ArticleArquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia2024
Deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty and penetrating keratoplasty in macular corneal dystrophy: comparison of visual and topographic outcomes and complications.
Article in Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deep anterior lamellar vs penetrating keratoplasty for macular and granular stromal dystrophies: clinical and refractive results.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the corneal endothelium in clear grafts after deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty using specular microscopy.International ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Advances in corneal transplantation.Eye (London, England) · 2025Review
- Efficacy and Safety of Penetrating Keratoplasty and Deep Anterior Lamellar Keratoplasty in Corneal Macular Dystrophy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of ophthalmology · 2025Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposesThis study aims to assess and compare the postoperative visual and topographic outcomes, complications, and graft survival rates following deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty and penetrating keratoplasty in patients with macular corneal dystrophy.
methodsIn this study we enrolled 59 patients (23 male; and 36 female) with macular corneal dystrophy comprising 81 eyes. Out of these, 64 eyes underwent penetrating keratoplasty, while 17 eyes underwent deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty. The two groups were analyzed and compared based on best-corrected visual acuity, corneal tomography parameters, pachymetry, complication rates, and graft survival rates.
resultsAfter 12 months, 70.6% of the patients who underwent deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty (DALK) and 75% of those who had penetrating keratoplasty (PK) achieved a best-corrected visual acuity of 20/40 or better (p=0.712). Following surgery, DALK group showed lower front Kmean (p=0.037), and Q values (p<0.01) compared to the PK group. Postoperative interface opacity was observed in seven eyes (41.2%) in the DALK group. Other topography values and other complications (graft rejection, graft failure, cataract, glaucoma, microbial keratitis, optic atrophy) did not show significant differences between the two groups. The need for regrafting was 9.4% and 11.8% in the PK and DALK groups, respectively (p=0.769). Graft survival rates were 87.5% and 88.2% for PK and DALK; respectively (p=0.88 by Log-rank test).
conclusionBoth PK and DALK are equally effective in treating macular corneal dystrophy, showing similar visual, topographic, and survival outcomes. Although interface opacity occurs more frequently after DALK the visual results were comparable in both groups. Therefore, DALK emerges as a viable surgical choice for patients with macular corneal dystrophy without Descemet membrane involvement is absent.
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.