ReviewInternational ophthalmology2023
Refractive surgery after deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty: a review of the literature.
Review in International ophthalmology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Supplemental Toric Intraocular Lenses in the Ciliary Sulcus for Correction of Residual Refractive Astigmatism: A Review.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2023Review
- Prospective Safety Evaluation of the Femtosecond Laser-Assisted Keratomileusis Procedure in Correcting Residual Ametropia in Patients After Deep Anterior Lamellar Keratoplasty.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2023Article
- Vault predicting after implantable collamer lens implantation using random forest network based on different features in ultrasound biomicroscopy images.International journal of ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Large-diameter deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty: A narrative review.Taiwan journal of ophthalmologyReview
- Femtosecond-laser-assisted Small Incision Lenticule Extraction to Treat Refractive Error: A Narrative Review.Middle East African journal of ophthalmologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe main objective of this work is to present an updated review of the different surgical procedures for the correction of residual refractive errors following deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty (DALK) surgery.
methodsA review of the literature was conducted using PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases. The search was conducted in January 2022 and was limited to articles published in peer-reviewed journals. The information extracted from each publication included sample size, mean follow-up time, pre- and post-operative uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), pre- and post-operative refraction and spherical equivalent (SE), safety and efficacy indexes and complications.
resultsResidual ametropias, mainly high astigmatism and myopia, and the resulting anisometropia are likely to occur following DALK. They become a limiting factor and may lead to unsatisfactory visual restoration, therefore affecting patients' quality of vision and life. Alternative surgical interventions may be required to treat this residual ametropia, such as corneal refractive surgery or intraocular lens implantation. A total of 47 relevant articles were studied in detail. Different refractive surgery techniques have been shown to be effective and safe for the correction of ametropia following the DALK procedure and to improve the patient's quality of vision, although more research is needed to confirm long-term results.
conclusionThe final refractive technique will depend on different factors, such as the amount of ametropia, the condition of the cornea or the patient's individual needs, economics, and occupational demands.
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.