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.
Eye Bank Association of America. 2021 Eye Banking Statistical Report.
2.
MarquesREGuerraPSSousaDC, et al.DMEK Versus DSAEK for Fuchs’ endothelial dystrophy: a meta-analysis. Eur J Ophthalmol2019; 29: 15–22. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1120672118757431
DengSXLeeWBHammersmithKM, et al.Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: safety and outcomes: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology2018; 125: 295–310. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.08.015
5.
VasiliauskaitėIOellerichSHamL, et al.Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: ten-year graft survival and clinical outcomes. Am J Ophthalmol2020; 217: 114–120. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2020.04.005
6.
PriceDAKelleyMPriceFWJr,et al.Five-year graft survival of descemet membrane endothelial Keratoplasty (EK) versus descemet stripping ek and the effect of donor sex matching. Ophthalmology. 2018;125:1508–1514. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2018.03.050
7.
SiebelmannSKolbKScholzP, et al.The Cologne rebubbling study: a reappraisal of 624 rebubblings after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Br J Ophthalmol2021; 105: 1082–1086. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2020-316478
8.
DunkerSWinkensBvan den BiggelaarF, et al.Rebubbling and graft failure in Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: a prospective Dutch registry study. Br J Ophthalmol2023; 107: 17–23. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2020-317041
BusinMMadiSSantorumP, et al.Ultrathin descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty with the microkeratome double-pass technique: two-year outcomes. Ophthalmology2013; 120: 1186–1194. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.11.030
11.
CheungAYHouJHBedardP, et al.Technique for preparing ultrathin and nanothin descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty tissue. Cornea2018; 37: 661–666. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/ICO.0000000000001510
12.
MaierABMilekJJoussenAM, et al.Systematic review and meta-analysis: outcomes after descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty versus ultrathin descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Am J Ophthalmol2023; 245: 222–232. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2022.09.013
13.
DimtsasGSMoschosMM. Ultrathin-descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty Versus descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. In Vivo2023; 37: 400–409. doi:https://doi.org/10.21873/invivo.13092
14.
SinghTIchhpujaniPSinghRB, et al.Is ultra-thin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty a viable alternative to Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ther Adv Ophthalmol. 2023;15:25158414221147823. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/25158414221147823
15.
HurleyDJMurtaghPGuerinM. Ultrathin descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (UT-DSAEK) versus descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK)-a systematic review and meta-analysis [published online ahead of print, 2023 mar 18]. Eye (Lond)2023; 37: 3026–3032. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-023-02467-2
16.
DunkerSLDickmanMMWisseRPL, et al.Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty versus ultrathin descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty: a multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial. Ophthalmology2020; 127: 1152–1159. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2020.02.029
17.
ChamberlainWLinCCAustinA, et al.Descemet endothelial thickness comparison trial: a randomized trial comparing ultrathin descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty with descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmology2019; 126: 19–26. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2018.05.019
18.
Rose-NussbaumerJLinCCAustinA, et al.Descemet endothelial thickness comparison trial: two-year results from a randomized trial comparing ultrathin descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty with descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Ophthalmology2021; 128: 1238–1240. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2020.12.021
19.
MatsouAPujariRSarwarH, et al.Microthin descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty versus descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: a randomized clinical trial. Cornea2021; 40: 1117–1125. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/ICO.0000000000002601
20.
KurjiKHCheungAYEslaniM, et al.Comparison of visual acuity outcomes between nanothin descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty and descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea2018; 37: 1226–1231. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/ICO.0000000000001697
21.
MencucciRFavuzzaEMarzialiE, et al.Ultrathin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty versus Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: a fellow-eye comparison. Eye Vis (Lond). 2020; 7: 25. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s40662-020-00191-6.
22.
RomanoVPaganoLGadhviKA, et al.Clinical outcomes of pre-loaded ultra-thin DSAEK and pre-loaded DMEK. BMJ Open Ophthalmol. 2020;5:e000546. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjophth-2020-000546.
