Safety of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery versus conventional phacoemulsification for cataract: A meta-analysis and systematic review

Jingjie Xu , Xinyi Chen , Hanle Wang , Ke Yao
{"title":"Safety of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery versus conventional phacoemulsification for cataract: A meta-analysis and systematic review","authors":"Jingjie Xu ,&nbsp;Xinyi Chen ,&nbsp;Hanle Wang ,&nbsp;Ke Yao","doi":"10.1016/j.aopr.2022.100027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>To compare the complications of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) with those of conventional phacoemulsification surgery (CPS) for age-related cataracts.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE were systematically searched for studies comparing FLACS and CPS. Outcomes were operative complications, including the intraoperative capsule tear, postoperative corneal edema, macular edema, uncontrolled IOP, etc. The effect measures were weighted with odds ratios with 95% CIs.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Nineteen RCTs and 18 cohort studies, including 24,806 eyes (11,375 of the FLACS group and 13,431 of the CPS group), were identified. There were no significant differences between the two groups in anterior capsule tear, corneal edema, macular edema, uncontrolled IOP, vitreous loss, posterior vitreous detachment, etc. Posterior capsule tear rate showed a significantly lower in RCT subgroups (<em>P</em> ​= ​0.04) and without differences in total (<em>P</em> ​= ​0.63). Significant differences were observed in the incidence of descemet membrane tear/trauma (<em>P</em> ​= ​0.02) and IFIS/iris trauma (<em>P</em> ​= ​0.04. Additionally, The FLACS specific complications showed a significantly higher rate of miosis (<em>P</em> ​&lt; ​0.0001), corneal epithelial defect (<em>P</em> ​= ​0.001), corneal haze (<em>P</em> ​= ​0.002), and subconjunctival hemorrhage (<em>P</em> ​= ​0.01).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>FLACS maintains the same safety compared with CPS in terms of all intraoperative and postoperative complications. Although FLACS did show a statistically significant difference for several FLACS specific complications, it would not influence the visual outcome and heal itself.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72103,"journal":{"name":"Advances in ophthalmology practice and research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/87/f6/main.PMC10577854.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in ophthalmology practice and research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266737622200004X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the complications of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) with those of conventional phacoemulsification surgery (CPS) for age-related cataracts.

Methods

PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE were systematically searched for studies comparing FLACS and CPS. Outcomes were operative complications, including the intraoperative capsule tear, postoperative corneal edema, macular edema, uncontrolled IOP, etc. The effect measures were weighted with odds ratios with 95% CIs.

Results

Nineteen RCTs and 18 cohort studies, including 24,806 eyes (11,375 of the FLACS group and 13,431 of the CPS group), were identified. There were no significant differences between the two groups in anterior capsule tear, corneal edema, macular edema, uncontrolled IOP, vitreous loss, posterior vitreous detachment, etc. Posterior capsule tear rate showed a significantly lower in RCT subgroups (P ​= ​0.04) and without differences in total (P ​= ​0.63). Significant differences were observed in the incidence of descemet membrane tear/trauma (P ​= ​0.02) and IFIS/iris trauma (P ​= ​0.04. Additionally, The FLACS specific complications showed a significantly higher rate of miosis (P ​< ​0.0001), corneal epithelial defect (P ​= ​0.001), corneal haze (P ​= ​0.002), and subconjunctival hemorrhage (P ​= ​0.01).

Conclusions

FLACS maintains the same safety compared with CPS in terms of all intraoperative and postoperative complications. Although FLACS did show a statistically significant difference for several FLACS specific complications, it would not influence the visual outcome and heal itself.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
飞秒激光辅助白内障手术与传统白内障超声乳化手术的安全性:荟萃分析和系统回顾
目的比较飞秒激光辅助白内障手术(FLACS)与常规超声乳化手术(CPS)治疗老年性白内障的并发症。方法系统检索spubmed、Cochrane Library和EMBASE,检索FLACS和CPS的比较研究。结果为手术并发症,包括术中囊撕裂、术后角膜水肿、黄斑水肿、眼压失控等。效果测量以95% ci的优势比加权。结果共纳入19项随机对照试验和18项队列研究,共纳入24,806只眼(FLACS组11,375只,CPS组13,431只)。两组在前囊撕裂、角膜水肿、黄斑水肿、IOP失控、玻璃体脱落、玻璃体后脱离等方面差异无统计学意义。后囊撕裂率在RCT亚组中显著降低(P = 0.04),但在总撕裂率上无差异(P = 0.63)。下膜撕裂/损伤发生率(P = 0.02)和IFIS/虹膜损伤发生率(P = 0.04)差异有统计学意义。此外,FLACS特异性并发症的细胞分裂率明显高于对照组(P <0.0001)、角膜上皮缺损(P = 0.001)、角膜混浊(P = 0.002)、结膜下出血(P = 0.01)。结论flacs与CPS在术中、术后并发症方面均具有相同的安全性。虽然FLACS在几种FLACS特异性并发症中确实显示出统计学上的显著差异,但它不会影响视力结果并自愈。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
66 days
期刊最新文献
Global research trends in the treatment of squamous cell carcinoma over the past decade: A bibliometric analysis Understanding parental hurdles in accessing strabismus treatment Research progress on the impact of cataract surgery on corneal endothelial cells Editorial Board TOC
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1