Outcomes, and what we do not claim.
This clinic does not publish an audited outcome series, so you will not find a success rate or a case count on this page. What you will find is the published, peer-reviewed evidence for the procedures Dr. Shaarawy performs, each figure with the study it comes from, so you can check it yourself. These are world-literature results across many surgeons and centres. They describe what the procedure does; they do not predict what your own eye will do.
Uncorrected vision better than 20/40 after LASIK
Pooled across 97 studies and 67,893 eyes; 1.2% of patients were dissatisfied and 0.61% lost two or more lines of corrected vision. Sandoval HP et al., J Cataract Refract Surg. 2016;42(8):1224-34 (PMID 27531300).
DMEK immune reaction at four years
Across 1,000 consecutive DMEK eyes. Hos D et al., Ophthalmology. 2017;124(4):512-518 (PMID 28094043). DMEK carries a significantly lower rejection risk than DSAEK or penetrating keratoplasty: Anshu A, Price MO, Price FW Jr, Ophthalmology. 2012;119(3):536-40 (PMID 22218143).
Eyes in which cross-linking halted keratoconus progression, Dresden series
In the original riboflavin/UVA clinical series, progression was halted in every one of the 23 treated eyes over a follow-up of 3 months to 4 years. Wollensak G, Spoerl E, Seiler T, Am J Ophthalmol. 2003;135(5):620-627 (PMID 12719068). A separate cohort of 34 eyes followed for ten years remained stabilised: Raiskup F et al., J Cataract Refract Surg. 2015;41(1):41-46 (PMID 25532633). These are small single-centre series, not a population success rate. Cross-linking stabilises the cornea; it is not primarily a vision-improving procedure.
Patient rating
An aggregate of 120+ reviews across four platforms: Google, Meta, Vezeeta and Endorsal, as of August 2026. This is a satisfaction figure reported by patients, not a clinical outcome measure, which is why the sitewide graph emits no AggregateRating markup for it.
Where these numbers come from, and where they do not
Every figure in the cards above is a published peer-reviewed result, cited in the card itself. None of them is a measurement of this clinic's own patients: no audited case series has been published, and quoting an unaudited one would be misleading. This page is periodically reviewed by Dr. Shaarawy under our medical review policy. Dr. Shaarawy's own published research, including the AAO 2014 DMEK poster (a conference poster with no journal, pages or PMID, so no figure from it is quoted here) and the peer-reviewed 2024 thyroid-keratoconus study (PMID 39507808), is cited in full on the publications page. The patient rating (4.9/5 from 120+ reviews) is an aggregate across four platforms: Google, Meta, Vezeeta and Endorsal, as of August 2026.
Note: outcomes vary case by case. These are pooled figures from the published literature, not a guarantee of any individual result, and not a claim about this clinic's own series. Every case needs personal evaluation before a surgical decision.