ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2025
Efficiency Comparison Between Two Different Lasers and Cataract Surgery Workflows: A Prospective and Retrospective Analysis.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare time efficiencies between a traditional femtosecond laser platform and workflow and a single-room model with a robotic laser in patients undergoing cataract surgery. Patients and Methods: Single site, prospective, non-masked study of 23 patients (n = 23 eyes) who underwent the femtosecond laser portion of their cataract surgery with the LenSx Femtosecond Laser System (Alcon, Ft. Worth, Texas) in one room and were subsequently moved to a second room for the remainder of their surgery compared to 23 patients who underwent surgery with a dual-modality, robotic laser (ALLY, Lensar, Orlando, FL) and remained in the same room for the rest of the surgery. Time parameters evaluated were laser set up, docking, suction, total laser time, docking attempts, surgeon total case time, patient total case time, transition to phacoemulsification start time, and transition preparation and draping. Third party observers tracked all time and motion parameters by using a stopwatch and documented activities with a time stamp. Results: There were statistical differences in numerous parameters (all outcomes were measured in minutes): mean suction time [ALLY, 1:16 vs LenSx, 2:26, ( Conclusion: Using a robotic laser for cataract surgery can save about 5 minutes of surgeon time per case and 8 minutes of patient's time in the OR when compared to a traditional femtosecond laser platform set up.
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.