Repository logo
 
Publication

Ultrathin DSAEK versus DMEK: review of systematic reviews

2024-07Journal article Embargoed access
Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorMoura-Coelho, Nuno
dc.contributor.authorPapa-Vettorazzi, Renato
dc.contributor.authorReyes, Alonso
dc.contributor.authorCunha, João Paulo
dc.contributor.authorGüell, José Luis
dc.date.accessioned2023-11-30T20:29:47Z
dc.date.embargo2026-08-28
dc.date.issued2024-07
dc.description.abstractThe efficacy and safety of Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) and ultrathin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (UT-DSAEK) have been recently compared in several systematic reviews (SRs). This study aimed to assess the evidence quality of such SRs, to obtain a scientifically rigorous comparison between the two techniques. We performed a systematic review of SRs and meta-analyses comparing the efficacy and safety between UT-DSAEK and DMEK up to 24th March 2023, using 3 electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar) plus manual reference search. Specific outcomes analyzed included best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), endothelial cell density (ECD), rebubbling rate, and other postoperative complications. Of 90 titles/abstracts screened, four SRs met the inclusion criteria. All SRs adequately analyzed potential bias of the included studies. One SR raised concern for potential literature search bias and two SRs have heterogeneity in some outcomes analyzed. All SRs found higher BCVA after DMEK, but one SR reported significant heterogeneity. All SRs found significant heterogeneity in ECD analysis, with one SR providing inconsistent analysis of this outcome. Three SRs analyzed rebubbling rates, favoring UT-DSAEK over DMEK. Three SRs concluded a higher overall complication rate after DMEK, although rebubbling may be a confounding factor. This systematic review clarifies the strengths and weaknesses of published SRs and reinforces the conclusion that DMEK leads to superior visual outcomes compared to UT-DSAEK, with the trade-off of higher rebubbling rates and possibly other postoperative complications. Studies with longer follow-up are needed to ascertain these differences between procedures.pt_PT
dc.description.versioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionpt_PT
dc.identifier.citationMoura-Coelho N, Papa-Vettorazzi R, Reyes A, Cunha JP, Güell JL. Ultrathin DSAEK versus DMEK: review of systematic reviews. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2024;34(4):913-23.pt_PT
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/11206721231214605pt_PT
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10400.21/16622
dc.language.isoengpt_PT
dc.peerreviewedyespt_PT
dc.publisherSagept_PT
dc.relation.publisherversionhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epub/10.1177/11206721231214605pt_PT
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/pt_PT
dc.subjectOphthalmologypt_PT
dc.subjectDescemetpt_PT
dc.subjectDescemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplastypt_PT
dc.subjectSystematic reviewpt_PT
dc.subjectUltrathinpt_PT
dc.titleUltrathin DSAEK versus DMEK: review of systematic reviewspt_PT
dc.typejournal article
dspace.entity.typePublication
oaire.citation.endPage923pt_PT
oaire.citation.issue4pt_PT
oaire.citation.startPage913pt_PT
oaire.citation.titleEuropean Journal of Ophthalmologypt_PT
oaire.citation.volume34pt_PT
rcaap.rightsembargoedAccesspt_PT
rcaap.typearticlept_PT

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
Ultrathin DSAEK versus DMEK_review of systematic reviews.pdf
Size:
369.48 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.71 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Download

Collections

ESTeSL - Artigos