ReviewClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2025
Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Femtosecond Laser-Enabled Keratoplasty and Conventional Penetrating Keratoplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Femtosecond laser-assisted keratoplasty (FLKP) has recently emerged as an alternative to conventional penetrating keratoplasty (CPK). By enabling precise and reproducible corneal incisions, FLKP may offer improved visual outcomes and fewer complications. Methods: A systematic review was conducted using Google Scholar, PubMed, and Web of Science from inception to July 12, 2024. Included studies were nonrandomized controlled trials, retrospective cohort studies, or prospective observational cohorts comparing FLKP with CPK. Eligible studies reported at least one of the following outcomes: topographic astigmatism, visual acuity, spherical equivalent, endothelial cell density, graft rejection/failure, or complications. Non-English articles, studies comparing other keratoplasty techniques, or lacking relevant outcome data were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed using the MINORS tool. A random-effects model was used to calculate mean differences. Results: Out of 517 records, 9 studies met the inclusion criteria. FLKP was significantly superior in reducing postoperative topographic astigmatism (Z = 3.23, P = 0.001, I² = 35%) and in improving best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) (Z = 5.03, P = 0.00001, and I2 = 4%). No significant difference was found in uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) or spherical equivalent. FLKP also preserved endothelial cell density more effectively than CPK (Z = 2, P = 0.05, I² = 67%). While most complication rates were similar, FLKP was associated with a lower incidence of wound dehiscence. Conclusion: FLKP offers better postoperative astigmatism correction, improved BCVA, and greater endothelial cell preservation compared to CPK. It also reduces certain complications, such as wound dehiscence. However, the findings are limited by the retrospective nature and geographic focus of the included studies, underscoring the need for future long-term randomized trials.
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.