Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Review
  • Published:
International Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Turnbull AM, Tsatsos M, Hossain PN, Anderson DF (2016) Determinants of visual quality after endothelial keratoplasty. Surv Ophthalmol 61:257–271

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Price FJ, Feng MT, Price MO (2015) Evolution of endothelial keratoplasty: Where are we headed? Cornea 34(Suppl 10):S41–S47

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Dapena I, Ham L, Melles GR (2009) Endothelial keratoplasty: DSEK/DSAEK or DMEK—the thinner the better? Curr Opin Ophthalmol 20:299–307

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Melles GR, Wijdh RH, Nieuwendaal CP (2004) A technique to excise the descemet membrane from a recipient cornea (descemetorhexis). Cornea 23:286–288

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Price FJ, Price MO (2005) Descemet’s stripping with endothelial keratoplasty in 50 eyes: a refractive neutral corneal transplant. J Refract Surg 21:339–345

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gorovoy MS (2006) Descemet-stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea 25:886–889

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Price MO, Calhoun P, Kollman C, Price FJ, Lass JH (2016) Descemet stripping endothelial keratoplasty: ten-year endothelial cell loss compared with penetrating keratoplasty. Ophthalmology 123:1421–1427

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Price FJ, Price MO, Arundhati A (2011) Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty under failed penetrating keratoplasty: how to avoid complications. Am J Ophthalmol 151:187–188

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Chen ES, Terry MA, Shamie N, Hoar KL, Friend DJ (2008) Descemet-stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty: six-month results in a prospective study of 100 eyes. Cornea 27:514–520

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Yong KL, Nguyen HV, Cajucom-Uy HY et al (2016) Cost minimization analysis of precut cornea grafts in descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Medicine (Baltimore) 95:e2887

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. van den Biggelaar FJ, Cheng YY, Nuijts RM, Schouten JS, Wijdh RJ et al (2012) Economic evaluation of endothelial keratoplasty techniques and penetrating keratoplasty in the Netherlands. Am J Ophthalmol 154:272–281

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Melles GR, Ong TS, Ververs B, van der Wees J (2006) Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK). Cornea 25:987–990

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Melles GR (2006) Posterior lamellar keratoplasty: DLEK to DSEK to DMEK. Cornea 25:879–881

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Guerra FP, Anshu A, Price MO, Giebel AW, Price FW (2011) Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty: prospective study of 1-year visual outcomes, graft survival, and endothelial cell loss. Ophthalmology 118:2368–2373

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Price MO, Giebel AW, Fairchild KM, Price FJ (2009) Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty: prospective multicenter study of visual and refractive outcomes and endothelial survival. Ophthalmology 116:2361–2368

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Droutsas K, Lazaridis A, Papaconstantinou D, Brouzas D, Moschos MM et al (2016) Visual outcomes after descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty versus descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty-comparison of specific matched Pairs. Cornea 35:765–771

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hamzaoglu EC, Straiko MD, Mayko ZM, Sales CS, Terry MA (2015) The first 100 eyes of standardized descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty versus standardized descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmology 122:2193–2199

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Maier AK, Gundlach E, Gonnermann J, Klamann MK, Bertelmann E et al (2015) Retrospective contralateral study comparing descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty with descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Eye (Lond) 29:327–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Goldich Y, Showail M, Avni-Zauberman N, Perez M, Ulate R et al (2015) Contralateral eye comparison of descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty and descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol 159:155–159

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Green M, Wilkins MR (2015) Comparison of early surgical experience and visual outcomes of DSAEK and DMEK. Cornea 34:1341–1344

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Tourtas T, Laaser K, Bachmann BO, Cursiefen C, Kruse FE (2012) Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty versus descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol 153:1082–1090

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Guerra FP, Anshu A, Price MO, Price FW (2011) Endothelial keratoplasty: fellow eyes comparison of descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty and descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea 30:1382–1386

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 6:e1000100

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Stang A (2010) Critical evaluation of the Newcastle–Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol 25:603–605

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327:557–560

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Egger M, Davey SG, Schneider M, Minder C (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 315:629–634

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Begg CB, Mazumdar M (1994) Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics 50:1088–1101

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Heinzelmann S, Bohringer D, Eberwein P, Reinhard T, Maier P (2016) Outcomes of descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty, descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty and penetrating keratoplasty from a single centre study. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 254:515–522

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Goldich Y, Artornsombidth P, Avni-Zauberman N, Perez M, Ulate R et al (2014) Fellow eye comparison of corneal thickness and curvature in descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty and descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea 33:547–550

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Pantanelli SM, Sabesan R, Ching SS, Yoon G, Hindman HB (2012) Visual performance with wave aberration correction after penetrating, deep anterior lamellar, or endothelial keratoplasty. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 53:4797–4804

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Williams D, Yoon GY, Porter J, Guirao A, Hofer H et al (2000) Visual benefit of correcting higher order aberrations of the eye. J Refract Surg 16:S554–S559

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Thompson RW Jr, Price MO, Bowers PJ, Price FW Jr (2003) Long-term graft survival after penetrating keratoplasty. Ophthalmology 110:1396–1402

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Bourne WM, Hodge DO, Nelson LR (1994) Corneal endothelium 5 years after transplantation. Am J Ophthalmol 118:185–196

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Maier AK, Gundlach E, Pilger D, Rübsam A, Klamann MK et al (2016) Rate and localization of graft detachment in descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea 35:308–312

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Bucher F, Hos D, Müller-Schwefe S, Steven P, Cursiefen C et al (2015) Spontaneous long-term course of persistent peripheral graft detachments after descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Br J Ophthalmol 99:768–772

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Dapena I, Ham L, Droutsas K, van Dijk K, Moutsouris K et al (2011) Learning curve in descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty: first series of 135 consecutive cases. Ophthalmology 118:2147–2154

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Dirisamer M, Ham L, Dapena I, Moutsouris K, Droutsas K et al (2011) Efficacy of descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: clinical outcome of 200 consecutive cases after a learning curve of 25 cases. Arch Ophthalmol 129:1435–1443

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Yeh RY, Quilendrino R, Musa FU, Liarakos VS, Dapena I et al (2013) Predictive value of optical coherence tomography in graft attachment after descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmology 120:240–245

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was supported by Grants from the Wenzhou Science & Technology Bureau, Zhejiang Province, China (No. Y20130252).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, 32500, Zhejiang, China

    Leru Zhu

  2. Department of Ophthalmology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, 32500, Zhejiang, China

    Yi Zha & Jianqiu Cai

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

    Yanling Zhang

Authors
  1. Leru Zhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yi Zha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jianqiu Cai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yanling Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yanling Zhang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhu, L., Zha, Y., Cai, J. et al. Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty versus descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: a meta-analysis. Int Ophthalmol 38, 897–905 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-017-0533-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-017-0533-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation