ReviewCureus2026
EndoArt in Corneal Endothelial Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Outcomes and Complications.
Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Prosthetic Corneal Surgery: A Narrative Review of Current Keratoprostheses and the Future Prospects of New Biomaterials.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to systematically evaluate the safety, clinical outcomes, and complications of EndoArt (EyeYon Medical, Nes Ziona, Israel) as an alternative to donor endothelial keratoplasty for chronic corneal oedema. MEDLINE/EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched for studies published between 1st Jan 2020 and 17th May 2025 reporting clinical outcomes following EndoArt implantation. A total of 12 studies were included. Eligible studies included case reports, case series, retrospective observational studies, and single-arm interventional studies. Overlapping cohorts were resolved by retaining the most complete datasets. Risk of bias was assessed by the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools and the Methodological Index for Non-randomised Studies. Quantitative synthesis was pre-specified for outcomes with ≥2 studies; meta-analysis used standardised mean differences or pooled event rates with heterogeneity. Four studies (56 eyes) were included for quantitative analysis. Pooled visual acuity improved (SMD -0.728; 95% CI -1.277 to -0.180; p=0.009); mean visual acuity changed from 1.561 to 1.212 logMAR with low heterogeneity (I² = 20.428%, p = 0.285). Central corneal thickness decreased (SMD -1.420; 95% CI -1.867 to -0.974; p<0.001); mean central corneal thickness fell from 755.46 to 554.07 µm with low heterogeneity (I² = 0%). The pooled re-bubbling rate was 60.2% (95% CI 38.7 to 78.4%; I² = 52.88%). The most frequently reported adverse events included partial implant detachment and raised intraocular pressure. EndoArt achieves meaningful deturgescence and visual acuity gains, but at the cost of high detachment and rebubbling rates. Given current evidence, EndoArt is likely best suited as salvage therapy, offering independence from donor tissue. No immune response was reported. Larger cohort comparative studies are required to refine indications and technique.
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.