Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2018 Jun 25;6(6):CD012097.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012097.pub2.

Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) versus Descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) for corneal endothelial failure

Alastair J Stuart  1 , Vito Romano, Gianni Virgili, Alex J Shortt
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) versus Descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) for corneal endothelial failure

Alastair J Stuart et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Corneal endothelial transplantation has become the gold standard for the treatment of corneal endothelial dysfunctions, replacing full thickness transplantation, known as penetrating keratoplasty. Corneal endothelial transplantation has been described using two different techniques: Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) and Descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK). Both are still performed worldwide.

Objectives: To compare the effectiveness and safety of Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) versus Descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) for the treatment of corneal endothelial failure in people with Fuch's endothelial dystropy (FED) and pseudophakic bullous keratopathy (PBK).

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2017, Issue 7); MEDLINE Ovid; Embase Ovid; LILACS BIREME; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). The date of the search was 11 August 2017.

Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised paired, contralateral-eye studies in any setting where DMEK was compared with DSAEK to treat people with corneal endothelial failure.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently screened the search results, assessed trial quality and extracted data using the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcome was best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) measured in logarithm of the Minimum Angle of Resolution (logMAR). Secondary outcomes were endothelial cell count, graft rejection, primary graft failure and graft dislocation. We graded the risk of bias of non-randomised studies (NRSs) using ROBINS-I.

Main results: We did not identify any RCTs but found four non-randomised studies (NRSs) including 72 participants (144 eyes), who had received DSAEK in the first eye followed by DMEK in the fellow eye. All the studies included adult participants where there was evidence of FED and endothelial failure requiring a corneal transplant for the treatment of visual impairment. We did not find any studies that included PBK. The trials were published between 2011 and 2015, and we assessed them as high risk of bias due to potential unknown confounding factors since DSAEK preceded DMEK in all participants. Two studies reported results at 12 months, one at 6 months, and one between 6 and 24 months. At one year, using DMEK in cases of endothelial failure may result in better BCVA compared with DSAEK (mean difference (MD) -0.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.18 to -0.10 logMAR, 4 studies, 140 eyes, low-certainty evidence). None of the participants had severe visual loss (BCVA of 1.0 logMAR or more; very low-certainty evidence). Regarding endothelial cell count data (4 studies, 134 eyes) it is hard to draw any conclusions since two studies suggested no difference and the other two reported that DMEK provides a higher cell density at one year (very low-certainty evidence). No primary graft failure and only one graft rejection were recorded over four studies (144 eyes) (very low-certainty evidence). The most common complications reported were graft dislocations, which were recorded in one or two out of 100 participants with DSAEK but were more common using DMEK, although this difference could not be precisely estimated (risk ratio (RR) 5.40, 95% CI 1.51 to 19.3; 4 studies, 144 eyes, very low-certainty evidence).

Authors' conclusions: This review included studies conducted on people with corneal endothelium failure due to FED for whom both DMEK and DSAEK can be considered, and found low-certainty evidence that DMEK provides some advantage in terms of final BCVA, at the cost of more graft dislocations needing 're-bubbling' (very low-certainty of evidence).

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

AJ Stuart: none known V Romano: none Known G Virgili: none known AJ Shortt: none known

Figures

1
1
Study flow diagram
2
2
Forest plot of comparison 1. DMEK versus DSAEK, outcome: 1.1 Best corrected visual acuity (logMAR)
3
3
Forest plot of comparison 1. DMEK versus DSAEK, outcome: 1.2 Endothelial cell count (cells/mm2)
4
4
Forest plot of comparison 1. DMEK versus DSAEK, outcome: 1.3 Graft dislocation
1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 DMEK versus DSAEK, Outcome 1 Best corrected visual acuity (logMAR).
1.2
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1 DMEK versus DSAEK, Outcome 2 Endothelial cell count (cells/mm2).
1.3
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1 DMEK versus DSAEK, Outcome 3 Graft dislocation.
1.4
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1 DMEK versus DSAEK, Outcome 4 Corneal graft rejection.
1.5
1.5. Analysis
Comparison 1 DMEK versus DSAEK, Outcome 5 Primary graft failure.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

  • doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012097

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

References to studies included in this review

Bhandari 2015 {published data only}
    1. Bhandari V, Reddy JK, Relekar K, Prabhu V. Descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty versus Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty in the fellow eye for Fuchs endothelial dystrophy: a retrospective study. BioMed Research International 2015;2015:750567. [DOI: 10.1155/2015/750567] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Goldich 2015 {published data only}
    1. Goldich Y, Artornsombidth P, Avni‐Zauberman N, Perez M, Ulate R, Elbaz U, et al. Fellow eye comparison of corneal thickness and curvature in Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty and Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea 2014;33(6):547‐50. - PubMed
    1. Goldich Y, Showail M, Avni‐Zauberman N, Perez M, Ulate R, Elbaz U, et al. Contralateral eye comparison of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty and Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. American Journal of Ophthalmology 2015;159(1):155‐9.e1. - PubMed
Guerra 2011 {published data only}
    1. Guerra FP, Anshu A, Price MO, Price FW. Endothelial keratoplasty: fellow eyes comparison of Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty and Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea 2011;30(12):1382‐6. - PubMed
Maier 2015b {published data only}
    1. Maier AK, Gundlach E, Gonnermann J, Klamann MK, Bertelmann E, Rieck PW, et al. Retrospective contralateral study comparing Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty with Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Eye 2015;29(3):327‐32. - PMC - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Cursiefen 2010 {published data only}
    1. Cursiefen C, Kruse FE. DMEK: Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty [DMEK: posteriore lamellare keratoplastiktechnik]. Der Ophthalmologe 2010;107(4):370‐6. - PubMed
Cursiefen 2013 {published data only}
    1. Cursiefen C, Steven P, Roters S, Heindl LM. Prevention and management of complications in Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) and Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) [Komplikationsvermeidung und ‐management bei "Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty" (DMEK) und "Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty" (DSAEK)]. Der Ophthalmologe 2013;110(7):614‐21. - PubMed
Droutsas 2016 {published data only}
    1. Droutsas K, Lazaridis A, Papaconstantinou D, Brouzas D, Moschos MM, Schulze S, et al. Visual outcomes after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty versus Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty ‐ comparison of specific matched pairs. Cornea 2016;35(6):765‐71. - PubMed
Green 2014 {published data only}
    1. Green M, Wilkins M. Comparison of DSAEK and DMEK learning curves. Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 2014;42(S1):85.
Green 2015 {published data only}
    1. Green M, Wilkins MR. Comparison of early surgical experience and visual outcomes of DSAEK and DMEK. Cornea 2015;34(11):1341‐4. - PubMed
Hamzaoglu 2015 {published data only}
    1. Hamzaoglu EC, Straiko MD, Mayko ZM, Sales CS, Terry MA. The first 100 eyes of standardized Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty versus standardized Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmology 2015;122(11):2193‐9. - PubMed
Heinzelmann 2016 {published data only}
    1. Heinzelmann S, Bohringer D, Eberwein P, Reinhard T, Maier P. Outcomes of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty, Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty and penetrating keratoplasty from a single centre study. Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 2016;254(3):515‐22. - PubMed
Rudolph 2012 {published data only}
    1. Rudolph M, Laaser K, Bachmann BO, Cursiefen C, Epstein D, Kruse FE. Corneal higher‐order aberrations after Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmology 2012;119(3):528‐35. - PubMed
Tourtas 2012 {published data only}
    1. Tourtas T, Laaser K, Bachmann BO, Cursiefen C, Kruse FE. Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty versus Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. American Journal of Ophthalmology 2012;153(6):1082‐90. - PubMed

