Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33499155›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2021

Visual Quality and Subjective Satisfaction in Ultrathin Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty (UT-DSAEK) versus Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty (DMEK): A Fellow-Eye Comparison.

Josep Torras-Sanvicens, Irene Blanco-Domínguez, José-María Sánchez-González, Rahul Rachwani-Anil, Juan-Felipe Spencer, Noelia Sabater-Cruz, Jorge Peraza-Nieves, Carlos Rocha-de-Lossada

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Josep Torras-SanvicensAnterior Segment Department, Institut Clinic d'Oftalmologia, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, 08036 Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-6995-1291
Irene Blanco-DomínguezAnterior Segment Department, Institut Clinic d'Oftalmologia, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, 08036 Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-2170-3130
José-María Sánchez-GonzálezPhysics of Condensed Matter Department, Optics Area, University of Seville, 41012 Seville, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-0450-7717
Rahul Rachwani-AnilOphthalmology Department, Regional Universitary Hospital of Malaga, 29010 Malaga, Spain.
Juan-Felipe SpencerAnterior Segment Department, Institut Clinic d'Oftalmologia, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, 08036 Barcelona, Spain.
Noelia Sabater-CruzAnterior Segment Department, Institut Clinic d'Oftalmologia, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, 08036 Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-3700-602X
Jorge Peraza-NievesAnterior Segment Department, Institut Clinic d'Oftalmologia, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, 08036 Barcelona, Spain.
Carlos Rocha-de-LossadaAnterior Segment Department, Institut Clinic d'Oftalmologia, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, 08036 Barcelona, Spain.
Hospital Clínic de Barcelona · ESHospital Regional Universitario de Málaga · ESUniversidad de Sevilla · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo analyze objective and subjective visual quality differences between descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) and ultra-thin descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (UT-DSAEK) with a paired contralateral-eye design.

methodsA cross-sectional, comparative, and observational case series study between DMEK and UT-DSAEK were presented. Visual acuity, refractive status and corneal quality assessment were compared between both endothelial keratoplasty techniques. The sample consisted of 20 eyes (10 patients) diagnosed with Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy. All measurements were performed preoperatively and at six months after surgery. Analyzed data included the measurement of objective scattering index, modulation transfer function, Strehl ratio, and optical quality assessment (OQAS) values. Contrast sensitivity, subjective patient satisfaction, visual acuity, tomography, pachymetry, endothelial cell count, and refraction status were also analyzed.

resultsObjective and subjective visual quality variables had similar results among UT-DSAEK and DMEK procedures. Statistically significant differences favoring DMEK against UT-DSAEK were found in endothelial cell density (658.80 ± 139.33 and 1059.00 ± 421.84 cells/mm

conclusionsUT-DSAEK and DMEK revealed no differences in terms of objective and subjective visual quality. However, DMEK showed a faster recovery during the follow-up, increased endothelial cell density, lower pachymetry, and a more anatomical posterior keratometry against UT-DSAEK in this case series paired-eye study.

Indexed as

DMEKendothelial keratoplastyFuchs endothelial dystrophyobjective visual qualitysubjective visual qualityultra-thin DSAEK

Identifiers

PMID33499155
PMCPMC7865248
OpenAlexW3124788628

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.