Laser-assisted cataract surgery versus standard ultrasound phacoemulsification cataract surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Main resultsWe included 42 RCTs conducted in Europe, North America, South America and Asia, which enrolled a total of 7298 eyes of 5831 adult participants.Overall, the studies were at unclear or high risk of bias.In 16 studies the authors reported financial links with the manufacturer of the laser platform evaluated in their studies.Thirteen of the studies were within-person (paired-eye) studies with one eye allocated to one procedure and the other eye allocated to the other procedure.These studies were reported ignoring the paired nature of the data.There was low-certainty evidence of little or no difference in the odds of developing anterior capsular tears when comparing FLACS and PCS (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 1.72; 5835 eyes, 27 studies) There was one fewer anterior capsule tear per 1000 operations in the FLACS group compared with the PCS group (95% CI 4 fewer to 3 more).There was low-certainty evidence of lower odds of developing posterior capsular tears with FLACS compared to PCS (Peto OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.00; 5767 eyes, 26 studies).There were four fewer posterior capsule tears per 1000 operations in the FLACS group compared with the PCS group (95% CI 6 fewer to same).There was moderate-certainty evidence of a very small advantage for the FLACS arm with regard to CDVA at six months or more follow-up, (mean difference (MD) -0.01 logMAR, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.00; 1323 eyes, 7 studies).This difference is equivalent to 1 logMAR letter between groups and is not thought to be clinically important.From the three studies (1205 participants) reporting a variety of PROMs (Cat-PROMS, EQ-5D, EQ-SD-3L, Catquest9-SF and patient survey) up to three months following surgery, there was moderate-certainty evidence of little or no difference in the various parameters between the two treatment arms.There was low-certainty evidence of little or no difference in the odds of developing cystoid macular oedema when comparing FLACS and PCS (Peto OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.28; 4441 eyes, 18 studies).There were three fewer cystoid macular oedema cases per 1000 operations in the FLACS group compared with the PCS group (95% CI 10 fewer to 6 more).In one study the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) (cost difference divided by quality-adjusted life year (QALY) difference) was GBP £167,620 when comparing FLACS to PCS.In another study, the ICER was EUR €10,703 saved per additional patient who had treatment success with PCS compared to FLACS.Duration ranged from three minutes in favour of FLACS to eight minutes in favour of PCS (I 2 = 100%, 11 studies) (low-certainty evidence).There was low-certainty evidence of little or no important difference in endothelial cell loss when comparing FLACS with PCS (MD 12 cells per mm 2 in favour of FLACS, 95% CI -40 to 64; 1512 eyes, 10 studies). Authors' conclusionsThis review of 42 studies provides evidence that there is probably little or no difference between FLACS and PCS in terms of intraoperative and postoperative complications, postoperative visual acuity and quality of life.Evidence from two studies suggests that FLACS may be the less cost-effective option.Many of the included studies only investigated very specific outcome measures such as effective phacoemulsification time, endothelial cell count change or aqueous flare, rather than those directly related to patient outcomes.Standardised reporting of complications and visual and refractive outcomes for cataract surgery would facilitate future synthesis, and guidance on this has been recently published.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".