ArticleTurkish journal of ophthalmology2019
Six-Month Results of Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty in 100 Eyes: First Clinical Results from Turkey
Article in Turkish journal of ophthalmology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evolving Techniques and Indications of Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty.Turkish journal of ophthalmology · 2021Review
- Outcomes of Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty in Bangkok, Thailand.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate the 6-month outcomes of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) in patients with pseudophakic bullous keratopathy (PBK) and Fuchs’ endothelial dystrophy (FED) in a single center in Turkey. Materials and Methods: The medical records of patients who underwent DMEK were reviewed retrospectively. Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), donor corneal endothelial cell density (ECD), donor age, duration in solution after obtaining the donor tissue, and duration after exitus of the donor were evaluated preoperatively and BCVA, ECD, and ECD loss (%) at postoperative 6 months were evaluated postoperatively. Graft detachment, graft failure, and pupillary block were recorded as surgical complications. Patients with cataract and FED underwent combined or staged procedures. Two different graft preparation techniques were utilized: 8 and 9.5 mm. Results: One hundred eyes of 74 patients were included in the study. Fifty-two of the eyes had FED and the remaining 48 had PBK. Mean ECD loss in 6 months was 29.2±4.4% in the FED group and 29.7±5% in the PBK group (p=0.415). Mean BCVA at 6 months was 0.06±0.05 in the patients with FED and 0.07±0.05 in the patients with PBK (p=0.378). Mean ECD loss in 6 months was 28.3±5.3% in the 8 mm group vs. 29.7±4.5% in the 9.5 mm group (p=0.255), and 28.5±5.6% in the combined group vs. 29.8±2.9% in the staged group (p=0.279). Conclusion: Different graft preparation techniques can be utilized with similar efficiency for DMEK surgery. A staged or combined approach can be used efficiently in the management of patients with FED and cataract. Our results are promising both for PBK and FED patients.
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.