ArticleDer Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft2015
[Perforating keratoplasty versus Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty in the partner eye: Functional results and patient satisfaction].
Article in Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Pathogenesis and diagnostic evaluation of Fuchs' endothelial corneal dystrophy].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study compared the postoperative results and patient satisfaction between penetrating keratoplasty (PK) and Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) in patients who underwent PK in one eye and DSAEK in the other eye.
methodsA total of 15 patients were identified from the corneal database register and the medical charts were analyzed for best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), keratometric astigmatism, endothelial cell density and postoperative complications. Patient satisfaction was evaluated by a standardized interview.
resultsMedian follow-up time for PK was 55 months and 18 months for DSAEK (p < 0.01). Median BCVA in PK was 0.8 and 0.5 in DSAEK (p = 0.01) at the end of follow-up. Median keratometric astigmatism was 3.1 diopters after PK and 1.9 diopters after DSAEK (p = 0.2). Median endothelial cell density was 831 cells/mm(2) after PK and 860 cells/mm(2) after DSAEK (p = 0.63). For the interventions 57 % of the patients preferred PK, 36 % preferred DSAEK and 7 % were undecided. Patients assigned the better performing eye to the PK side in 64 % and in 29 % to the DSAEK side and 7 % perceived equal visual performance in both eyes.
conclusionThe results leave doubt about the superiority of DSAEK compared to PK; however, exceptionally good refractive results of the 15 PK eyes analyzed and significantly longer follow-up times after PK could be the reason for the unexpectedly high patient preference for PK.
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.