The Link Between Glycemic Control and Complications after Cataract Surgery in Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cataract surgery is a common procedure in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), who face a higher risk of postoperative complications. Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) is a standard measure of glycemic control, but its role as a predictor for surgical outcomes in ophthalmology remains unclear, leading to debate over preoperative HbA1c thresholds. This systematic review aimed to synthesize the evidence on the association between preoperative HbA1c levels and the risk of complications following cataract surgery in patients with T2DM. A systematic search was conducted following PRISMA guidelines across PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and Embase. Observational studies investigating the link between preoperative HbA1c and postoperative complications in T2DM patients were included. Two independent reviewers performed study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Twelve studies were included. The evidence revealed a complication-specific relationship. Elevated preoperative HbA1c (e.g., >7%) was a significant independent risk factor for cystoid macular edema (relative risk 2.01) and diabetic macular edema, supported by a clear pathophysiological link. Conversely, large-scale studies found no significant association between HbA1c and the risk of acute endophthalmitis. Several studies indicated that overall diabetes severity (e.g., renal function, complication burden) was a more robust predictor of surgical risk than glycemic control. The relationship between preoperative HbA1c and post-cataract surgery complications is not uniform. A comprehensive preoperative assessment that includes retinal status, renal function, and overall diabetes complication severity is recommended for individualized risk stratification and optimized surgical outcomes.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".