ArticleBMJ open2017
Financial modelling of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery within the National Health Service using a 'hub and spoke' model for the delivery of high-volume cataract surgery.
Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery versus conventional phacoemulsification cataract surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Scientific reports · 2025Pooled it
- Femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery compared with phacoemulsification: the FACT non-inferiority RCT.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2021Trial
- Comparative Outcomes of Immediate Versus Delayed Sequential Bilateral Cataract Surgery: A Narrative Review.Cureus · 2026Review
- Optimizing Cataract Surgery Workflows Across a Multi-Satellite Tertiary Care Center.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Review
- Efficiency Comparison Between Two Different Lasers and Cataract Surgery Workflows: A Prospective and Retrospective Analysis.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
- Femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery: Update and perspectives.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Review
- A One Year Longitudinal Comparative Analysis of Visual Outcomes Between Femtosecond Laser-Assisted Cataract Surgery and Standard Phacoemulsification Cataract Surgery.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2021Article
- Clinical outcomes and complications between FLACS and conventional phacoemulsification cataract surgery: a PRISMA-compliant Meta-analysis of 25 randomized controlled trials.International journal of ophthalmology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo develop financial models which offset additional costs associated with femtosecond laser (FL)-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) against improvements in productivity and to determine important factors relating to its implementation into the National Health Service (NHS).
methodsFL platforms are expensive, in initial purchase and running costs. The additional costs associated with FL technology might be offset by an increase in surgical efficiency. Using a 'hub and spoke' model to provide high-volume cataract surgery, we designed a financial model, comparing FLACS against conventional phacoemulsification surgery (CPS). The model was populated with averaged financial data from 4 NHS foundation trusts and 4 commercial organisations manufacturing FL platforms. We tested our model with sensitivity and threshold analyses to allow for variations or uncertainties.
resultsThe averaged weekly workload for cataract surgery using our hub and spoke model required either 8 or 5.4 theatre sessions with CPS or FLACS, respectively. Despite reduced theatre utilisation, CPS (average £433/case) was still found to be 8.7% cheaper than FLACS (average £502/case). The greatest associated cost of FLACS was the patient interface (PI) (average £135/case). Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that FLACS could be less expensive than CPS, but only if increased efficiency, in terms of cataract procedures per theatre list, increased by over 100%, or if the cost of the PI was reduced by almost 70%.
conclusionsThe financial viability of FLACS within the NHS is currently precluded by the cost of the PI and the lack of knowledge regarding any gains in operational efficiency.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.