ArticleOphthalmology2022
Femtosecond Laser-Assisted Cataract Surgery: A Report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology.
Article in Ophthalmology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery versus conventional phacoemulsification cataract surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Scientific reports · 2025Pooled it
- Endothelial Cell Loss Following Cataract Surgery Using Continuous Curvilinear Capsulorhexis or Precision Pulse Capsulotomy.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2023Trial
- Effectiveness of Topical Anesthesia in Patients Undergoing Phacoemulsification Cataract Surgery versus Femtosecond Laser-Assisted Cataract Surgery.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Between Femtosecond Laser-assisted Cataract Surgery and Phacoemulsification in Patients with Diabetes: A Systematic Review.Journal of ophthalmic & vision research · 2026Article
- Femtosecond laser versus manual clear corneal incision in implantable collamer lens surgery.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Incidence and analysis of intraoperative complications in femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery: a large-scale cohort study to establish the learning curve.The British journal of ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Changes in cataract and refractive surgery practice patterns among JSCRS members over the past 20 years.Japanese journal of ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Economic evaluations in cataract surgery: a narrative review.Eye (London, England) · 2024Review
- Update on Femtosecond Laser-Assisted Cataract Surgery: A Review.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Review
- Femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery: Update and perspectives.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate refractive outcomes, safety, and cost-effectiveness of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) compared with phacoemulsification cataract surgery (PCS).
methodsA 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.
resultsNo 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.
conclusionsBoth 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.
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.