Publicação
Ultrathin DSAEK versus DMEK – Review of systematic reviews
| Resumo: | The 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). The aim of this study was to assess the evidence quality of such SRs, in order 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. |
|---|---|
| Autores principais: | Moura-Coelho, Nuno |
| Outros Autores: | Moura-Coelho, Nuno; Papa-Vettorazzi, Renato; Papa, Mario; Reyes, Alonso; Cunha, João Paulo; Güell, José Luis |
| Assunto: | Descemet descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty systematic review ultrathin Ophthalmology |
| Ano: | 2024 |
| País: | Portugal |
| Tipo de documento: | recensão |
| Tipo de acesso: | acesso aberto |
| Instituição associada: | Universidade Nova de Lisboa |
| Idioma: | inglês |
| Origem: | Repositório Institucional da UNL |
| Resumo: | The 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). The aim of this study was to assess the evidence quality of such SRs, in order 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. |
|---|