ArticleEye (London, England)2015
Retrospective contralateral study comparing Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty with Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
29 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 63 citations in OpenAlex.
- Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) versus Descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) for corneal endothelial failure.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty versus descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: a meta-analysis.International ophthalmology · 2018Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Trial
- Trial
- Association between corneal edema and corneal astigmatism after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Multivariate relationships between graft detachment after DMEK and twelve pre/perioperative factors.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Review
- The progress and future of corneal endothelial transplantation.Japanese journal of ophthalmology · 2024Review
- A Functional and Immunologic Point of View on Corneal Endothelial Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- DMEK Surgery at a Tertiary Hospital in Sweden. Results and Complication Risks.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Article
- Risk factors for intraocular pressure elevation following Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty in Asian patients.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2023Article
- Assessing the Learning Curve for DMEK Using Post-Procedural Clinical Outcomes-Comparison of Four Different Surgeons during Two Different Periods.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Review
- The outcome of 70/30 taco insertion through a 2.8 mm clear corneal incision in Descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty - A retrospective analysis.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Article
- Comparative Analysis of Corneal Parameters in Swept-Source Imaging between DMEK and UT-DSAEK Eyes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Evolution of therapies for the corneal endothelium: past, present and future approaches.The British journal of ophthalmology · 2021Review
- Bilateral Ultrathin Descemet's Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty vs. Bilateral Penetrating Keratoplasty in Fuchs' Dystrophy: Corneal Higher-Order Aberrations, Contrast Sensitivity and Quality of Life.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021Article
- Visual Quality and Subjective Satisfaction in Ultrathin Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty (UT-DSAEK) versus Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty (DMEK): A Fellow-Eye Comparison.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIn this retrospective study, the visual outcomes and postoperative complications after Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) and Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) in the fellow eye were compared. The patient's satisfaction was evaluated.
methodsA retrospective analysis of 10 patients, who underwent DSAEK in one eye and DMEK surgery in their fellow eye, was performed. Intraoperative and postoperative complications were recorded. Visual and refractive outcomes were evaluated, including higher-order aberrations (HOA) and contrast thresholds. A subjective questionnaire was used to evaluate patient satisfaction.
resultsBest-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was significantly better in DMEK when compared with DSAEK (0.16±0.10 vs 0.45±0.58 logMAR, P=0.043). Contrast threshold was significantly higher after DMEK than after DSAEK (0.49±0.23 vs 0.25±0.18, P=0.043). Post-keratoplasty astigmatism, mean spherical equivalent, and HOA did not differ. Nine out of ten patients preferred the DMEK procedure. Visual outcome (4.80±1.14 vs 4.50±1.58, P=0.257), surgery associated pain and burden (DMEK: 1.30±0.48 vs DSAEK: 1.30±0.48, P=1.0), estimated time for recovery and rehabilitation (27.6±54.0 vs 24.9±54.8 days, P=0.173), and mean patient satisfaction (5.40±0.84 vs 5.00±1.05, P=0.257) were evaluated equally.
conclusionPatient satisfaction reached high, equal values after DMEK and after DSAEK. Nevertheless, patients preferred DMEK, if given a choice. Reasons for the preference may include better uncorrected and BCVA, and especially a better contrast sensitivity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.