American journal of ophthalmology · 2022
Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: Outcomes After Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty Versus Ultrathin Descemet Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty.
СтатьяМетаанализПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Maier Anna-Karina B, Milek Jonas, Joussen Antonia M, Dietrich-Ntoukas Tina, Lichtner Gregor
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and safety of ultrathin Descemet stripping (automated) endothelial keratoplasty (UT-DS(A)EK) versus Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) for the treatment of Fuchs endothelial dystrophy (FED) and bullous keratopathy (BK).
DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS: Literature containing DMEK and UT-DSAEK were searched in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PubMed, EMBASE, LILACS, and through manual reference searching. Studies were included that measured the outcome of interventions-including best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), endothelial cell density (ECD), and postoperative complications, especially graft detachment with the need of re-bubbling, graft rejection, graft failure, and postoperative elevated intraocular pressure (IOP)-in patients with FED and BK. Included outcomes were pooled as standardized mean differences (SMD) or risk ratios (RR) using random effects models. Inter-study heterogeneity was assessed using the Q-test and I2 statistic.
RESULTS: Seven (of 163) studies met all the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Meta-analysis showed a significantly better BCVA 12 months postoperatively, but an increased re-bubbling rate in eyes after DMEK compared with eyes after UT-DS(A)EK (BCVA: SMD = 0.50 [95% CI 0.27-0.74] and re-bubbling rate: RR = 0.33 [95% CI 0.16-0.67]). All other parameters did not differ significantly between both interventions, although estimates were imprecise (graft failure: RR = 0.65 [95% CI 0.18-2.30], graft rejection: RR = 1.40 [95% CI 0.27-7.30], and postoperative intraocular pressure elevation: RR = 1.14 [95% CI 0.60-2.18]). Postoperative SMDs of ECD could not be evaluated due to significant heterogeneity between studies.
CONCLUSIONS: Although the improvement in BCVA was higher after UT-DS(A)EK than after conventional DS(A)EK, the BCVA after DMEK was still superior. The complication rates were comparable for both procedures, except for the higher rate of re-bubbling after DMEK.
DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS: Literature containing DMEK and UT-DSAEK were searched in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PubMed, EMBASE, LILACS, and through manual reference searching. Studies were included that measured the outcome of interventions-including best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), endothelial cell density (ECD), and postoperative complications, especially graft detachment with the need of re-bubbling, graft rejection, graft failure, and postoperative elevated intraocular pressure (IOP)-in patients with FED and BK. Included outcomes were pooled as standardized mean differences (SMD) or risk ratios (RR) using random effects models. Inter-study heterogeneity was assessed using the Q-test and I2 statistic.
RESULTS: Seven (of 163) studies met all the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Meta-analysis showed a significantly better BCVA 12 months postoperatively, but an increased re-bubbling rate in eyes after DMEK compared with eyes after UT-DS(A)EK (BCVA: SMD = 0.50 [95% CI 0.27-0.74] and re-bubbling rate: RR = 0.33 [95% CI 0.16-0.67]). All other parameters did not differ significantly between both interventions, although estimates were imprecise (graft failure: RR = 0.65 [95% CI 0.18-2.30], graft rejection: RR = 1.40 [95% CI 0.27-7.30], and postoperative intraocular pressure elevation: RR = 1.14 [95% CI 0.60-2.18]). Postoperative SMDs of ECD could not be evaluated due to significant heterogeneity between studies.
CONCLUSIONS: Although the improvement in BCVA was higher after UT-DS(A)EK than after conventional DS(A)EK, the BCVA after DMEK was still superior. The complication rates were comparable for both procedures, except for the higher rate of re-bubbling after DMEK.