Decision Letter - Ahmed Awadein, Editor PONE-D-20-20308 Changes in Horizontal Strabismus after Inferior Rectus Muscle Recession with or without Nasal Transposition in Thyroid Eye Disease: A Retrospective, Observational Study PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Takahashi, 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 Oct 08 2020 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, Ahmed Awadein, MD, Ph.D, FRCS 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. We ask that you please consider moving Figure 2 to Supporting Information due to is graphic nature. Thank you for your consideration. 3. 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 [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes 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: In the preoperative data the lack of forced diction test especially on the MRM which may largely contribute to the esotropia is a defect in the study, the authors admitted that. In group C where the esotropia increases postoperatively the preoperative angles of esotropia were very small (lines 358-360) and the mean of pre and post. operative angle does not show how much is the increase of the angle postoperatively. There might be a fallacy in measurement of small angles of deviation. In such cases the angles should be measured by more than one examiner and an average taken to be sure of the results and conclusions. The explanation of the role of SOM contribution to the increase of angle of esotropia in group C ( lines 313-317) is not justified. Decreasing the amount of IRM recession and transposition according to the conclusion of the study should decrease the angle of Esotropia not increase it as in group C. The relation between the amount of IRM recession and its nasal transposition should be studied together with its effect on esotropia. IRM recession decreases esotropia ( weakening an adductor) while its nasal transposition may increase esotropia both together may nullify each other or one effect may be more than the other. The resultant change in esotropia May be explained in that way. Reviewer #2: Methods: The details of the radiotherapy and MRI are not relevant to the study and can be trimmed 172- 8/0 suture is too thin for eye muscle surgery. Can you comment on that? 198-200 How were measurements taken in upgaze and downgaze? 202-205 and throughout the manuscript replace subtraction values by the magnitude of pattern strabismus 358 preoperative or postoperative? Can you add a line to the scatter plots and include the regression equation in the figure? ****** 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: Lobna khazbak, MD Reviewer #2: Yes:** Ahmed Awadein [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240019.r001
Revision 1
5 Sep 2020 Author Response Point-by-Point Response to Reviewers’ Comments We wish to thank the reviewers for giving their precious time to help us improve our manuscript. We value all the comments that were given to us and hope that the changes we made will make the manuscript more acceptable to the reviewers. Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. Comment 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 Reply: We revised the paper according to PLOS ONE’s style requirements. Comment 2: We ask that you please consider moving Figure 2 to Supporting Information due to its graphic nature. Thank you for your consideration. Reply: We moved the original Figure 2 to S1 Figure and moved up the original Figure 3 to Figure 2. Comment 3: 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 Reply: We included the captions for the supporting information files at the end of the manuscript. Response to Comments from Reviewer #1: Comment #1: In the preoperative data the lack of forced diction test especially on the MRM which may largely contribute to the esotropia is a defect in the study, the authors admitted that. Reply: Thank you for your suggestion. As pointed out by the reviewer, we did not perform a forced duction test at the start and the end of the surgery, which is a limitation of our study. We stated this limitation in page 19, lines 366-368. Comment #2: In group C where the esotropia increases postoperatively the preoperative angles of esotropia were very small (lines 358-360) and the mean of pre and post operative angle does not show how much is the increase of the angle postoperatively. Reply: Thank you for your suggestion. We presented the changes in the horizontal angle in Table 1. Comment #3: There might be a fallacy in measurement of small angles of deviation. In such cases the angles should be measured by more than one examiner and an average taken to be sure of the results and conclusions. Reply: Thank you for pointing this out. As indicated by the reviewer, the deviation angles were measured by a single orthoptist in this study. Measurements by multiple examiners and use of mean measurement values may provide more accurate outcomes. We added this limitation in page 19, line 368 to