Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41994241›Full record

ReviewSaudi journal of ophthalmology : official journal of the Saudi Ophthalmological Society

Cataract surgery with corneal endothelial pathology.

Isha Chaudhari, Jodhbir S Mehta

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Saudi journal of ophthalmology : official journal of the Saudi Ophthalmological Society. 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

2 authors.

Isha ChaudhariCataract Surgery with Corneal Endothelial Pathology, Dr. Shroff's Charity Eye Hospital, New Delhi, India.
Jodhbir S MehtaCataract Surgery with Corneal Endothelial Pathology, Dr. Shroff's Charity Eye Hospital, New Delhi, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It is not uncommon for Fuch's endothelial corneal dystrophy (FECD) patients to present with a co-existent cataract. Surgeons are often faced with a choice between simultaneous and staged corneal and cataract surgery. Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) has been found to have better visual outcomes as compared to Descemet's stripping endothelial keratoplasty (DSEK) and penetrating keratoplasty and is currently the preferred surgery for FECD. Endothelial cell count and pachymetry cutoffs were earlier used for decision-making. Various other investigations such as Scheimpflug imaging and confocal microscopy are now used to prognosticate the outcome when performing cataract surgery only. Triple DMEK has the advantage of a definite treatment in a single sitting. Whereas, a staged approach with DMEK followed by cataract surgery has a better visual outcome. This is due to variable refractive changes in the cornea post-DMEK or DSEK that can lead to inaccurate intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation. Even though the graft detachment rates and rebubbling rates have been found to be comparable in triple DMEK versus a staged surgery, in view of increasing patient demands and expectations for a spectacle-independent outcome, a staged surgery is now preferable. Conventionally, surgeons favored the use of only monofocal lenses; however, the use of premium IOLs, especially extended depth of focus lenses, is now increasing. In this review, we will discuss the various advantages and disadvantages of a simultaneous and staged approach and pearls on decision-making in FECD with cataracts.

Indexed as

Fuch’s endothelial corneal dystrophyPhakic Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplastyPseudophakic Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplastyTriple Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty

Identifiers

PMID41994241
PMCPMC13082561

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.