ArticleBMC ophthalmology2026
Ten-year outcomes of endothelial keratoplasty versus penetrating keratoplasty in Hong Kong: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study compares the long-term survival of primary endothelial (DSEK/DSAEK) versus penetrating keratoplasty in Hong Kong patients with Fuchs endothelial dystrophy (FED) or pseudophakic bullous keratopathy (PBK).
methodsA ten-year retrospective cohort of patients who received primary Descemet stripping (automated) endothelial keratoplasty (DSEK/DSAEK) or penetrating keratoplasty (PKP) for either FED or PBK at an academic ophthalmology department in Hong Kong between 2006 and 2015 was conducted.
resultsSeventy-four eyes of 65 patients received primary keratoplasties with 95 months of mean follow-up, comprising 41 DSEK/DSAEK and 33 PKP. Overall graft survival rates were 76.1% at 5 years and 55.0% at 10 years. DSEK/DSAEK demonstrated higher survival rates than PKP, with 82.1% versus 68.8% survival at 5 years (P = 0.31) and 63.8% versus 43.5% at 10 years (P = 0.15). Older age was associated with graft failure risk. DSEK/DSAEK eyes had better observed best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at 5 years (P = 0.006), although this difference was attenuated after adjustment for preoperative BCVA, and the visual difference was no longer apparent at 10 years (P = 0.42). Graft ulcers occurred in fewer eyes receiving DSEK/DSAEK (4.9%) compared to PKP (21.2%) at 10 years (P = 0.033). The cumulative rejection rates were 12.2% for DSEK/DSAEK and 9.1% for PKP at 10 years (P = 0.67) while 14.6% of DSEK/DSAEK and 12.1% of PKP required a re-graft (P = 0.75).
conclusionsBoth primary DSEK/DSAEK and PKP provided meaningful long-term graft survival in this Hong Kong cohort of patients with FED or PBK. DSEK/DSAEK eyes had better observed BCVA at 5 years, although this association was attenuated after adjustment for preoperative BCVA, and the visual difference was no longer apparent at 10 years. DSEK/DSAEK was associated with fewer graft ulcers, while rejection and re-graft rates were similar between groups. These findings should be interpreted in the context of the retrospective design, baseline differences between treatment groups, small subgroup sample sizes, and the historical DSEK/DSAEK techniques represented in this cohort.
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.