stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty: a multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial. Ophthalmology. 2020;127: 1152e1159. 3. Chamberlain W, Lin CC, Austin A, et al. Descemet endothelial thickness comparison trial: a randomized trial comparing ultrathin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty with Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmology. 2019;126:19e26. 4. Wacker K, Baratz KH, Maguire LJ, et al. Descemet stripping endothelial keratoplasty for fuchs' endothelial corneal dystrophy: five-year results of a prospective study. Ophthalmology. 2016;123:154e160. 5. Wacker K, Baratz KH, Bourne WM, et al. Patient-reported visual disability in Fuchs' endothelial corneal dystrophy measured by the visual function and corneal health status instrument. Ophthalmology. 2018;125:1854e1861. REPLY: In randomized clinical trials, inherent variability is due to several known and unknown sources of bias. Consequently, although the means of visual acuity from various studies on Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) seem to converge to a similar value, it is important to note that wide variations in graft thickness were represented by a relatively limited sample size (n ¼ 25 in both clinical trials). An analysis using averages alone may not tell the whole story, especially with regards to the influence of graft thickness on overall asymmetry. With a wider possible range of pachymetry values along different points, thicker grafts tend to have greater posterior corneal asymmetry, which in turn affects visual outcomes. 1,2 Conversely, when the intended graft thickness is <100 mm, as in ultrathin DSAEK, there is a greater probability of obtaining a regular and symmetric graft, thus resulting in better vision. 3 Although highly functional vision can still be achieved in a large number of cases, raising the bar for DSAEK must also involve standardized graft preparation that yields consistent graft quality. 4