Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30233133›Full record

ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2018

Posterior capsular complication rates with femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery: a consecutive comparative cohort and literature review.

Lewis Levitz, Joseph Reich, Chris Hodge

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lewis LevitzVision Eye Institute Camberwell, Hawthorn East, VIC, Australia, lewis.levitz@visioneyeinstitute.com.au.
Joseph ReichVision Eye Institute Camberwell, Hawthorn East, VIC, Australia, lewis.levitz@visioneyeinstitute.com.au.
Chris HodgeVision Eye Institute Camberwell, Hawthorn East, VIC, Australia, lewis.levitz@visioneyeinstitute.com.au.
Vision Eye Institute · AUUniversity of Technology Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of the study was to determine whether femtosecond-assisted laser cataract surgery (FLACS) reduces the posterior capsular complication (PCC) rate compared to manual cataract surgery when performed by an experienced surgeon. PATIENTS AND

methodsWe reviewed 2,021 consecutive FLACS procedures between 1 June 2012 and 30 August 2017. All cases of posterior capsular rupture (PCR) with or without vitreous prolapse or zonular dialysis (ZD) that prevented an in-the-bag placement of the intraocular lens were included. Risk factors were noted and outcomes documented.

resultsSix eyes of 2,021 (0.3%) who underwent FLACS had either a PCR or ZD. One eye (0.25%) of 403 eyes that had manual cataract surgery had a PCR. There was no significant difference in outcomes. Risk factors included advanced age, dense nuclei, pseudoexfoliation and small pupil. Only a single case in the FLACS series may have been directly attributed to the FLACS procedure.

conclusionThis study provides evidence that there is no significant difference in the PCC rate between FLACS and manual cataract surgery in the hand of an experienced surgeon who performs >350 cases annually. This low rate of complications may be achieved by less experienced surgeons adopting FLACS.

Indexed as

cataract surgeryfemtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgeryphacoemulsification complicationsposterior capsule rupturesafetyzonular dehiscence

Identifiers

PMID30233133
PMCPMC6134952
OpenAlexW2889788177

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.