SynthesisIn vivo (Athens, Greece)
Ultrathin-Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty
Synthesis in In vivo (Athens, Greece). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Masked Corneal Opacity in Bullous Keratopathy: The Impact of Epithelial Pathology on Surgical Decision-Making-A Case Report.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Molecular Studies ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimThe aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of Ultrathin - Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (UT-DSAEK) versus Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) for the treatment of corneal endothelial failure in patients with Fuchs endothelial dystrophy (FED) or Pseudophakic bullous keratopathy (PBK). PATIENTS AND
methodsWe performed a meta-analysis and conducted a literature search in PubMed and Cochrane Library, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Effects were calculated as odds ratios or standardized mean differences.
resultsA total of six studies with 300 eyes in total (151 UT-DSAE and 149 DMEK) were included. BSCVA was superior in the DMEK group compared with the UT-DSAEK at 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Rebubbling rates and overall adverse events were 2.37 and 1.48 times, respectively, higher in the DMEK group. The central corneal thickness and spherical equivalent were significantly lower in the DMEK group 12 months post-surgery. Endothelial cell density values were similar in both groups up to 12 months postoperatively.
conclusionTo the best of our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis comparing UT-DSAEK with DMEK. DMEK surgery resulted in significantly better BSCVA at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively compared to UT-DSAEK. UT-DSAEK had a better complication profile with lower rebubbling 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.