Additional references

Afshari 2006
    1. Afshari NA, Pittard AB, Siddiqui A, Klintworth GK. Clinical study of Fuchs corneal endothelial dystrophy leading to penetrating keratoplasty: a 30‐year experience. Archives of Ophthalmology 2006;124(6):177‐80. - PubMed
Anshu 2012
    1. Anshu A, Price MO, Price FW Jr. Risk of corneal transplant rejection significantly reduced with Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmology 2012;119(3):536‐40. - PubMed
Ayres 2006
    1. Ayres BD, Rapuano CJ. Refractive power of the cornea. Comprehensive Ophthalmology Update 2006;7(5):243‐51. - PubMed
Bahar 2008
    1. Bahar I, Kaiserman I, McAllum P, Slomovic A, Rootman D. Comparison of posterior lamellar keratoplasty techniques to penetrating keratoplasty. Ophthalmology 2008;115(9):1525‐33. - PubMed
Boimer 2011
    1. Boimer C, Lee K, Sharpen L, Mashour R, Slomovic A. Evolving surgical techniques of and indications for corneal transplantation in Ontario from 2000 to 2009. Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology 2011;46(4):360‐6. - PubMed
Borboli 2002
    1. Borboli S, Colby K. Mechanisms of disease: Fuch's endothelial dystrophy. Ophthalmology Clinics of North America 2002;15(1):17‐25. - PubMed
Busin 2012
    1. Busin M, Patel AK, Scorcia V, Ponzin D. Microkeratome‐assisted preparation of ultrathin grafts for Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 2012;53(1):521‐4. - PubMed
Busin 2013
    1. Busin M, Madi S, Santorum P, Scorcia V, Beltz J. Ultrathin Descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty with the microkeratome double‐pass technique: two‐year outcomes. Ophthalmology 2013;120(6):1186‐94. - PubMed
Claesson 2009
    1. Claesson M, Armotage WJ, Stenevi U. Corneal oedema after cataract surgery: predisposing factors and corneal graft outcome. Acta Ophthalmologica 2009;87(2):154‐9. - PubMed
Costagliola 2013
    1. Costagliola C, Romano V, Forbice E, Angi M, Pascotto A, Boccia T, et al. Corneal oedema and its medical treatment. Clinical and Experimental Optometry 2013;96(6):529‐35. - PubMed
Covidence 2015 [Computer program]
    1. Veritas Health Innovation. Covidence. Version accessed in October 2017. Melbourne, Australia: Veritas Health Innovation, 2015.
Cross 1971
    1. Cross HE, Maumenee AE, Cantolino SJ. Inheritance of Fuch's endothelial dystrophy. Archives of Ophthalmology 1971;85(3):268‐72. - PubMed
Dapena 2011
    1. Dapena I, Ham L, Droutsas K, Dijk K, Moutsouris K, Melles GR. Learning curve in Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty: first series of 135 consecutive cases. Ophthalmology 2011;118(11):2147‐54. - PubMed
Deeks 2011
    1. Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG (editors). Chapter 9: Analysing data and undertaking meta‐analyses. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
Dickman 2016
    1. Dickman MM, Kruit PJ, Remeijer L, Rooij J, Lelij A, Wijdh RH, et al. A randomized multicenter clinical trial of ultrathin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) versus DSAEK. Ophthalmology 2016;123(11):2276‐84. - PubMed
Dooren 2011
    1. Dooren BT, Saelens IE, Bleyen I, Mulder PG, Bartels MC, Rij GV. Endothelial cell decay after Descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty and top hat penetrating keratoplasty. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 2011;29(12):9226‐31. - PubMed
Eye Bank Association of America 2015
    1. Eye Bank Association of America. 2015 Eye banking statistical report. www.restoresight.org/wp‐content/uploads/2016/03/2015‐Statistical‐Report.pdf (accessed 16 July 2017).
Frigo 2015
    1. Frigo AC, Fasolo A, Capuzzo C, Fornea M, Bellucci R, Busin M, et al. Corneal transplantation activity over 7 years: changing trends for indications, patient demographics and surgical techniques from the Corneal Transplant Epidemiological Study (CORTES). Transplant Proceedings 2015;47(2):528‐35. - PubMed
Gorovoy 2006
    1. Gorovoy MS. Descemet‐stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea 2006;25(8):886‐9. - PubMed
GRADEpro 2015 [Computer program]
    1. McMaster University (developed by Evidence Prime). GRADEpro GDT. Version accessed in March 2018. Hamilton (ON): McMaster University (developed by Evidence Prime), 2015.
Greenrod 2014
