Femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery versus standard phacoemulsification cataract surgery: study from the European Registry of Quality Outcomes for Cataract and Refractive Surgery

Sonia Manning, Peter Barry, Ype Henry, Paul Rosen, Ulf Stenevi, David Young, Mats Lundström

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

28 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the visual, refractive, and adverse outcomes of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery and conventional phacoemulsification cataract surgery.

SETTING: Cataract surgery clinics in 9 European countries and Australia (femtosecond-assisted) and 18 European countries and Australia (conventional).

DESIGN: Multicenter case-control study.

METHODS: Eyes having femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery were matched to eyes from the European Registry of Quality Outcomes for Cataract and Refractive Surgery phacoemulsification cataract surgery database for preoperative corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), age, and preoperative risk factors. Intraoperative and postoperative complications, postoperative CDVA, and refractive outcome were compared. The follow-up was 7 to 60 days.

RESULTS: The study matched 2814 femtosecond-assisted cases to 4987 conventional phacoemulsification cases. Femtosecond-assisted surgery compared as follows to conventional phacoemulsification: posterior capsule complications, 0.7% versus 0.4%; postoperative logMAR CDVA, 0.05 (6/6(-3)) versus 0.03 (6/6(-2)); worse postoperative CDVA at follow-up (by 5 letters or more), 1.0% versus 0.4%; CDVA 0.3 (6/12) or better, 96.3% versus 97.1%; absolute biometry prediction error, 0.43 diopter (D) versus 0.40 D; within ±0.5 D of target, 72% versus 74.3%; and postoperative complications, 3.4% versus 2.3%.

CONCLUSIONS: Femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery did not yield better visual or refractive outcomes than conventional phacoemulsification cataract surgery. Intraoperative complications were similar and low in both groups. Postoperative complications were lower in conventional phacoemulsification cataract surgery.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: None of the authors has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.

LanguageEnglish
Pages1779-1790
Number of pages12
JournalJournal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery
Volume42
Issue number12
Early online date20 Dec 2016
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 31 Dec 2016

Fingerprint

Refractive Surgical Procedures
Phacoemulsification
Cataract
Registries
Lasers
Visual Acuity
Intraoperative Complications
Biometry
Capsules
Case-Control Studies
Databases

Keywords

  • visual outcomes
  • refractive outcomes
  • adverse outcomes
  • femtosecond laser
  • cataract surgery
  • phacoemulsification
  • corrected distance visual acuity

Cite this

@article{39a4ed9533f1495493e64c169ce17ecc,
title = "Femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery versus standard phacoemulsification cataract surgery: study from the European Registry of Quality Outcomes for Cataract and Refractive Surgery",
abstract = "PURPOSE: To compare the visual, refractive, and adverse outcomes of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery and conventional phacoemulsification cataract surgery.SETTING: Cataract surgery clinics in 9 European countries and Australia (femtosecond-assisted) and 18 European countries and Australia (conventional).DESIGN: Multicenter case-control study.METHODS: Eyes having femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery were matched to eyes from the European Registry of Quality Outcomes for Cataract and Refractive Surgery phacoemulsification cataract surgery database for preoperative corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), age, and preoperative risk factors. Intraoperative and postoperative complications, postoperative CDVA, and refractive outcome were compared. The follow-up was 7 to 60 days.RESULTS: The study matched 2814 femtosecond-assisted cases to 4987 conventional phacoemulsification cases. Femtosecond-assisted surgery compared as follows to conventional phacoemulsification: posterior capsule complications, 0.7{\%} versus 0.4{\%}; postoperative logMAR CDVA, 0.05 (6/6(-3)) versus 0.03 (6/6(-2)); worse postoperative CDVA at follow-up (by 5 letters or more), 1.0{\%} versus 0.4{\%}; CDVA 0.3 (6/12) or better, 96.3{\%} versus 97.1{\%}; absolute biometry prediction error, 0.43 diopter (D) versus 0.40 D; within ±0.5 D of target, 72{\%} versus 74.3{\%}; and postoperative complications, 3.4{\%} versus 2.3{\%}.CONCLUSIONS: Femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery did not yield better visual or refractive outcomes than conventional phacoemulsification cataract surgery. Intraoperative complications were similar and low in both groups. Postoperative complications were lower in conventional phacoemulsification cataract surgery.FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: None of the authors has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.",
keywords = "visual outcomes, refractive outcomes, adverse outcomes, femtosecond laser, cataract surgery, phacoemulsification, corrected distance visual acuity",
author = "Sonia Manning and Peter Barry and Ype Henry and Paul Rosen and Ulf Stenevi and David Young and Mats Lundstr{\"o}m",
note = "Copyright {\circledC} 2016 ASCRS and ESCRS. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.",
year = "2016",
month = "12",
day = "31",
doi = "10.1016/j.jcrs.2016.10.013",
language = "English",
volume = "42",
pages = "1779--1790",
journal = "Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery",
issn = "0886-3350",
number = "12",

}

Femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery versus standard phacoemulsification cataract surgery : study from the European Registry of Quality Outcomes for Cataract and Refractive Surgery. / Manning, Sonia; Barry, Peter; Henry, Ype; Rosen, Paul; Stenevi, Ulf; Young, David; Lundström, Mats.