page 20, line 370. Comment #4: The explanation of the role of SOM contribution to the increase of angle of esotropia in group C (lines 313-317) is not justified. Decreasing the amount of IRM recession and transposition according to the conclusion of the study should decrease the angle of Esotropia not increase it as in group C. Reply: Thank you for your indication. We had discussed about the contribution of a thicker SOM to the magnitude of preoperative esotropia and excyclotropia because the SOM is not the antagonist of the IRM, and the function of the SOM little change after IRM recession and its nasal transposition. With regard to the above points, we believe that our discussion is reasonable. We added the following sentences in page 16, lines 297-299: “As the SOM is not the antagonist of IRM, the function of SOM may not change after IRM recession and its nasal transposition. Therefore, the thicker SOM may mainly affect only the preoperative status of the involved eye.” As commented by the reviewer, firstly, we had expected that IRM recession ± IRM nasal transposition always reduces esotropia. Surprisingly, instead of postoperative reduction in esotropia, we happened to experience increased esotropia after IRM recession ± IRM nasal transposition, as shown in Group C. We, therefore, studied the tendency of postoperative changes in esotropia after performing such surgery. We added the following sentence on page 3, lines 42-44: “Moreover, in some cases, contrary to the expected postoperative reduction in esotropia, we happened to experience increased esotropia following surgery.” Comment #5: The relation between the amount of IRM recession and its nasal transposition should be studied together with its effect on esotropia. IRM recession decreases esotropia (weakening an adductor) while its nasal transposition may increase esotropia both together may nullify each other or one effect may be more than the other. The resultant change in esotropia May be explained in that way. Reply: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We analyzed the relationship between the amount of IRM recession and that of IRM nasal transposition using Pearson’s correlation coefficient, but there was little correlation between them (r = 0.147, P = 0.255). We added these contents in page 9, lines 192-195, and page 15, lines 261-262. Response to Comments from Reviewer #2: Comment #1: Methods: The details of the radiotherapy and MRI are not relevant to the study and can be trimmed. Reply: Thank you for your suggestion. We shortened the corresponding parts in pages 5-6. Comment #2: 172- 8/0 suture is too thin for eye muscle surgery. Can you comment on that? Reply: We used 8/0 suture because of our preference only. As pointed out by the reviewer, we agree that this suture is thin. We, therefore, fixed the inferior rectus muscle tendon at 4-6 points to prevent the slippage of the muscle. Actually, based on our clinical evidence, none of the patients developed a slipped IRM postoperatively. We stated these contents in page 8, lines 161-162, and page 15, lines 267-268. Comment #3: 198-200 How were measurements taken in upgaze and downgaze? Reply: We measured the deviation angles in 15° upward gaze and 15° downward gaze using a synoptophore. One of the two arms of the synoptophore was fixed at 15° upward gaze or 15° downward gaze, and then, the deviation angle of the non-fixating eye was measured. We stated these contents in page 6, 2nd paragraph, lines 113-118. Comment #4: 202-205 and throughout the manuscript replace subtraction values by the magnitude of pattern strabismus Reply: Thank you for your suggestion. We modified the manuscript according to the reviewer’s comment. Comment #5: 358 preoperative or postoperative? Reply: Thank you for pointing this out. The angle shown in the corresponding sentence was measured preoperatively. Comment #6: Can you add a line to the scatter plots and include the regression equation in the figure? Reply: Thank you for your suggestion. We added the regression lines in the new Figure 2 (the original Figure 3). Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240019.r002
18 Sep 2020 Decision Letter - Ahmed Awadein, Editor Changes in horizontal strabismus after inferior rectus muscle recession with or without nasal transposition in thyroid eye disease: a retrospective, observational study PONE-D-20-20308R1 Dear Dr. Takahashi, 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, Ahmed Awadein, MD, Ph.D, FRCS Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240019.r003
Formally Accepted
22 Sep 2020 Acceptance Letter - Ahmed Awadein, Editor PONE-D-20-20308R1 Changes in horizontal strabismus after inferior rectus muscle recession with or without nasal transposition in thyroid eye disease: a retrospective, observational study Dear Dr. Takahashi: 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. Ahmed Awadein Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240019.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .