Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26743748›Full record

ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2016

Outcomes of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty, Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty and penetrating keratoplasty from a single centre study.

S Heinzelmann, D Böhringer, P Eberwein, T Reinhard, P Maier

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
17.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

47 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 133 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

S HeinzelmannEye Center, Albert-Ludwigs-University of Freiburg, Killianstr. 5, D-79106, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany. sonja.heinzelmann@uniklinik-freiburg.de.
D BöhringerEye Center, Albert-Ludwigs-University of Freiburg, Killianstr. 5, D-79106, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.
P EberweinEye Center, Albert-Ludwigs-University of Freiburg, Killianstr. 5, D-79106, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.
T ReinhardEye Center, Albert-Ludwigs-University of Freiburg, Killianstr. 5, D-79106, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.
P MaierEye Center, Albert-Ludwigs-University of Freiburg, Killianstr. 5, D-79106, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.
University of Freiburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAccording to some pioneer surgeons, lamellar endothelial keratoplasty techniques (EK), including Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) and Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK), yield excellent clinical results. However, there is a lack of studies with high levels of evidence and results of large national keratoplasty registers are contradictory. Therefore, two large cohorts of DMEK and DSAEK procedures are compared to a cohort of penetrating keratoplasty (PK).

methodsThe study reports 868 keratoplasty procedures at a single centre (694 eyes with Fuchs endothelial dystrophy (FED) and 174 with bullous keratopathy (BK)). Patients underwent DMEK (450 eyes), DSAEK (89 eyes), or PK (329 eyes). Postoperative visual acuity, endothelial cell density (ECD), rate of regrafting, and rejections were recorded.

resultsVisual acuity recovers faster and to a greater extent in EK compared to PK. DMEK performs better than DSAEK. ECD drops faster initially for EK compared to PK. In EK the rate of regrafting is higher than in PK (7 % in DMEK, 20 % in DSAEK and 2 % in PK in FED). The rejection rate is lowest following DMEK (7 % after DMEK, 21 % after DSAEK and 18 % after PK in FED).

conclusionsIn contrast to recent reports from national keratoplasty registers, the overall clinical outcome of EK in FED and BK is superior to PK. Including ocular comorbidities and learning curves, these data reflect a realistic setting for comparing the different keratoplasty techniques. Corneal surgeons may be encouraged to preferentially use DMEK in FED and BK.

Indexed as

Descemet Stripping Endothelial KeratoplastyKeratoplasty, PenetratingAgedAged, 80 and overBlisterCell CountCorneal DiseasesCorneal Endothelial Cell LossDescemet MembraneEndothelium, CornealFemaleFuchs' Endothelial DystrophyGraft SurvivalHumansMaleMiddle AgedCorneaDMEKDSAEKKeratoplastyPK

Identifiers

PMID26743748
OpenAlexW2223693598

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.