Comparison of Efficacy and Inflammatory Response to Thermoconjunctivoplasty Performed with Cautery or Pulsed 1460 nm Laser

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 1

1. All suggested revisions were made to the Introduction section.
2. As suggested, Figure 1 was revised and the green lines were changed to white or black lines to improve visualization of the treated zone. The Fig 1 legend was revised to include this.
3. Figure 4 legend was revised.
4. Results Section D. Tear Cytokines. Tear cytokines were measured up to D7 and not measured at D10 because significantly lower numbers of neutrophils and CD11b⁺ cells between the laser and cautery groups were already observed at D3.
5. Results, Section D Line 128. This was corrected to indicate there was no difference between groups at any time point.
6. Results, Section D Line 133. Laser D7 compared to laser D0 was added as requested.
7. Figure 5 legend was revised.
8. All minor revisions were made as suggested.
9. Discussion, line 168. There was no histological evidence of fibrosis 3 days following NIR laser or thermocautery, but this may not be sufficient time for a fibrotic response to be detected in tissue section. It is possible fibrosis could be detected at a later post treatment time point.
10. Discussion, Line 194. The suggested revised sentence was inserted.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

I think that your manuscript "Comparison of Efficacy and Inflammatory Response to Thermoconjunctivoplasty Performed with Cautery or Pulsed 1460-nm Laser" can be accept in this form.

Best regards

Author Response

Reviewer 2. The reviewer noted the manuscript is acceptable for publication and did not suggest any revisions.

Reviewer 3 Report

De Souza et al. realized a very interesting communication describing the “Comparison of Efficacy and Inflammatory Response to Thermoconjunctivoplasty Performed with Cautery or Pulsed 1460 nm Laser”. I consider the manuscript very interesting but, at the same time, I suggest several revisions needed to improve the reliability and the completeness of the paper: 

·      The “Discussion” sections should be more updated and improved. I suggest adding data related to the involvement of oxidative stress, also focusing on vascular components, in relationship to gene expression results. The recent PMID: 32877751, PMID: 30523548, PMID: 36490268 and PMID: 36290689 could represent a substrate able to enforce the role of considered cellular mechanisms.

·      The sub-chapters of “Materials and Methods” section should be better divided and evidenced.

·      Are the experiments realized at least in triplicate?

·      Finally, manuscript requires important English revisions and typos correction.

Author Response

1. The referenced studies focus on vascular lesions in the brain and retinal degenerations. They have nothing to do with our study. I wonder if these were intended for a different manuscript.
2. The subheading in the Materials and Methods section are already separate and clearly defined by assay type.
3. The numbers of mice are noted in the Materials and Methods section. As noted in the figure legends, all assays had sample sizes between 3-8 in each group.
4. As noted in the response to Reviewer 1, extensive revisions were made to improve sentence structure and correct typos.