Visual and refractive outcomes and complications in femtosecond laser-assisted versus conventional phacoemulsification cataract surgery: findings from a randomised, controlled clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: To compare visual and refractive outcomes, changes in intraocular pressure (IOP), and complications of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) to conventional phacoemulsification surgery (CPS) in paired eyes from the same patients. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of an intraindividual, randomised, controlled clinical trial including 110 paired eyes from 55 patients that were randomised into either FLACS or CPS groups. Outcomes were recorded at baseline and postoperatively during a 3-month follow-up period. RESULTS: Uncorrected distance visual acuity and corrected distance visual acuity were similar between FLACS and CPS over the follow-up period (p>0.05). The mean absolute refractive error was not significantly different between the two groups at postoperative month 1 (POM1) (0.3±0.2 D in FLACS vs 0.4±0.3 D in CPS, p=0.18) and month 3 (POM3) (0.3±0.3 D in FLACS vs 0.3±0.3 D in CPS, p=0.71). IOP was statistically higher in the FLACS group on postoperative day 1 (20.6±5.7 mm Hg for FLACS and 18.0±4.9 mm Hg for CPS, p=0.01). However, it was similar between the two groups subsequently (p>0.05). Intraoperatively, one case of posterior capsular block syndrome was observed in the FLACS group. Postoperatively, one case of newly developed glaucoma was observed in the FLACS group and one case of retinal tears in the CPS group. CONCLUSION: The 3-month postoperative refractive and visual outcomes were comparable between FLACS and CPS in paired eyes from the same patients. Complication rate was low in the study population.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".