ArticlePloS one2022
Comparison of triple-DMEK to pseudophakic-DMEK: A cohort study of 95 eyes.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Multilevel revision after complicated cataract surgery. Video article].Die Ophthalmologie · 2026Review
- Preoperative and perioperative factors that predict graft failure 1 year after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty.PloS one · 2026Article
- Visual outcomes of aberration neutral versus monofocal plus IOLs in triple DMEK surgery.International ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Molecular Changes in Aqueous Humor Associated with Inflammation Following Cataract Surgery in Patients with Fuchs' Endothelial Corneal Dystrophy.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2025Article
- Peripheral Iridotomy-Less Approach in Descemet's Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty Using Pupil-Dilating Eye Drops, a Retrospective Case-Control Study.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Previous comparative studies show that triple Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) (i.e. phacoemulsification followed immediately by DMEK) has either equivalent or better visual outcomes than DMEK in pseudophakic patients. To resolve this discrepancy, a retrospective cohort study was conducted. All consecutive patients with Fuchs Endothelial Corneal Dystrophy who underwent triple or pseudophakic DMEK in 2015-2019 in a tertiary-care hospital (France) and were followed for >12 months were compared in terms of best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), final refractive outcomes, and endothelial-cell loss at 12 months as well as rebubbling rates. The triple-DMEK (40 eyes, 34 patients) and pseudophakic-DMEK (55 eyes, 43 patients) groups were similar in terms of age and other baseline variables. They also did not differ in final BSCVA (both 0.03 logMAR), final endothelial-cell loss (54% vs. 48%), or astigmatism (-1.25 vs. -1 D). At 12 months, triple-DMEK associated with significantly smaller residual hyperopia (0.75 vs. 1 D; p = 0.04) and spherical equivalence (0 vs. 0.5 D; p = 0.02). Triple-DMEK also tended to associate with more frequent rebubbling (40% vs. 24%, p = 0.09). In conclusion, while triple-DMEK and pseudophakic-DMEK achieved similar visual acuity improvement, triple-DMEK was superior in terms of final sphere and spherical refraction but also tended to have higher complication rates.
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.