ArticleScientific reports2025
Femtosecond laser versus manual clear corneal incision in implantable collamer lens surgery.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06788418 (Comparative Study of SMILE, ICL, and Wavelight Plus Alcon Technologies in Myopia Correction), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Comparative Study of SMILE, ICL, and Wavelight Plus Alcon Technologies in Myopia Correction
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of femtosecond laser-assisted implantable collamer lens (ICL) implantation with traditional manual ICL techniques. A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients who underwent ICL implantation at Beijing New Vision Eye Hospital in 2023. Patients (aged 18-45) were matched for gender and refractive error, with forty-two eyes in each group. Preoperative and postoperative parameters were measured at intervals of 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months post-surgery. Statistical analyses were conducted to compare outcomes between the two groups. Contrary to our expectations, short-term results (within 1 month) for the femtosecond laser-assisted group showed significantly lower visual acuity and higher astigmatism levels compared to the traditional group. Over time, both techniques yielded comparable outcomes in visual acuity and other parameters by 3 and 6 months postoperatively. The predictive accuracy for refraction outcomes remained superior in the traditional ICL group throughout the study period. The femtosecond laser-assisted ICL implantation did not display any significant short-term and long-term advantages over traditional manual ICL implantation methods. Given the increased costs and lack of clear benefits, femtosecond laser-assisted incisions are not recommended for ICL implantation at this time.
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.