    1. Greenrod EB, Jones MN, Kaye S, Larkin DF, National Health Service Blood and Transplant Ocular Tissue Advisory Group and Contributing Ophthalmologists (Ocular Tissue Advisory Group Audit Study 16). Center and surgeon effect on outcomes of endothelial keratoplasty versus penetrating keratoplasty in the United Kingdom. American Journal of Ophthalmology 2014;158(8):957‐66. - PubMed
Guerra 2011a
    1. Guerra FP, Anshu A, Price MO, Price FW. Endothelial keratoplasty: fellow eyes comparison of Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty and Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea 2011;30(12):1382‐6. - PubMed
Guerra 2011b
    1. Guerra FP, Anshu A, Price MO, Giebel AW, Price FW. Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty: prospective study of 1‐year visual outcomes, graft survival, and endothelial cell loss. Ophthalmology 2011;118(12):2368‐73. - PubMed
Higgins 2003
    1. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta‐analyses. BMJ 2003;327:557‐60. - PMC - PubMed
Higgins 2011
    1. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Sterne JAC, editor(s). Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
Joyce 2004
    1. Joyce NC Zhu CC. Human corneal endothelial cell proliferation: potential for use in regenerative medicine. Cornea 2004;23(Suppl 8):s8‐s19. - PubMed
Khor 2013
    1. Khor WB, Han SB, Mehta JS, Tan DT. Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty with a donor insertion device: clinical results and complications in 100 eyes. American Journal of Ophthalmology 2013;156(4):773‐9. - PubMed
Lee 2009
    1. Lee WB, Jacobs DS, Musch DC, Kaufman SC, Reinhart WJ, Shtein RM. Descemet's stripping endothelial keratoplasty: safety and outcomes: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology 2009;116(9):1818‐30. - PubMed
Magovern 1979
    1. Magovern M, Beauchamp GR, McTigue JW, Fine BS, Baumiller RC. Inheritance of Fuch's combined dystrophy. Ophthalmology 1979;86(10):1897‐923. - PubMed
Maier 2013
    1. Maier P, Reinhard T, Cursiefen C. Descemet stripping endothelial keratoplasty‐‐rapid recovery of visual acuity. Deutsches Arzteblatt International 2013;110(21):365‐71. - PMC - PubMed
Maier 2015
    1. Maier AK, Gundlach E, Schroeter J, Klamann MK, Gonnermann J, Riechardt AI, et al. Influence of the difficulty of graft unfolding and attachment on the outcome in Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 2015;253(6):895‐900. - PubMed
Melles 1998
    1. Melles GR, Eggink FA, Lander F, Pels E, Rietveld FJ, Beekhuis WH, et al. A surgical technique for posterior lamellar keratoplasty. Cornea 1998;17(6):618‐26. - PubMed
Melles 2003
    1. Melles GR, Eggink FA, Lander F, Pels E, Rietveld FJ, Beekhuis WH. A surgical technique for posterior lamellar keratoplasty. Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 2003;241(7):571‐6.
Melles 2006
    1. Melles GR, Ong TS, Ververs B, Wees J. Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK). Cornea 2006;25(8):987‐90. - PubMed
Parekh 2013
    1. Parekh M, Salvalaio G, Ruzza A, Camposampiero D, Griffoni C, Zampini A, et al. Posterior lamellar graft preparation: a prospective review from an eye bank on current and future aspects. Journal of Ophthalmology 2013;2013:Article ID 769860. [DOI: 10.1155/2013/769860] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Parekh 2017a
    1. Parekh M, Ruzza A, Ferrari S, Ahmad S, Kaye S, Ponzin D, et al. Endothelium‐in versus endothelium‐out for Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty graft preparation and implantation. Acta Ophthalmologica 2017;95(2):194‐8. - PubMed
Parekh 2017b
    1. Parekh M, Leon P, Ruzza A, Borroni D, Ferrari S, Ponzin D, et al. Graft detachment and re‐bubbling rate in Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Survey of Ophthalmology 2017;63(2):245‐50. - PubMed
Patel 2012
    1. Patel SV. Graft survival and endothelial outcomes in the new era of endothelial keratoplasty. Experimental Eye Research 2012;95(1):40‐7. - PMC - PubMed
Phillips 2017
    1. Phillips PM. Experienced DSAEK surgeon's transition to DMEK: outcomes comparing the last 100 DSAEK surgeries with the first 100 DMEK surgeries exclusively using previously published techniques. Cornea 2017;36(3):275‐9. - PubMed
Pineros 1996
