ArticlePloS one2026
Comparative outcomes of DSAEK and DMEK in eyes with prior Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo compare the outcomes of Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) and Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) in eyes with prior Ahmed glaucoma valve (AGV) implantation.
methodsThis retrospective study included 27 eyes from 27 patients who underwent endothelial keratoplasty (16 DSAEK, 11 DMEK) between 01/01/2020 and 31/12/2022. All eyes had a prior AGV implantation and a minimum follow-up of 12 months. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), endothelial cell density (ECD), central corneal thickness (CCT), complications, and graft survival were compared between groups.
resultsThe donor age was significantly younger in the DSAEK group (52.94 ± 11.17 years vs. 62.36 ± 10.02 years, P = 0.034). The DSAEK group had significantly higher ECD at 6 and 12 months (1583.2 ± 562.6 and 1441.1 ± 502.6 cells/mm²) compared to the DMEK group (1109.5 ± 484.8 and 1046.6 ± 327.3 cells/mm², P = 0.040 and P = 0.043). However, this difference was no longer significant after covariate analysis with donor ECD. Postoperative BCVA improved significantly in both groups, with no significant differences between them. Complication rates were comparable. The 1-year survival rates were 87% for DSAEK and 91% for DMEK, the 2-year survival rates were 78% for DSAEK and 74% for DMEK. Mean graft survival was 28.7 ± 3.3 months for DSAEK and 24.7 ± 2.8 months for DMEK (P = 0.777).
conclusionsDSAEK and DMEK demonstrated comparable visual outcomes, complication rates, and graft survival in eyes with prior AGV implantation. While both procedures appear to be viable options for this complex patient population, these findings should be confirmed in larger studies.
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.