Dataset Information

Three-Dimensional Heads-up Cataract Surgery Using Femtosecond Laser: Efficiency, Efficacy, Safety, and Medical Education-A Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To compare the efficiency, efficacy, and safety, as well as the educational value, of heads-up (three-dimensional visualization system-assisted) and traditional microscopic cataract surgery.

Methods

This randomized noninferiority trial enrolled 242 eyes of 201 patients who received femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery. The questionnaire study enrolled 26 medical interns and 39 medical students. Patients received surgery under either a three-dimensional visualization system (3D group, 117 eyes) or traditional microscope (TM group, 125 eyes) after random allocation. The primary outcome was surgical time. The noninferiority margin of surgical time was 60 seconds. Secondary outcomes included ultrasound power, phacoemulsification time, visual acuity, intraocular pressure, endothelial cell density, central corneal thickness, complications, and observer satisfaction scores for surgical procedures.

Results

Surgical time was 462.03 ± 80.36 seconds in the 3D group and 452.13 ± 76.63 seconds in the TM group (difference 9.90 seconds; 95% CI, -9.98 to 29.78; P = 0.365). Visual acuity and other perioperative parameters were comparable between the 3D group and the TM group (all P > 0.05). Incidences of both intraoperative and postoperative complications were low and not statistically different between groups (all P > 0.05). Across all observers, 3D surgery was superior to TM surgery for improving the degree of satisfaction (all P < 0.001).

Conclusions

The surgical efficiency of heads-up cataract surgery is not inferior to traditional microscopic surgery. Both methods achieved similar efficacy and safety outcomes. Moreover, heads-up cataract surgery showed a significant advantage in medical education.

Translational relevance

Our findings show that heads-up cataract surgery has comparable efficiency, efficacy, and safety, as well as superior medical educational value, to TM surgery, which lays the foundation for promoting and popularizing this technology.

SUBMITTER: Wang K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8340661 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To investigate differences in surgical time, the distance the surgical instrument travelled and number of movements required to complete manual phacoemulsification cataract surgery versus femtosecond laser cataract surgery. DESIGN:Non-randomised comparative case series. SETTING:Single surgery site, Moorfields Eye Hospital, UK. PARTICIPANTS:40 cataract surgeries of 40 patients. INTERVENTIONS:Laser-assisted and manual phacoemulsification cataract surgery. Laser-assisted surgery cases were performed using the AMO Catalys platform. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:Computer vision tracking software PhacoTracking were applied to the recordings to establish the distance the instrument travelled, total number of movements (the number of times an instrument stops and starts moving) and time taken for surgery steps including phacoemulsification, irrigation-aspiration (IA) and overall surgery time. The time taken for laser docking and delivery was not included in the analyses. RESULTS:Data on 19 laser-assisted and 19 manual phacoemulsification surgeries were analysed (two cases were excluded due to insufficient video-recording quality). There were no differences in the number of instrument moves, the distance the instrument travelled or time taken to complete the phacoemulsification stage. However for IA, the number of instrument moves (manual: mean 20 (SD 15) vs laser: mean 38 (SD 22), P=0.008) and time taken (manual: mean 75?s (SD 24) vs laser: mean 108?s (SD 36), P=0.003) were significantly greater for laser cases. For laser versus manual cases overall, there was no difference in number of moves or the distance the instrument travelled, but laser cases took longer (mean 88?s, P=0.049). CONCLUSIONS:Laser cataract surgery cases took longer to complete without accounting for the time taken to complete the laser procedure itself. This appears to be in part due to IA requiring more instrument manoeuvres and taking longer to complete. Data from a large randomised series would better elucidate this relationship.

Project description:PurposeTo report the 3-month results of a randomized trial (Femtosecond Laser-Assisted Cataract Trial [FACT]) comparing femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) with standard phacoemulsification cataract surgery (PCS).DesignMulticenter, randomized controlled trial funded by the UK National Institute of Health Research (HTA 13/04/46/).ParticipantsSeven hundred eighty-five patients with age-related cataract.MethodsThis trial took place in 3 hospitals in the UK National Health Service (NHS). Randomization (1:1) was stratified by site, surgeon, and 1 or both eyes eligible using a secure web-based system. Postoperative assessments were masked to the allocated intervention. The primary outcome was unaided distance visual acuity (UDVA) in the study eye at 3 months. Secondary outcomes included corrected distance visual acuity, complications, and patient-reported outcomes measures. The noninferiority margin was 0.1 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR). ISRCTN.com registry, number ISRCTN77602616.Main outcome measuresWe enrolled 785 participants between May 2015 and September 2017 and randomly assigned 392 to FLACS and 393 to PCS. At 3 months postoperatively, mean UDVA difference between treatment arms was -0.01 logMAR (-0.05 to 0.03), and mean corrected distance visual acuity difference was -0.01 logMAR (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.05 to 0.02). Seventy-one percent of both FLACS and PCS cases were within ±0.5 diopters (D) of the refractive target, and 93% of FLACS and 92% of PCS cases were within ±1.0 D. There were 2 posterior capsule tears in the PCS arm and none in the FLACS arm. There were no significant differences between arms for any secondary outcome.ConclusionsFemtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery is not inferior to conventional PCS surgery 3 months after surgery. Both methods are as good in terms of vision, patient-reported health, and safety outcomes at 3 months. Longer-term outcomes of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness are awaited.