ReviewBMC ophthalmology2023
Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty combined with presbyopia-correcting and toric intraocular lenses - a narrative review.
Review in BMC ophthalmology, 2023. 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association between corneal edema and corneal astigmatism after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty after cataract surgery with presbyopia-correcting intraocular lens for coexisting Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy and cataract.Japanese journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Presbyopia Correction in Lens Replacement Surgery: A Review.Clinical & experimental ophthalmology · 2025Review
- Visual outcomes of aberration neutral versus monofocal plus IOLs in triple DMEK surgery.International ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Advances in machine learning for keratoconus diagnosis.International ophthalmology · 2025Review
- Optimizing IOL calculation in triple-DMEK: Data from a real-life cohort.Journal of optometryObservational
- Cataract surgery with corneal endothelial pathology.Saudi journal of ophthalmology : official journal of the Saudi Ophthalmological SocietyReview
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 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy (FECD) is the leading indication for EK and may coexist with cataract and presbyopia. Notably, the outcomes of phacoemulsification in FECD patients are not as favorable as those in eyes without this condition. Historically, only monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) were recommended for these patients. However, recent reports have described the implantation of Premium-IOLs (such as Multifocal IOLs, Enhanced Depth of Focus IOLs, and Toric IOLs) in FECD eyes undergoing cataract surgery and Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK). While the results are encouraging, they are not as optimal as those from unoperated eyes, especially when comparing simultaneous procedures to sequential ones. It's advised to perform the DMEK first to improve the accuracy of IOL calculations. Still, even successfully operated eyes may experience secondary graft failure or graft rejection after DMEK. The success rate of a secondary DMEK is typically lower than that of the initial procedure. Furthermore, if the postoperative thickness after DMEK is less than anticipated, laser enhancements might not be an option. There's a pressing need for more controlled and randomized clinical trials to ascertain the safety and effectiveness of Premium-IOLs for FECD eyes. This narrative review aims to collate evidence on the use of Premium IOL technologies in eyes receiving EK and to underscore key points for surgeons performing EK combined with cataract surgery.
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.