    1. Pineros O, Cohen EJ, Rapuano CJ, Laibson PR. Long‐term results after penetrating keratoplasty for Fuchs endothelial dystrophy. Archives of Ophthalmology 1996;114(1):15‐8. - PubMed
Price 2009
    1. Price MO, Giebel AW, Fairchild KM, Price FW. Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty: prospective multicenter study of visual and refractive outcomes and endothelial survival. Ophthalmology 2009;116(12):2361‐8. - PubMed
RevMan 2014 [Computer program]
    1. Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager 5 (RevMan 5). Version 5.3. Copenhagen: Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.
Romano 2015a
    1. Romano V, Steger B, Chen JY, Hassaan S, Batterbury M, Willoughby CE, et al. Reliability of the effect of artificial anterior chamber pressure and corneal drying on corneal graft thickness. Cornea 2015;34(8):866‐9. - PubMed
Romano 2015b
    1. Romano V, Tey A, Hill NM, Ahmad S, Britten C, Batterbury M, et al. Influence of graft size on graft survival following Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. British Journal of Ophthalmology 2015;99(6):784‐8. - PubMed
Romano 2017
    1. Romano V, Steger B, Myneni J, Batterbury M, Willoughby CE, Kaye SB. Preparation of ultrathin grafts for Descemet‐stripping endothelial keratoplasty with a single microkeratome pass. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery 2017;43(1):12‐5. - PubMed
Rosenblum 1980
    1. Rosenblum P, Stark WJ, Maumenee IH, Hirst LW, Maumenee AE. Hereditary Fuchs' dystrophy. American Journal of Ophthalmology 1980;90(4):455‐62. - PubMed
Schünemann 2018
    1. Schünemann HJ, Cuello C, Akl EA, Mustafa RA, Meerpohl JJ, Thayer K, et al. How ROBINS‐I and other tools to assess risk of bias in non‐randomized studies should be used to rate the certainty of a body of evidence. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2018;S0895‐4356(17):31031‐4. - PMC - PubMed
Singh 2017
    1. Singh A, Zarei‐Ghanavati M, Avadhanam V, Liu C. Systematic review and meta‐analysis of clinical outcomes of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty versus Descemet stripping endothelial keratoplasty/Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea 2017;36(11):1437‐43. - PubMed
Smolin 1994
    1. Smolin G, Throft RA, Dohlman CH. Endothelial function. The Cornea; Scientific Foundations and Clinical Practice. 3rd Edition. Lippincott William and Wilkins, 1994:635‐43.
Steger 2016
    1. Steger B, Curnow E, Cheeseman R, Romano V, Kaye A, Jones M, et al. Sequential bilateral corneal transplantation and graft survival. American Journal of Ophthalmology 2016;170:50‐7. - PubMed
Sterne 2014
    1. Sterne JAC, Higgins JPT, Reeves BC, on behalf of the development group for ACROBAT‐NRSI. A Cochrane Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool: for Non‐Randomized Studies of Interventions (ACROBAT‐NRSI), Version 1.0.0, 24 September 2014. Available from www.riskofbias.info.
Sterne 2016
    1. Sterne JAC, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, et al. ROBINS‐I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non‐randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 2016;355:i4919. [DOI: 10.1136/bmj.i4919] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Terry 2001
    1. Terry MA, Ousley PJ. Deep lamellar endothelial keratoplasty in the first United States patients: early clinical results. Cornea 2001;20(3):239‐43. - PubMed
Terry 2005
    1. Terry MA, Ousley PJ. Deep lamellar endothelial keratoplasty visual acuity, astigmatism, and endothelial survival in a large prospective series. Ophthalmology 2005;112(9):1541‐8. - PubMed
Zhu 2017
    1. Zhu L, Zha Y, Cai J, Zhang Y. Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty versus Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: a meta‐analysis. International Ophthalmology 2017 Apr 17 [Epub ahead of print]. [DOI: 10.1007/s10792-017-0533-3] - DOI - PubMed

References to other published versions of this review

Stuart 2016
    1. Stuart AJ, Virgili G, Shortt AJ. Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty versus Descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty for corneal endothelial failure. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012097] - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms