Trial reportActa ophthalmologica2019
Prospective evaluation of clinical outcomes between pre-cut corneal grafts prepared using a manual or automated technique: with one-year follow-up.
Trial report in Acta ophthalmologica, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative study of effectiveness and safety between non-Descemet stripping endothelial keratoplasty and Descemet stripping endothelial keratoplasty for endothelial decompensation.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Exosomes and autophagy in ocular surface and retinal diseases: new insights into pathophysiology and treatment.Stem cell research & therapy · 2022Review
- Exosomes From Human Umbilical Cord Mesenchymal Stem Cells Treat Corneal Injury via Autophagy Activation.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Article
- Corneal Repair and Regeneration: Current Concepts and Future Directions.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposePosterior lamellar corneal surgery is considered the standard of care for irreversible endothelial cell dysfunction. Pre-cut grafts can be prepared either manually (Descemet stripping endothelial keratoplasty; DSEK) or mechanically (Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty; DSAEK). We performed a head-to-head clinical comparison between DSEK and DSAEK grafts.
methodsAll DSEK and DSAEK procedures performed by two corneal specialists at the University Medical Center Utrecht from 1 January 2016 through 31 October 2016 were prospectively included. Pre-cut grafts were delivered by two eye banks, which either exclusively prepared the DSEK or DSAEK grafts. Preoperative and postoperative measurements were obtained, and all surgical events and adverse events were recorded.
resultsA total of 21 DSEK and 53 DSAEK procedures were included for analysis; the two groups were similar at baseline, with the exception of graft endothelial cell density, which was 2531 ± 67 versus 2748 ± 148 cells/mm
conclusionManually dissected and microkeratome-dissected grafts performed similarly with respect to vision and endothelial cell loss assessed one year after surgery. The higher incidence of graft failure among manually dissected (i.e. DSEK) grafts may be attributable to reduced relative thickness compared to DSAEK grafts and/or the resulting differences in tissue handling and the surgeon's learning curve.
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.