Combined or sequential DMEK in cases of cataract and Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy—A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract To compare the outcomes of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) performed after phacoemulsification and intraocular lens (IOL) implantation (sequential DMEK) and DMEK combined with phacoemulsification and IOL implantation (combined DMEK) in patients with Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy (FECD) and cataract. Systematic literature review and meta‐analysis performed according to the PRISMA guidelines and registered in PROSPERO. Literature searches were conducted in Medline and Scopus. Comparative studies reporting sequential DMEK and combined DMEK in FECD patients were included. The main outcome measure of the study was the corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) improvement. Secondary outcomes were postoperative endothelial cell density (ECD), rebubbling rate and primary graft failure rate. Bias risk was assessed and a quality appraisal of the body of evidence was completed using the Cochrane Robin‐I tool. A total of 667 eyes (5 studies) were included in this review, 292 eyes (43.77%) underwent a combined DMEK, while 375 (56.22%) eyes underwent a sequential DMEK surgery. We found no evidence of a difference between the two groups (mean difference, 95% CI) regarding: (1) CDVA improvement (−0.06; −0.14, 0.03 LogMAR; 3 studies, I2: 0%; p = 0.86); (2) postoperative ECD (−62; −190, 67 cells/mm2; 4 studies, I2: 67%; p = 0.35); (3) rebubbling (risks ratio: 1.04; 0.59, 1.85; 4 studies, I2: 48%; p = 0.89); and primary graft failure rate (risks ratio: 0.91; 0.32, 2.57; 3 studies, I2: 0%; p = 0.86). Of all the 5 non‐randomized studies, all (100%) were graded as low quality. The overall quality of the analysed studies was low. Randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm no difference or superiority of one approach in terms of CDVA, endothelial cell count and postoperative complication rate between the two arms.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".