Cargando…

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

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. Outcome...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Xu, Jingjie, Chen, Xinyi, Wang, Hanle, Yao, Ke
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10577854/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37846222
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aopr.2022.100027
_version_ 1785121398088269824
author Xu, Jingjie
Chen, Xinyi
Wang, Hanle
Yao, Ke
author_facet Xu, Jingjie
Chen, Xinyi
Wang, Hanle
Yao, Ke
author_sort Xu, Jingjie
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10577854
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-105778542023-10-16 Safety of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery versus conventional phacoemulsification for cataract: A meta-analysis and systematic review Xu, Jingjie Chen, Xinyi Wang, Hanle Yao, Ke Adv Ophthalmol Pract Res Meta-Analysis 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. Elsevier 2022-02-11 /pmc/articles/PMC10577854/ /pubmed/37846222 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aopr.2022.100027 Text en © 2022 The Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Meta-Analysis
Xu, Jingjie
Chen, Xinyi
Wang, Hanle
Yao, Ke
Safety of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery versus conventional phacoemulsification for cataract: A meta-analysis and systematic review
title Safety of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery versus conventional phacoemulsification for cataract: A meta-analysis and systematic review
title_full Safety of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery versus conventional phacoemulsification for cataract: A meta-analysis and systematic review
title_fullStr Safety of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery versus conventional phacoemulsification for cataract: A meta-analysis and systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Safety of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery versus conventional phacoemulsification for cataract: A meta-analysis and systematic review
title_short Safety of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery versus conventional phacoemulsification for cataract: A meta-analysis and systematic review
title_sort safety of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery versus conventional phacoemulsification for cataract: a meta-analysis and systematic review
topic Meta-Analysis
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10577854/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37846222
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aopr.2022.100027
work_keys_str_mv AT xujingjie safetyoffemtosecondlaserassistedcataractsurgeryversusconventionalphacoemulsificationforcataractametaanalysisandsystematicreview
AT chenxinyi safetyoffemtosecondlaserassistedcataractsurgeryversusconventionalphacoemulsificationforcataractametaanalysisandsystematicreview
AT wanghanle safetyoffemtosecondlaserassistedcataractsurgeryversusconventionalphacoemulsificationforcataractametaanalysisandsystematicreview
AT yaoke safetyoffemtosecondlaserassistedcataractsurgeryversusconventionalphacoemulsificationforcataractametaanalysisandsystematicreview