Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 303

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 239 of the 239 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Immune reactions after modern lamellar (DALK, DSAEK, DMEK) versus conventional penetrating corneal transplantation

Open access
Hos, Deniz, Matthaei, Mario, Bock, Felix, Maruyama, Kazuichi, Notara, Maria, Clahsen, Thomas, Hou, Yanhong, Le, Viet Nhat Hung, Salabarria, Ann-Charlott, Horstmann, Jens, Bachmann, Bjoern O., Cursiefen, Claus·2019·Progress in Retinal and Eye Research

Abstract

In the past decade, novel lamellar keratoplasty techniques such as Deep Anterior Lamellar Keratoplasty (DALK) for anterior keratoplasty and Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK)/Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) for posterior keratoplasty have been developed. DALK eliminates the possibility of endothelial allograft rejection, which is the main reason for graft failure after penetrating keratoplasty (PK). Compared to PK, the risk of endothelial graft rejection is significantly reduced after DSAEK/DMEK. Thus, with modern lamellar techniques, the clinical problem of endothelial graft rejection seems to be nearly solved in the low-risk situation. However, even with lamellar grafts there are epithelial, subepithelial and stromal immune reactions in DALK and endothelial immune reactions in DSAEK/DMEK, and not all keratoplasties can be performed in a lamellar fashion. Therefore, endothelial graft rejection in PK is still highly relevant, especially in the "high-risk" setting, where the cornea's (lymph)angiogenic and immune privilege is lost due to severe inflammation and pathological neovascularization. For these eyes, currently available treatment options are still unsatisfactory. In this review, we will describe currently used keratoplasty techniques, namely PK, DALK, DSAEK, and DMEK. We will summarize their indications, provide surgical descriptions, and comment on their complications and outcomes. Furthermore, we will give an overview on corneal transplant immunology. A specific focus will be placed on endothelial graft rejection and we will report on its incidence, clinical presentation, and current/future treatment and prevention options. Finally, we will speculate how the field of keratoplasty and prevention of corneal allograft rejection will develop in the future.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.preteyeres.2019.07.001

Cites

239 of 239 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 239 references

Metadata

Authors
Hos, D., Matthaei, M., Bock, F., Maruyama, K., Notara, M., Clahsen, T., Hou, Y., Le, V. N. H., Salabarria, A.-C., Horstmann, J., Bachmann, B. O., & Cursiefen, C.
Venue
Progress in Retinal and Eye Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-11
Volume
73
Pages
100768
ISSN
1350-9462 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2955238053
Cited by
303
References
239
FWCI
19.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Immune reactions after modern lamellar (DALK, DSAEK, DMEK) versus conventional penetrating corneal transplantation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.preteyeres.2019.07.001
The paper
Hos, D., Matthaei, M., Bock, F., Maruyama, K., Notara, M., Clahsen, T., Hou, Y., Le, V. N. H., Salabarria, A.-C., Horstmann, J., Bachmann, B. O., & Cursiefen, C. (2019). Immune reactions after modern lamellar (DALK, DSAEK, DMEK) versus conventional penetrating corneal transplantation. Progress in Retinal and Eye Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.preteyeres.2019.07.001

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.