We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Surgical efficiency in femtosecond laser cataract surgery compared with phacoemulsification cataract surgery: a case-control study.
BMJ Open 2018 Februrary 18
OBJECTIVES: To investigate differences in surgical time, the distance the surgical instrument travelled and number of movements required to complete manual phacoemulsification cataract surgery versus femtosecond laser cataract surgery.
DESIGN: Non-randomised comparative case series.
SETTING: Single surgery site, Moorfields Eye Hospital, UK.
PARTICIPANTS: 40 cataract surgeries of 40 patients.
INTERVENTIONS: Laser-assisted and manual phacoemulsification cataract surgery. Laser-assisted surgery cases were performed using the AMO Catalys platform.
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Computer vision tracking software PhacoTracking were applied to the recordings to establish the distance the instrument travelled, total number of movements (the number of times an instrument stops and starts moving) and time taken for surgery steps including phacoemulsification, irrigation-aspiration (IA) and overall surgery time. The time taken for laser docking and delivery was not included in the analyses.
RESULTS: Data on 19 laser-assisted and 19 manual phacoemulsification surgeries were analysed (two cases were excluded due to insufficient video-recording quality). There were no differences in the number of instrument moves, the distance the instrument travelled or time taken to complete the phacoemulsification stage. However for IA, the number of instrument moves (manual: mean 20 (SD 15) vs laser: mean 38 (SD 22), P=0.008) and time taken (manual: mean 75 s (SD 24) vs laser: mean 108 s (SD 36), P=0.003) were significantly greater for laser cases. For laser versus manual cases overall, there was no difference in number of moves or the distance the instrument travelled, but laser cases took longer (mean 88 s, P=0.049).
CONCLUSIONS: Laser cataract surgery cases took longer to complete without accounting for the time taken to complete the laser procedure itself. This appears to be in part due to IA requiring more instrument manoeuvres and taking longer to complete. Data from a large randomised series would better elucidate this relationship.
DESIGN: Non-randomised comparative case series.
SETTING: Single surgery site, Moorfields Eye Hospital, UK.
PARTICIPANTS: 40 cataract surgeries of 40 patients.
INTERVENTIONS: Laser-assisted and manual phacoemulsification cataract surgery. Laser-assisted surgery cases were performed using the AMO Catalys platform.
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Computer vision tracking software PhacoTracking were applied to the recordings to establish the distance the instrument travelled, total number of movements (the number of times an instrument stops and starts moving) and time taken for surgery steps including phacoemulsification, irrigation-aspiration (IA) and overall surgery time. The time taken for laser docking and delivery was not included in the analyses.
RESULTS: Data on 19 laser-assisted and 19 manual phacoemulsification surgeries were analysed (two cases were excluded due to insufficient video-recording quality). There were no differences in the number of instrument moves, the distance the instrument travelled or time taken to complete the phacoemulsification stage. However for IA, the number of instrument moves (manual: mean 20 (SD 15) vs laser: mean 38 (SD 22), P=0.008) and time taken (manual: mean 75 s (SD 24) vs laser: mean 108 s (SD 36), P=0.003) were significantly greater for laser cases. For laser versus manual cases overall, there was no difference in number of moves or the distance the instrument travelled, but laser cases took longer (mean 88 s, P=0.049).
CONCLUSIONS: Laser cataract surgery cases took longer to complete without accounting for the time taken to complete the laser procedure itself. This appears to be in part due to IA requiring more instrument manoeuvres and taking longer to complete. Data from a large randomised series would better elucidate this relationship.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app