Is ultra-thin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty a viable alternative to Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
{"title":"Is ultra-thin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty a viable alternative to Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty? A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Tanu Singh, Parul Ichhpujani, Rohan Bir Singh, Sudesh Arya, Suresh Kumar","doi":"10.1177/25158414221147823","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate the outcomes of the UT-DSAEK to the Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK).</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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>i</i> <sup>2</sup> 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).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":23054,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic Advances in Ophthalmology","volume":"15 ","pages":"25158414221147823"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/29/ff/10.1177_25158414221147823.PMC9909050.pdf","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic Advances in Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/25158414221147823","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
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 i2 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.