ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
3D Visualization System in Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty (DMEK): A Six-Month Comparison with Conventional Microscope.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- [C-Quant scattered light measurement and corneal densitometry in Fuchs endothelial dystrophy before and after DMEK].Die Ophthalmologie · 2026Article
- Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty and Descemet Stripping Only Using a 3D Visualization System.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: To compare the efficacy and safety of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) surgery using the three-dimensional (3D) display system NGENUITY to DMEK surgery performed with the traditional microscope (TM) in patients affected by Fuchs Endothelial Corneal Disease (FECD). Methods: Retrospective comparative study of 40 pseudophakic eyes of 40 patients affected by FECD who underwent DMEK surgery. Twenty patients (3D group) were operated on using the 3D display system and 20 patients (TM group) were operated on using the traditional microscope. Best spectacle corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), central corneal thickness (CCT), endothelial cell density (ECD) and corneal densitometry (CD) values were documented before and at 1, 3 and 6 months after DMEK. Intra- and postoperative complications were recorded. Results: The baseline assessments did not differ between the two groups (p > 0.05). Global surgical time and time to perform descemetorhexis were significantly lower in the TM group (p = 0.04 and p = 0.02, respectively). BSCVA, CCT, ECD and CD values did not differ significantly in the two groups at all follow-ups (p > 0.05). Complication rate was similar between the two groups. Conclusion: Three-dimensional display systems can be securely employed in DMEK surgery considering the satisfactory clinical outcomes, including Scheimpflug CD. Nevertheless, the slightly longer surgical time of the 3D DMEKs may lead to surgeons’ hesitancy. The main advantages of the heads-up approach may be the improved ergonomic comfort during surgery and the utility of assistants in surgical training.
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.