ArticleCureus2026
Comparison of Visual Outcomes Between Manual Phacoemulsification and Femtosecond Laser-Assisted Cataract Surgery.
Article in Cureus, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective Our study compared recovery outcomes between manual and femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery by measuring visual acuity, intraocular pressure, and inflammation through pachymetry testing. We hypothesized that laser-assisted procedures would have improved postoperative results when compared to manual cataract surgery. Design We performed a prospective cohort study. Patients undergoing either manual or femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery by a single surgeon were followed through preoperative evaluation and three postoperative visits at one day, one week, and one month, documenting values of visual acuity, intraocular pressure, and pachymetry results. Subjects, participants, and controls We followed patients who fit the criteria for cataract removal, as diagnosed by a board-certified ophthalmologist, with eye surgeries divided into two groups: femtosecond laser-assisted surgery (n=35) and manual surgery (n=63). Methods All patients underwent either manual or femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery by the same surgeon. Each eye was evaluated preoperatively and at one day, one week, and one month postoperatively. Main outcome measures The outcomes measured were postoperative visual acuity, intraocular pressure, and pachymetry (as a proxy for inflammation) in order to assess recovery outcomes. Repeated measures ANOVA was used to analyze the mean changes in visual recovery outcomes. Results No statistically significant difference was found between the femtosecond laser-assisted surgery versus manually performed cataract surgery. However, the average for the two visual outcomes increased despite the statistics not being significant. Future studies are warranted with a larger sample size and more control variables. Conclusions This study sought to determine the variances in recovery outcomes between manual cataract surgery and femtosecond laser-assisted surgery by assessing visual acuity, corneal edema, and intraocular pressure. Our findings suggest that there was no significant statistical difference in outcomes when comparing patients who elected to undergo manual cataract surgery versus femtosecond laser-assisted surgery.
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.