DMEK, DSAEK, and repeat PKP for endothelial failure after PKP: systematic review and meta-analysis with a graphical synthesis of clinical decision factors.

Graefes Arch Clin Exp OphthalmolJun 26, 2026 (epub)
Clinical ResearchOphthalmologyOpen access

Giacomo Beschi, Yousef Youssef, Filippo Lozza et al.

✦ AI-curated · Sources linked

In 30 seconds

This systematic review and meta-analysis compared DMEK, DSAEK, and repeat penetrating keratoplasty (re-PKP) for endothelial failure after prior PKP in adults. It included 32 studies, predominantly retrospective case series. Pooled graft failure proportions were 0.22 after DMEK, 0.19 after DSAEK, and 0.29 after re-PKP. All procedures improved visual acuity from baseline; DMEK had numerically greater, more sustained improvement and the lowest pooled rejection proportion, but detachment was more frequent. These comparisons are descriptive and should be interpreted cautiously because study populations and follow-up varied.

Key findings

  • Pooled graft failure proportions were 0.22 for DMEK, 0.19 for DSAEK, and 0.29 for re-PKP.
  • Pooled rejection proportions were 0.07 after DMEK, 0.14 after DSAEK, and 0.15 after re-PKP.
  • Detachment was more frequent after DMEK than DSAEK (0.37 vs 0.18).
  • All procedures improved visual acuity from baseline; DMEK showed numerically greater, more sustained improvement through 12-13 months.

Why it matters

The findings outline differing outcome profiles for three surgical options after endothelial failure of a prior PKP. In particular, the lower pooled rejection proportion and greater detachment proportion reported with DMEK illustrate why outcomes should be considered together rather than relying on visual improvement alone. The evidence does not establish a definitive procedure-selection framework.

What to keep in mind

Evidence was predominantly from retrospective, non-randomized studies with variable risk of bias. Incomplete reporting of preoperative and graft-related variables, and differences in baseline visual acuity and follow-up, limit comparisons.

Source

Published in Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. This summary was written by xxcode from the publication's abstract and metadata. It is not peer reviewed and is not a substitute for the original article. For clinical decisions, review the original publication.

ShareTelegramLinkedIn

AI-generated summaries may contain errors or omissions. Verify clinically important information with the original publication.

More in Ophthalmology

Want this personalized?

Stop searching the literature. Choose what you follow and xxcode will build your personalized medical digest.

  • Your specialties
  • Your filters and thresholds
  • Clinical Research + Case Reports, tuned separately
  • Automatic weekly delivery
  • Audio and text

Prefer listening? Personalized audio digests are available with Pro.

Stay updated for free

Get the 3 most interesting publications in one specialty each week.

Weekly email. Unsubscribe anytime.