TY - JOUR
T1 - Femtosecond Laser-Assisted Cataract Surgery
T2 - A Report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology
AU - Lin, Charles C.
AU - Rose-Nussbaumer, Jennifer R.
AU - Al-Mohtaseb, Zaina N.
AU - Pantanelli, Seth M.
AU - Steigleman, Walter Allan
AU - Hatch, Kathryn M.
AU - Santhiago, Marcony R.
AU - Kim, Stephen J.
AU - Schallhorn, Julie M.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 American Academy of Ophthalmology
PY - 2022/8
Y1 - 2022/8
N2 - Purpose: To evaluate refractive outcomes, safety, and cost-effectiveness of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) compared with phacoemulsification cataract surgery (PCS). Methods: A PubMed search of FLACS was conducted in August 2020. A total of 727 abstracts were reviewed and 33 were selected for full-text review. Twelve articles met inclusion criteria and were included in this assessment. The panel methodologist assigned a level of evidence rating of I to all 12 studies. Results: No significant differences were found in mean uncorrected distance visual acuity, best-corrected distance visual acuity, or the percentage of eyes within ± 0.5 and ± 1 diopter of intended refractive target between FLACS and PCS. Intraoperative and postoperative complication rates were similar between the 2 groups, and most studies showed no difference in endothelial cell loss between FLACS and PCS at various time points between 1 and 6 months. In large randomized controlled studies in the United Kingdom and France, FLACS was less cost-effective than PCS. Conclusions: Both FLACS and PCS have similar excellent safety and refractive outcomes. At this time, one technique is not superior to the other, but economic analyses performed in some populations have shown that FLACS is less cost-effective.
AB - Purpose: To evaluate refractive outcomes, safety, and cost-effectiveness of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) compared with phacoemulsification cataract surgery (PCS). Methods: A PubMed search of FLACS was conducted in August 2020. A total of 727 abstracts were reviewed and 33 were selected for full-text review. Twelve articles met inclusion criteria and were included in this assessment. The panel methodologist assigned a level of evidence rating of I to all 12 studies. Results: No significant differences were found in mean uncorrected distance visual acuity, best-corrected distance visual acuity, or the percentage of eyes within ± 0.5 and ± 1 diopter of intended refractive target between FLACS and PCS. Intraoperative and postoperative complication rates were similar between the 2 groups, and most studies showed no difference in endothelial cell loss between FLACS and PCS at various time points between 1 and 6 months. In large randomized controlled studies in the United Kingdom and France, FLACS was less cost-effective than PCS. Conclusions: Both FLACS and PCS have similar excellent safety and refractive outcomes. At this time, one technique is not superior to the other, but economic analyses performed in some populations have shown that FLACS is less cost-effective.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85130371428&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85130371428&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ophtha.2022.04.003
DO - 10.1016/j.ophtha.2022.04.003
M3 - Article
C2 - 35570159
AN - SCOPUS:85130371428
SN - 0161-6420
VL - 129
SP - 946
EP - 954
JO - Ophthalmology
JF - Ophthalmology
IS - 8
ER -