ReviewBMJ open ophthalmology2025
Cataract surgery in Australia: a review of the regional literature and outcomes from 5018 cases at a tertiary teaching hospital.
Review in BMJ open ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Outcomes of Extended Monofocal and Extended Depth of Focus Intraocular Lens Implantation by a Trainee Surgeon in an Australian Tertiary Public Hospital.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Trial of an Internet-Based Cataract and Lens Exchange Registry in a Tertiary Teaching Hospital: Insights and Impact on Clinical Workflow.Journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Impact of surgical complexity and surgeon experience on phacoemulsification outcomes: a one-year retrospective study from a Saudi tertiary eye hospital.Frontiers in ophthalmology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo report visual and surgical outcomes of phacoemulsification cataract surgery from 5018 consecutive cases from Sydney, Australia. A review of the Australian and New Zealand literature was undertaken to provide a benchmark of outcomes from the region.
methodsThe electronic medical record system was used to review three time-points for all phacoemulsification cataract surgeries at a tertiary-referral centre between May 2017 and August 2020: preoperative, intraoperative and one month postoperatively. Variables collected included uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) and pinhole visual acuity, surgeon seniority and ocular pathology.
resultsOf the 5018 eyes, 37.3% were operated on by consultants, 47.1% by trainees and 15.6% by fellows. Ocular pathology was seen in 48.9% of eyes (n=1709). The mean preoperative and one month postoperative UDVA was 6/48 and 6/12, respectively. There was an intraoperative complication in 7.6% of eyes (n=379) and posterior capsular rupture (PCR) occurred in 2.7% (n=136). PCR rates between consultants (3.1%, n=56), trainees (2.6%, n=61) and fellows (2.1%, n=16) showed no statistically significant difference (p≥0.355). The key risk factors for PCR were advanced cataract, alpha-antagonist use, small pupil size and the presence of glaucoma.
conclusionWe present visual and surgical outcomes from the largest study on phacoemulsification cataract surgery in Australia and New Zealand, acknowledging the study's retrospective nature preventing inter-eye correlations, subdivision of cataract subspecialist versus not and trainee rank, and the minority of missing data. Our findings were comparable to regional and international benchmarks despite a high rate of ocular pathology and trainee case load. The lack of a regional cataract surgery registry represents a critical need in assessing and claiming key performance indicators, capturing emerging trends and identifying region-specific risk factors to deliver the best patient outcomes.
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.