We have located links that may give you full text access.
Is ultra-thin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty a viable alternative to Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND: Ultra-thin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (UT-DSAEK) is a recently developed surgical procedure that has shown promising results for the management of various corneal endothelial diseases.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the outcomes of the UT-DSAEK to the Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK).
DESIGN: A systematic analysis of the studies comparing UT-DSAEK with DMEK by evaluating one or more outcomes (vision, complications, and post-operative endothelial cell counts) was performed. The meta-analysis was done if two or more studies reported a common outcome.
METHODS: We used PubMed, EMBASE, and SCOPUS databases to identify articles comparing the outcomes of UT-DSAEK with DMEK and performed a meta-analysis using RevMan, version 5.4.
RESULTS: A total of six studies were included in this review (two randomized clinical trials and four non-randomized comparative studies). Our analysis showed the patients who underwent DMEK cases showed better visual outcomes with a mean difference of 0.06 LogMAR (95% CI: 0.04-0.09) in BCVA, albeit with i 2 of 52% (heterogenous values). The evidence was weak, with the most weightage on retrospective studies. UT-DSAEK showed significantly fewer complications such as graft dislocations, with an odds ratio of 0.25 (95% CI: 0.13-0.48). There was no significant difference in the endothelial cell counts with a mean difference of 86.34 (95%CI: -133.09 to -305.77).
CONCLUSION: Although the literature is limited on UT-DSAEK with post-operative visual acuity that could be practically at par with DMEK, lesser complication rates and comparable post-operative endothelial cells could be a suitable alternative to DMEK for corneal endothelial pathologies.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the outcomes of the UT-DSAEK to the Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK).
DESIGN: A systematic analysis of the studies comparing UT-DSAEK with DMEK by evaluating one or more outcomes (vision, complications, and post-operative endothelial cell counts) was performed. The meta-analysis was done if two or more studies reported a common outcome.
METHODS: We used PubMed, EMBASE, and SCOPUS databases to identify articles comparing the outcomes of UT-DSAEK with DMEK and performed a meta-analysis using RevMan, version 5.4.
RESULTS: A total of six studies were included in this review (two randomized clinical trials and four non-randomized comparative studies). Our analysis showed the patients who underwent DMEK cases showed better visual outcomes with a mean difference of 0.06 LogMAR (95% CI: 0.04-0.09) in BCVA, albeit with i 2 of 52% (heterogenous values). The evidence was weak, with the most weightage on retrospective studies. UT-DSAEK showed significantly fewer complications such as graft dislocations, with an odds ratio of 0.25 (95% CI: 0.13-0.48). There was no significant difference in the endothelial cell counts with a mean difference of 86.34 (95%CI: -133.09 to -305.77).
CONCLUSION: Although the literature is limited on UT-DSAEK with post-operative visual acuity that could be practically at par with DMEK, lesser complication rates and comparable post-operative endothelial cells could be a suitable alternative to DMEK for corneal endothelial pathologies.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app