SynthesisEye (London, England)2023
Ultrathin Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty (UT-DSAEK) versus Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty (DMEK)-a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Eye (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty compared with ultrathin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty: a meta-analysis.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2023Pooled it
- The evolution of pre-descemet endothelial keratoplasty (PDEK).Eye (London, England) · 2026Review
- Article
- Current Landscape and Future Prospects of Corneal Regenerative Medicine.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Review
- Review
- Visual and ultrastructural analysis after splitting of recipient's Descemet membrane during Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty.Eye (London, England) · 2025Observational
- Graft detachment rates in surgeon-cut and pre-cut tissue for DSAEK transported in different mediums.Acta ophthalmologica · 2025Article
- Bubble-graft coverage after Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty depending on gaze angle.European journal of ophthalmology · 2025Observational
- Preoperative edema severity affects outcomes after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty for Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy: a cohort study.Eye and vision (London, England) · 2025Article
- Article
- Scheimpflug Corneal Densitometry Patterns at the Graft-Host Interface in DMEK and DSAEK: A 12-Month Longitudinal Comparative Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Exploring global variations in the quality of patient information videos for keratoplasty.Oman journal of ophthalmologyArticle
- Khodadoust Line Indicating Graft Rejection in Descemet's Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty: A Unique Case Report.Journal of current ophthalmologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesEndothelial keratoplasty (EK) is a commonly performed transplant procedure used in the treatment of corneal endothelial dysfunction. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the differences in visual acuity outcomes, endothelial cell density (ECD) and complications between two forms of EK, ultrathin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (UT-DSAEK) and Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK).
methodsA literature search of MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library was conducted to identify studies reporting comparative results of UT-DSAEK versus DMEK. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was used for search strategy. Of 141 titles, 7 studies met the inclusion criteria; best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) (LogMAR), ECD (cells/mm
resultsA total of 362 eyes were included for analysis. DMEK resulted in significantly better BCVA at 3 months (0.14 vs 0.22, p = 0.003), 6 months (0.08 vs 0.18, p = 0.005) and 1 year post-op (0.07 vs 0.14, p = 0.0005). UT-DSAEK resulted in significantly lower total complications (25.2% vs 57.3%, p = 0.0001) and rates of re-bubbling (11.0% vs 33.7%, p = 0.004). No differences were found in ECD between the two procedures (1541 vs 1605, p = 0.77).
conclusionsDMEK results in superior visual acuity rates with quicker recovery. However, UT-DSAEK has a more favourable complication profile, particularly regarding lower rates of re-bubbling. Both are valuable options in the treatment of corneal endothelial disease and choice of procedure may depend on surgical expertise.
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.