Comparing the Curative Effects between Femtosecond Laser-Assisted Cataract Surgery and Conventional Phacoemulsification Surgery: A Meta-Analysis

Xinyi Chen, Kailin Chen, Jiliang He and Ke Yao

PLOS ONE, 2016, vol. 11, issue 3, 1-14

Abstract: Purpose: To compare the outcomes of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) with those of conventional phacoemulsification surgery (CPS) for age-related cataracts. Methods: A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCT) and comparative cohort studies comparing FLACS with CPS. Endothelial cell loss percentage (ECL%), central corneal thickness (CCT), corrected and uncorrected distant visual acuity (CDVA and UDVA), and mean absolute error (MAE) of refraction were used as primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes included surgically induced astigmatism (SIA), mean effective phacoemulsification time (EPT), phacoemulsification power and circularity of the capsulorhexis. Results: Nine RCTs and fifteen cohort studies including 4,903 eyes (2,861 in the FLACS group and 2,072 in the CPS group) were identified. There were significant differences between the two groups in ECL% at one week, about one month and three months postoperatively, in CCT at one day, about one month postoperatively and at the final follow-up, in CDVA at one week postoperatively, and in UDVA at the final follow-up. Significant differences were also observed in MAE, EPT, phacoemulsification power, and the circularity of capsulorhexis. However, no significant differences were observed in CDVA at one week postoperatively or in surgically induced astigmatism. Conclusions: Compared to CPS, FLACS is a safer and more effective method for reducing endothelial cell loss and postoperative central corneal thickening as well as achieving better and faster visual rehabilitation and refractive outcomes. However, there is no difference in final CDVA and surgically induced astigmatism between the two groups.

Date: 2016
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0152088 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 52088&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0152088

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0152088

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().