Refractive errors of adolescent monkeys in the three groups.

<p>Spherical-equivalent refractive error measured at adolescence for the right (○) and left (●) eyes of individual monkeys from the three groups: (1) aged-matched normal group (Control), (2) NL group (Sunlight),(3) AL group (Artificial). The lines connect the right and left eyes of individual monkeys. The right eyes in the AL and NL group were treated with minus lenses early in life and the left eyes were contralateral eyes.</p

Relationship between anisometropia and interocular differences in vitreous chamber depth of adolescent monkeys in the three groups.

<p>Absolute interocular differences in spherical-equivalent refractive error plotted as a function of interocular differences in vitreous chamber depth for individual animals. Solid line: best-fitting regression line (y = -1.921x-0.091; r² = 0.769).</p

Interocular differences in refraction and ocular parameters of infant monkeys in AL and NL.

<p>The interocular differences in spherical-equivalent refractive error (A-B), vitreous chamber depth (C-D) and corneal power (E-F) plotted as a function of time of lens wearing for individual infant monkeys reared under natural lighting (left panel) and artificial lighting (right panel) respectively.</p

Correlations coefficients of inflammatory mediators and some ocular surface parameters.

<p>Correlations coefficients of inflammatory mediators and some ocular surface parameters.</p

Forest plot comparing the surgical complications between DMEK and DSEK.

<p>CI = confidence interval; SD = standard deviation; DMEK = Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty; DSEK = Descemet’s stripping endothelial keratoplasty. Random-effects model (standard DerSimonian-Laird) was used.</p

Description of between-study heterogeneity^*.

<p>Description of between-study heterogeneity^{<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0182275#t003fn002" target="_blank">*</a>}.</p

Preoperative and 1 month postoperative characteristics of the study participants.

<p>Preoperative and 1 month postoperative characteristics of the study participants.</p

Ocular surface parameters after ReLEx smile and FS-LASIK.

<p>Ocular surface parameters, including Corneal fluorescein (FL) staining, tear break-up time (TBUT), Schirmer I test (SIT), ocular surface disease index (OSDI) and central corneal sensitivity, were compared between patients undergoing ReLEx smile and FS-LASIK. ▴: significant differences between ReLEx smile and FS-LASIK. *: significant differences compared with preoperative level.</p

Efficacy and safety of Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty versus Descemet’s stripping endothelial keratoplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis

<div><p>Purpose</p><p>Based on current evidence, the efficiency and safety of Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) was compared with that of Descemet’s stripping endothelial keratoplasty (DSEK).</p><p>Methods</p><p>Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Database and conference abstracts were comprehensively searched for studies that compared the efficacy and safety of DMEK and DSEK. The efficacy outcome was the postoperative best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA). The safety outcomes included the postoperative endothelial cell density (ECD) and complications such as graft detachment, graft rejection, graft failure, postoperative elevated intraocular pressure (IOP), tissue loss, etc. The outcomes were pooled using random-effects models with Stata 13.0 software. Heterogeneity was qualified with Q statistic and <i>I</i>^<i>2</i><i>/H</i>^<i>2</i> statistic. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plot, Begg rank correlation test, and Egger or Horbard linear regression.</p><p>Results</p><p>19 articles were eligible, and 1124 eyes and 1254 eyes were included in the DMEK and DSEK groups, respectively. The overall pooled estimates showed a significantly better postoperative BCVA, a comparable ECD and an increased graft detachment rate in the DMEK group compared with the DSEK group (BCVA: mean difference (MD) = -0.15, 95% CI = -0.19 to -0.11, P<0.001; ECD: MD = 14.88, 95% CI = -181.50 to 211.27, P = 0.882; graft detachment rate: OR = 4.56, 95% CI = 2.43 to 8.58, P<0.001). Except for the postoperative ECD, which was changed to be higher in the DSEK group than the DMEK group, the learning curve did not have a marked effect on the comparison outcome of the BCVA and graft detachment rate based on the estimates pooled from studies that collected data during the DMEK learning phase (ECD (learning curve): MD = -361.24, 95% CI = -649.42 to -73.07, P = 0.014).</p><p>Conclusion</p><p>Although DMEK is a more technically difficult and challenging procedure, it may represent a safe and more efficient alternative to DSEK for the treatment of corneal endothelial diseases, even during its learning curve.</p></div

Preoperative descriptive statistics of subjects (Mean±SD).

<p>Preoperative descriptive statistics of subjects (Mean±SD).</p