A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty versus descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: a meta-analysis. | LitMetric

Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty versus descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: a meta-analysis.

Int Ophthalmol

School of Medical Technology and Nursing, Shenzhen Polytechnic, No. 2190 Liuxian Boulevard, Nanshan District, Shenzhen, 518055, Guangdong, China.

Published: April 2018

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) compared with descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK).

Methods: Databases including PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched to find studies that compared DSAEK and DMEK outcomes. Efficacy parameters were the postoperative best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and spherical equivalent (SE). Safety parameters were postoperative endothelial cell loss (ECL), air injection (rebubbling), graft failure, graft rejection, and high intraocular pressure (IOP). Results from last visit were pooled for the analyses because the follow-up ranged from 3 to 24 months.

Results: A total of 7 trials including 433 eyes were selected for this meta-analysis. BCVA was reported in all 7 studies, ECL% and rebubbling rate were reported in 6, and the remaining outcomes were reported in only 3 or 2 studies. Postoperative logMAR BCVA was significantly better for DMEK than that for DSAEK (P < 0.00001). More patients achieved the postoperative BCVA ≥ 20/25 and 20/20 in DMEK group than that in DSAEK (P > 0.001), whereas the proportion of patients whose postoperative BCVA ≥ 20/40 and the amount of SE did not differ statistically (P = 0.32 and P = 0.50, respectively). The DSAEK group has a significantly lower frequency of rebubbling than the DMEK group (P < 0.0001). The postoperative ECL%, graft failure, graft rejection, and high IOP were comparable between the 2 groups (all P values >0.05).

Conclusions: Our meta-analysis suggests that DMEK provided better visual outcomes with similar safety when compared to DSAEK. Given the limited sample size, further investigations are needed to validate these findings.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10792-017-0533-3DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

endothelial keratoplasty
16
descemet stripping
8
stripping automated
8
automated endothelial
8
descemet membrane
8
membrane endothelial
8
compared dsaek
8
parameters postoperative
8
reported studies
8
endothelial
5

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!