ReviewIndian journal of ophthalmology2022
Clinical outcomes of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery versus conventional phacoemulsification: A retrospective study in a tertiary eye care center in South India.
Review in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Micro-interventional pre-treatment for nucleus disassembly in the setting of non-cavitating sonic lensectomy: real-world evidence study in 512 cases.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Factors Associated With Postoperative Outcomes in Femtosecond Laser-Assisted Cataract Surgery.Cureus · 2025Article
- Intraoperative Iridectomy in Femto-Laser Assisted Smaller-Incision New Generation Implantable Miniature Telescope.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Commentary: Conventional phacoemulsification is going to stay for a long time.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the clinical outcomes of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) versus conventional phacoemulsification (CP) in terms of refractive outcomes, cumulative dissipated energy, and intraoperative complications. Methods: In this retrospective study performed in a tertiary care ophthalmic hospital, we reviewed 2124 eyes that underwent FLACS or CP. Uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), cumulative dissipated energy (CDE), and intraoperative complications were analyzed in the study. Results: Out of 2124 eyes, 873 underwent FLACS and 1251 underwent CP. The postoperative mean UCVA after one month was 0.05 ± 0.11 logMAR and 0.14 ± 0.23 logMAR for FLACS and CP, respectively (P < 0.00001). Mean CDVA one month post operation was 0.02 ± 0.07 logMAR and 0.06 ± 0.19 logMAR for FLACS and CP, respectively (P < 0.0001). The CDE for the FLACS group was 6.17 ± 3.86 (P < 0.00001) and it was 9.74 ± 6.02 for the CP group. The intraoperative complication for the FLACS group was 1.60% and the CP group was 2.39% (P < 0.00001). Conclusion: The visual outcomes were better in FLACS compared to CP. The CDE was lower for the FLACS group and FLACS had significantly less intraoperative complications.
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.