Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39039569›Full record

ArticleBMC ophthalmology2024

Comparison of rebubbling rate between preloaded endothelium-in and preloaded no-touch endothelium-out Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty transplantation.

Martin Kronschläger, Alessandro Ruzza, Johannes Zeilinger, Andreas Schlatter, Manuel Ruiss, Oliver Findl

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Martin KronschlägerDepartment of Ophthalmology, Vienna Institute for Research in Ocular Surgery (VIROS), Karl Landsteiner Institute, Hanusch Hospital, Heinrich Collin Strasse 30, Vienna, 1140, Austria. martin.kronschlaeger@gmx.at.
Alessandro RuzzaFondazione Banca degli Occhi del Veneto, ETS, Via Paccagnella n. 11 - Padiglione Rama, Zelarino, Venice, 30174, Italy.
Johannes ZeilingerDepartment of Ophthalmology, Vienna Institute for Research in Ocular Surgery (VIROS), Karl Landsteiner Institute, Hanusch Hospital, Heinrich Collin Strasse 30, Vienna, 1140, Austria.
Andreas SchlatterDepartment of Ophthalmology, Vienna Institute for Research in Ocular Surgery (VIROS), Karl Landsteiner Institute, Hanusch Hospital, Heinrich Collin Strasse 30, Vienna, 1140, Austria.
Manuel RuissDepartment of Ophthalmology, Vienna Institute for Research in Ocular Surgery (VIROS), Karl Landsteiner Institute, Hanusch Hospital, Heinrich Collin Strasse 30, Vienna, 1140, Austria.
Oliver FindlDepartment of Ophthalmology, Vienna Institute for Research in Ocular Surgery (VIROS), Karl Landsteiner Institute, Hanusch Hospital, Heinrich Collin Strasse 30, Vienna, 1140, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo compare the difference in rebubbling rates between patients undergoing Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) with endothelium-in using a standard IOL cartridge and those with endothelium-out DMEK utilizing a no-touch technique with borosilicate glass cartridge transplantation.

methodsThis retrospective study included all eyes that underwent preloaded endothelium-in or endothelium-out DMEK transplantation from June 2019 to December 2023 at the Hanusch Hospital, Vienna, Austria. All DMEKs were harvested, prepared and preloaded at the European Eye Bank of Venice, Italy. DMEK surgeries were done by one experienced surgeon and the procedure was completed by air tamponade of the anterior chamber.

resultsOverall, 32 eyes each of 31 endothelium-out patients and of 29 endothelium-in patients were included. 32 preloaded endothelium-in procedures were followed by 32 preloaded endothelium-out procedures. Rebubbling rate for endothelium-in was 15/32 (47%) and for endothelium-out was 7/25 (28%) (p = 0.035, Pearson's chi-squared test). Donor age was the most important variable for rebubbling in a random forest algorithm model (ROC: 0.69).

conclusionsRebubbling rate in endothelium-out DMEK was less than two-thirds compared to endothelium-in DMEK favoring no-touch endothelium-out DMEK as the preferred technique of DMEK transplantation.

Indexed as

Descemet Stripping Endothelial KeratoplastyEndothelium, CornealVisual AcuityAdultAgedAged, 80 and overDescemet MembraneFemaleFuchs' Endothelial DystrophyGraft SurvivalHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesTissue DonorsDescemet membrane endothelial keratoplastyDMEKEndothelium-inEndothelium-outPreloaded

Identifiers

PMID39039569
PMCPMC11265172

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.