ReviewCureus2026
Clinical Outcomes After Ultrathin Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty Versus Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty for Fuchs Endothelial Corneal Dystrophy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In Fuchs endothelial dystrophy (FED), the corneal endothelial layer undergoes progressive degenerative changes leading to a reduction in endothelial cell count and subsequent visual impairment. Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) and ultrathin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (UT-DSAEK) are two established surgical approaches for the management of FED. This meta-analysis aims to compare postoperative clinical outcomes between DMEK and UT-DSAEK in adult patients with FED. A literature search was conducted in major peer-reviewed electronic databases. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) served as the primary outcome, while endothelial cell density (ECD) and postoperative complications were evaluated as secondary outcomes. Compared with UT-DSAEK, DMEK demonstrated a tendency toward better BCVA at one year, although it was also associated with a higher likelihood of requiring re-bubbling. No clear differences were observed between the two techniques regarding ECD at 12 months, while complication rates varied between studies. Overall, DMEK showed more favorable visual outcomes, whereas UT-DSAEK presented a lower complication burden. Although complications following DMEK are generally manageable, some may necessitate additional surgical procedures. Both techniques remain effective options for corneal surgeons treating patients with FED.
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.