Outcomes of femtosecond laser cataract surgery in an Egyptian cohort: a comparative study

A. Gharib, A. Shama, Y. Mostafa, A. Sherif
{"title":"Outcomes of femtosecond laser cataract surgery in an Egyptian cohort: a comparative study","authors":"A. Gharib, A. Shama, Y. Mostafa, A. Sherif","doi":"10.4103/ejos.ejos_21_21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim This study aimed to compare the visual outcomes and safety of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) to conventional phacoemulsification (CP). Design This was a prospective nonrandomized interventional clinical study. Methodology Hundred eyes with nuclear cataract were divided into two groups: group A (50 eyes) underwent FLACS using the LenSx platform (Alcon Laboratories Inc., Fort Worth, Texas, USA) and group B (50 eyes) underwent CP surgery using the Centurion Vision System (Alcon Laboratories Inc., USA). Preoperative assessment included visual acuity (VA) testing, nuclear grading and specular microscopy. Ultrasound (US) total time, cumulative dissipated energy (CDE) and amount of irrigating fluid used were recorded. Postoperative assessment at 1 week, 1 month and 3 months included uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and specular microscopy. Intra- or postoperative complications were recorded. Results There was no statistically significant difference in the US total time between both groups as a whole (P=0.248) and in each subgroup (P=0.379, 0.316 and 0.681 for NC grades 1, 2 and 3, respectively). CDE was statistically lower in FLACS with NC grade 2 (P=0.005) and 3 (P=0.006), with no significant difference with NC grade 1 (P=0.521). Irrigating fluid volume was significantly lower in the CP group as a whole (P≤0.001) and in each subgroup (P=0.004, <0.001 and <0.001 for grades 1, 2 and 3 NC). There was no significant difference between both groups in % endothelial cell loss (ECL), change in CCT, UCVA and BCVA at 1 week, 1 month and 3 months. No complications were recorded, except one case of incomplete capsulotomy with FLACS. Conclusion FLACS was associated with lower CDE than CP. However, visual outcomes were similar in both techniques.","PeriodicalId":31572,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Egyptian Ophthalmological Society","volume":"114 1","pages":"53 - 61"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Egyptian Ophthalmological Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ejos.ejos_21_21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim This study aimed to compare the visual outcomes and safety of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) to conventional phacoemulsification (CP). Design This was a prospective nonrandomized interventional clinical study. Methodology Hundred eyes with nuclear cataract were divided into two groups: group A (50 eyes) underwent FLACS using the LenSx platform (Alcon Laboratories Inc., Fort Worth, Texas, USA) and group B (50 eyes) underwent CP surgery using the Centurion Vision System (Alcon Laboratories Inc., USA). Preoperative assessment included visual acuity (VA) testing, nuclear grading and specular microscopy. Ultrasound (US) total time, cumulative dissipated energy (CDE) and amount of irrigating fluid used were recorded. Postoperative assessment at 1 week, 1 month and 3 months included uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and specular microscopy. Intra- or postoperative complications were recorded. Results There was no statistically significant difference in the US total time between both groups as a whole (P=0.248) and in each subgroup (P=0.379, 0.316 and 0.681 for NC grades 1, 2 and 3, respectively). CDE was statistically lower in FLACS with NC grade 2 (P=0.005) and 3 (P=0.006), with no significant difference with NC grade 1 (P=0.521). Irrigating fluid volume was significantly lower in the CP group as a whole (P≤0.001) and in each subgroup (P=0.004, <0.001 and <0.001 for grades 1, 2 and 3 NC). There was no significant difference between both groups in % endothelial cell loss (ECL), change in CCT, UCVA and BCVA at 1 week, 1 month and 3 months. No complications were recorded, except one case of incomplete capsulotomy with FLACS. Conclusion FLACS was associated with lower CDE than CP. However, visual outcomes were similar in both techniques.
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
飞秒激光白内障手术在埃及队列中的结果:一项比较研究
目的比较飞秒激光辅助白内障手术(FLACS)与常规超声乳化术(CP)的视力及安全性。设计:这是一项前瞻性非随机介入临床研究。方法将100眼核性白内障患者分为两组:A组(50眼)采用LenSx平台(Alcon Laboratories Inc., Fort Worth, Texas, USA)行FLACS; B组(50眼)采用Centurion Vision System (Alcon Laboratories Inc., USA)行CP手术。术前评估包括视力(VA)测试,核分级和镜面显微镜。记录超声(US)总时间、累积耗散能(CDE)和冲洗液用量。术后1周、1个月和3个月的评估包括未矫正视力(UCVA)、最佳矫正视力(BCVA)和镜面显微镜。记录术中或术后并发症。结果两组间整体US总时间差异无统计学意义(P=0.248),各亚组间NC分级1、2、3的US总时间差异无统计学意义(P=0.379、0.316、0.681)。NC 2级和NC 3级患者的CDE差异有统计学意义(P=0.005),与NC 1级患者差异无统计学意义(P=0.521)。CP组整体灌洗液量显著降低(P≤0.001),各亚组灌洗液量显著降低(1级、2级和3级NC分别P=0.004、<0.001和<0.001)。两组在1周、1个月和3个月时内皮细胞损失百分比(ECL)、CCT、UCVA和BCVA的变化无显著差异。除1例不完全囊膜切开合并FLACS外,无其他并发症。结论FLACS与CP相比,CDE较低,但两种方法的视觉效果相似。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
审稿时长
19 weeks
期刊最新文献
Difference between skin incision size at the start and at the end of external dacryocystorhinostomy Achondroplasia with macular coloboma and cone-rod dystrophy: a case report A comparison between 2% dorzolamide/0.5% timolol fixed combination: brand name drug to its generic counterpart regarding efficacy and side effects Incidence of cataract and glaucoma in children with nephrotic syndrome undergoing steroid treatment Clinical study of functional visual recovery following phacoemulsification with IOL implantation
×
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