23.
Torras-SanvicensJBlanco-DomínguezISánchez-GonzálezJM, et al.Visual quality and subjective satisfaction in ultrathin descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (UT-DSAEK) versus Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty (DMEK): a fellow-eye comparison. J Clin Med. 2021; 10: 419. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10030419.
24.
TourabalyMChetritYProvostJ, et al.Influence of graft thickness and regularity on vision recovery after endothelial keratoplasty. Br J Ophthalmol2020; 104: 1317–1323. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2019-315180
25.
MachalińskaAKuligowskaAKowalskaB, et al.Comparative analysis of corneal parameters in swept-source imaging between DMEK and UT-DSAEK eyes. J Clin Med. 2021; 10: 5119. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10215119
26.
WhitingPSavovićJHigginsJP, et al.ROBIS: a new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. J Clin Epidemiol2016; 69: 225–234. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.06.005
27.
GolozarALindsleyKMuschD, et al.Partnership between Cochrane eyes and vision and the American Academy of Ophthalmology to identify systematic review evidence for clinical practice guidelines. In: Challenges to evidence-based health care and Cochrane. Abstracts of the 24th Cochrane Colloquium, Seoul, Korea, 23–27 Oct 2016. John Wiley & Sons.
28.
Mayo-WilsonENgSMChuckRS,et al.The quality of systematic reviews about interventions for refractive error can be improved: a review of systematic reviews. BMC Ophthalmol. 2017; 17: 164. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-017-0561-9
29.
SaldanhaIJLindsleyKBLumF, et al.Reliability of the evidence addressing treatment of corneal diseases: a summary of systematic reviews. JAMA Ophthalmol2019; 137: 775–785. doi:https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2019.1063
30.
LeJTQureshiRTwoseC, et al.Evaluation of systematic reviews of interventions for retina and vitreous conditions. JAMA Ophthalmol2019; 137: 1399–1405. doi:https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2019.4016
31.
DugganMJRose-NussbaumerJLinCC, et al.Corneal higher-order aberrations in descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty versus ultrathin DSAEK in the descemet endothelial thickness comparison trial: a randomized clinical trial. Ophthalmology2019; 126: 946–957. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2019.02.007
32.
MadiSLeonPNahumY, et al.Five-Year outcomes of ultrathin descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty. Cornea2019; 38: 1192–1197. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/ICO.0000000000001999
33.
FuLHollickEJ. Rebubbling and graft detachment in descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty using a standardised protocol [published online ahead of print, 2022 Dec 15]. Eye (Lond). 2023; 37: 2494–2498. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-022-02362-2
34.
PriceMOCalhounPKollmanC, et al.Descemet stripping endothelial keratoplasty: ten-year endothelial cell loss compared with penetrating keratoplasty. Ophthalmology. 2016; 123: 1421–1427. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.03.011.
35.
WackerKBaratzKHMaguireLJ, et al.Descemet stripping endothelial keratoplasty for fuchs’ endothelial corneal dystrophy: five-year results of a prospective study. Ophthalmology2016; 123: 154–160. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.09.023
36.
HamLDapenaILiarakosVS, et al.Midterm results of descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: 4 to 7 years clinical outcome. Am J Ophthalmol2016; 171: 113–121. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2016.08.038
37.
HosDTuacOSchaubF, et al.Incidence and clinical course of immune reactions after descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty: retrospective analysis of 1000 consecutive eyes. Ophthalmology2017; 124: 512–518. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.12.017
38.
GibbonsALeungEHYooSH. Cost-effectiveness analysis of descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty versus descemet's stripping endothelial keratoplasty in the United States. Ophthalmology2019; 126: 207–213. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2018.09.033
39.
SimonsRWPDunkerSLDickmanMM, et al.Trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) versus ultrathin Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (UT-DSAEK) [published online ahead of print, 2022 Oct 31]. Acta Ophthalmol. 2023; 101: 319–329. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.15280.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
