Dao-Wei Qian1, Hai-Ke Guo2, Shang-Li Jin3, Hong-Yang Zhang2, Yuan-Cun Li3. 1. Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510515, Guangdong Province, China; Department of Ophthalmology, Guangdong General Hospital/Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou 510080, Guangdong Province, China; Department of Ophthalmology, Pingshan New District People's Hopital of Shenzhen, Shenzhen 518118, Guangdong Province, China. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, Guangdong General Hospital/Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou 510080, Guangdong Province, China. 3. Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510515, Guangdong Province, China; Department of Ophthalmology, Guangdong General Hospital/Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou 510080, Guangdong Province, China.
Abstract
AIM: To perform a Meta-analysis on the precision and safety of femtosecond laser (FSL) capsulotomy compared with manual continuous curvilinear capsulotomy (CCC). METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library databases, and Clinical Trials.gov that maintained our inclusion criteria. Reference lists of retrieved articles were also reviewed. The effects of morphology of capsulorhexis and the tears of anterior capsule were calculated by using random-effect models. RESULTS: We identified 4 randomized and 7 nonrandomized studies involving 2941 eyes. The diameter of capsulotomy and the rates of anterior capsule tear showed no statistically difference between FSL group and manual group (MD=0.03; 95%CI, -0.03 to 0.09, P=0.31), and (OR=1.40; 95%CI, 0.28 to 6.97, P=0.68) respectively. In terms of the circularity of capsulotomy, FSL group had a more significant advantage than the manual CCC group (MD=0.09; 95%CI, 0.05 to 0.12, P<0.0001). CONCLUSION: Our Meta-analysis shows that FSL can perform a capsulotomy with more precision and higher reliability than manual CCC. The results in diameter of capsulotomy and the rate of anterior capsule tears was no significant difference between FSL and manual CCC groups. However in terms of circularity, the FSL was superior to the manual procedure.
AIM: To perform a Meta-analysis on the precision and safety of femtosecond laser (FSL) capsulotomy compared with manual continuous curvilinear capsulotomy (CCC). METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library databases, and Clinical Trials.gov that maintained our inclusion criteria. Reference lists of retrieved articles were also reviewed. The effects of morphology of capsulorhexis and the tears of anterior capsule were calculated by using random-effect models. RESULTS: We identified 4 randomized and 7 nonrandomized studies involving 2941 eyes. The diameter of capsulotomy and the rates of anterior capsule tear showed no statistically difference between FSL group and manual group (MD=0.03; 95%CI, -0.03 to 0.09, P=0.31), and (OR=1.40; 95%CI, 0.28 to 6.97, P=0.68) respectively. In terms of the circularity of capsulotomy, FSL group had a more significant advantage than the manual CCC group (MD=0.09; 95%CI, 0.05 to 0.12, P<0.0001). CONCLUSION: Our Meta-analysis shows that FSL can perform a capsulotomy with more precision and higher reliability than manual CCC. The results in diameter of capsulotomy and the rate of anterior capsule tears was no significant difference between FSL and manual CCC groups. However in terms of circularity, the FSL was superior to the manual procedure.
Authors: Kata Miháltz; Michael C Knorz; Jorge L Alió; Agnes I Takács; Kinga Kránitz; Illés Kovács; Zoltán Z Nagy Journal: J Refract Surg Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Marko Ostovic; Oliver K Klaproth; Fritz H Hengerer; Wolfgang J Mayer; Thomas Kohnen Journal: J Cataract Refract Surg Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 3.351
Authors: Kinga Kránitz; Agnes Takacs; Kata Miháltz; Illés Kovács; Michael C Knorz; Zoltán Z Nagy Journal: J Refract Surg Date: 2011-06-30 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Daniel V Palanker; Mark S Blumenkranz; Dan Andersen; Michael Wiltberger; George Marcellino; Phillip Gooding; David Angeley; Georg Schuele; Bruce Woodley; Michael Simoneau; Neil J Friedman; Barry Seibel; Juan Batlle; Rafael Feliz; Jonathan Talamo; William Culbertson Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2010-11-17 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Kinga Kránitz; Kata Miháltz; Gábor L Sándor; Agnes Takacs; Michael C Knorz; Zoltán Z Nagy Journal: J Refract Surg Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Robin G Abell; Peter E J Davies; David Phelan; Karsten Goemann; Zachary E McPherson; Brendan J Vote Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2013-09-29 Impact factor: 12.079