In: Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, Vol. 42, No. 12, 31.12.2016, p. 1779-1790.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery versus standard phacoemulsification cataract surgery

T2 - Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery

AU - Manning, Sonia

AU - Barry, Peter

AU - Henry, Ype

AU - Rosen, Paul

AU - Stenevi, Ulf

AU - Young, David

AU - Lundström, Mats

N1 - Copyright © 2016 ASCRS and ESCRS. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

PY - 2016/12/31

Y1 - 2016/12/31

N2 - PURPOSE: To compare the visual, refractive, and adverse outcomes of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery and conventional phacoemulsification cataract surgery.SETTING: Cataract surgery clinics in 9 European countries and Australia (femtosecond-assisted) and 18 European countries and Australia (conventional).DESIGN: Multicenter case-control study.METHODS: Eyes having femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery were matched to eyes from the European Registry of Quality Outcomes for Cataract and Refractive Surgery phacoemulsification cataract surgery database for preoperative corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), age, and preoperative risk factors. Intraoperative and postoperative complications, postoperative CDVA, and refractive outcome were compared. The follow-up was 7 to 60 days.RESULTS: The study matched 2814 femtosecond-assisted cases to 4987 conventional phacoemulsification cases. Femtosecond-assisted surgery compared as follows to conventional phacoemulsification: posterior capsule complications, 0.7% versus 0.4%; postoperative logMAR CDVA, 0.05 (6/6(-3)) versus 0.03 (6/6(-2)); worse postoperative CDVA at follow-up (by 5 letters or more), 1.0% versus 0.4%; CDVA 0.3 (6/12) or better, 96.3% versus 97.1%; absolute biometry prediction error, 0.43 diopter (D) versus 0.40 D; within ±0.5 D of target, 72% versus 74.3%; and postoperative complications, 3.4% versus 2.3%.CONCLUSIONS: Femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery did not yield better visual or refractive outcomes than conventional phacoemulsification cataract surgery. Intraoperative complications were similar and low in both groups. Postoperative complications were lower in conventional phacoemulsification cataract surgery.FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: None of the authors has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.

AB - PURPOSE: To compare the visual, refractive, and adverse outcomes of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery and conventional phacoemulsification cataract surgery.SETTING: Cataract surgery clinics in 9 European countries and Australia (femtosecond-assisted) and 18 European countries and Australia (conventional).DESIGN: Multicenter case-control study.METHODS: Eyes having femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery were matched to eyes from the European Registry of Quality Outcomes for Cataract and Refractive Surgery phacoemulsification cataract surgery database for preoperative corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), age, and preoperative risk factors. Intraoperative and postoperative complications, postoperative CDVA, and refractive outcome were compared. The follow-up was 7 to 60 days.RESULTS: The study matched 2814 femtosecond-assisted cases to 4987 conventional phacoemulsification cases. Femtosecond-assisted surgery compared as follows to conventional phacoemulsification: posterior capsule complications, 0.7% versus 0.4%; postoperative logMAR CDVA, 0.05 (6/6(-3)) versus 0.03 (6/6(-2)); worse postoperative CDVA at follow-up (by 5 letters or more), 1.0% versus 0.4%; CDVA 0.3 (6/12) or better, 96.3% versus 97.1%; absolute biometry prediction error, 0.43 diopter (D) versus 0.40 D; within ±0.5 D of target, 72% versus 74.3%; and postoperative complications, 3.4% versus 2.3%.CONCLUSIONS: Femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery did not yield better visual or refractive outcomes than conventional phacoemulsification cataract surgery. Intraoperative complications were similar and low in both groups. Postoperative complications were lower in conventional phacoemulsification cataract surgery.FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: None of the authors has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.

KW - visual outcomes

KW - refractive outcomes

KW - adverse outcomes

KW - femtosecond laser

KW - cataract surgery

KW - phacoemulsification

KW - corrected distance visual acuity

U2 - 10.1016/j.jcrs.2016.10.013

DO - 10.1016/j.jcrs.2016.10.013

M3 - Article

VL - 42

SP - 1779

EP - 1790

JO - Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery

JF - Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery

SN - 0886-3350

IS - 12

ER -