We should be conservative in drawing conclusions from this study because of the inherent differences between a laboratory-based cadaver cornea model and recipient corneas in the clinical setting. In this study, the cadaver corneas were pressurized gradually while mounted on an artificial anterior chamber. The burst pressures measured were, therefore, a response mostly to static pressurization from the internal aspect of the cornea. These findings, therefore, might not be indicative of the pressures required to rupture a cornea by the dynamic shear forces exerted by repeated eye and eyelid movement, eye rubbing, or a direct external blow, which could cause sudden and substantial shear forces across the femtosecond-lasered dissection, leading to greater wound instability. A top hat configuration wound may be less able to withstand external pressure compared with internal pressure because of the wound architecture with the internal flange, designed to aid closure and healing of the wound in the presence of intraocular pressure. In addition, femtosecond laser dissections in cadaveric corneas preserved in corneal storage medium may not be comparable with those in all patient corneas, which may behave more variably. For example, an edematous cornea with pseudophakic bullous keratopathy might have reduced laser penetration and a less complete femtosecond dissection, perhaps similar to an edematous cadaveric cornea, whereas a clear cornea with keratoconus might have a more complete femtosecond dissection, potentially leading to lower wound burst pressures in vivo. Finally, it is possible that patient eye movement during the femtosecond laser dissection could result in displacement of the laser dissection and unpredictable alterations in the resulting uncut gap, including a full-thickness cut in part of the dissection. This is unlikely because the recipient eye is essentially immobilized by the “patient interface,” consisting of the suction ring, which is applied to the recipient limbus, and the applanation cone, which is docked into the suction ring during applanation of the cornea. Once adequate applanation has been achieved, the surgeon releases the clip on the suction ring, locking the 2 devices together and preventing significant movement of the cornea relative to the laser. It is most likely that vertical movements of the patient would result in movement of the patient's globe in the orbit rather than the cornea relative to the laser. Significant lateral movement would result in loss of suction, at which stage the entire patient interface becomes detached from the patient and the laser stops. However, because the limbal conjunctiva is not completely fixed to the underlying sclera, it is possible that small lateral movements of the eye could displace the laser dissection. It would, therefore, seem prudent to leave a larger dissection gap, such as 100 rather than 50 μm, to allow for this.