Osamah J Saeedi1, Luke Y Chang2, Sharon R Ong2, Syed A Karim2, Danielle S Abraham3, Geoffrey L Rosenthal3, Andrew Hammer4, Brad V Spagnolo4, Arturo E Betancourt4. 1. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Maryland School of Medicine, 419 W. Redwood Street, Suite 470, Baltimore, MD, 21201, USA. osaeedi@som.umaryland.edu. 2. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Maryland School of Medicine, 419 W. Redwood Street, Suite 470, Baltimore, MD, 21201, USA. 3. Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Howard Hall Suite 200, 660 W. Redwood Street, Baltimore, MD, 21201, USA. 4. Baltimore Washington Eye Center, 200 Hospital Drive, Suite 600, Glen Burnie, MD, 21061, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the amount of phacoemulsification ultrasound energy used between eyes undergoing femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) and conventional phacoemulsification. METHODS: One eye of consecutive patients undergoing routine non-complicated phacoemulsification from January 2014 to December of 2015 was included in the analysis. FLACS was performed using the Alcon LenSx. Linear regression was used for analysis with type of surgery (FLACS versus conventional phacoemulsification) as the exposure and cumulative dispersed energy (CDE) as the outcome variable. Age, surgeon, eye side, and eye sequence (first versus second eye) were covariates. RESULTS: A total of 1159 surgeries met inclusion criteria. The average age of the cohort was 70.6 (SD 8.6) years, 590 cases (51%) were performed by surgeon 1, and 582 cases (50%) were right eyes. Overall, FLACS resulted in significantly lower CDE as compared to conventional phacoemulsification (β = 0.89, 95% CI 0.83, 0.95). When stratified by eye side and surgeon, FLACS performed on left eyes operated on by surgeon 1 resulted in lower CDE as compared to conventional phacoemulsification (β = 0.76, 95% CI 0.66, 0.87), but not for right eyes operated on by surgeon 1 (β = 0.92, 95% CI 0.79, 1.07) or for eyes operated on by surgeons 2 or 3. CONCLUSIONS: The use of FLACS on the Alcon LenSx platform results in a small decrease in phacoemulsification energy as compared to conventional phacoemulsification in certain cases. Further study assessing optimal laser settings and surgical technique is necessary.
PURPOSE: To compare the amount of phacoemulsification ultrasound energy used between eyes undergoing femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) and conventional phacoemulsification. METHODS: One eye of consecutive patients undergoing routine non-complicated phacoemulsification from January 2014 to December of 2015 was included in the analysis. FLACS was performed using the Alcon LenSx. Linear regression was used for analysis with type of surgery (FLACS versus conventional phacoemulsification) as the exposure and cumulative dispersed energy (CDE) as the outcome variable. Age, surgeon, eye side, and eye sequence (first versus second eye) were covariates. RESULTS: A total of 1159 surgeries met inclusion criteria. The average age of the cohort was 70.6 (SD 8.6) years, 590 cases (51%) were performed by surgeon 1, and 582 cases (50%) were right eyes. Overall, FLACS resulted in significantly lower CDE as compared to conventional phacoemulsification (β = 0.89, 95% CI 0.83, 0.95). When stratified by eye side and surgeon, FLACS performed on left eyes operated on by surgeon 1 resulted in lower CDE as compared to conventional phacoemulsification (β = 0.76, 95% CI 0.66, 0.87), but not for right eyes operated on by surgeon 1 (β = 0.92, 95% CI 0.79, 1.07) or for eyes operated on by surgeons 2 or 3. CONCLUSIONS: The use of FLACS on the Alcon LenSx platform results in a small decrease in phacoemulsification energy as compared to conventional phacoemulsification in certain cases. Further study assessing optimal laser settings and surgical technique is necessary.
Authors: Agnes I Takács; Illés Kovács; Kata Miháltz; Tamás Filkorn; Michael C Knorz; Zoltán Z Nagy Journal: J Refract Surg Date: 2012-05-16 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Mónika Ecsedy; Kata Miháltz; Illés Kovács; Agnes Takács; Tamás Filkorn; Zoltán Z Nagy Journal: J Refract Surg Date: 2011-08-31 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Nilufer Yesilirmak; Vasilios F Diakonis; Adam Sise; Daniel P Waren; Sonia H Yoo; Kendall E Donaldson Journal: J Cataract Refract Surg Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 3.351
Authors: Ina Conrad-Hengerer; Fritz H Hengerer; Mayss Al Juburi; Tim Schultz; H Burkhard Dick Journal: J Refract Surg Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Robin G Abell; Erica Darian-Smith; Jeffrey B Kan; Penelope L Allen; Shaun Y P Ewe; Brendan J Vote Journal: J Cataract Refract Surg Date: 2014-11-11 Impact factor: 3.351
Authors: Ina Conrad-Hengerer; Mayss Al Juburi; Tim Schultz; Fritz H Hengerer; H Burkhard Dick Journal: J Cataract Refract Surg Date: 2013-07-18 Impact factor: 3.351
Authors: Muriël Doors; Tos T J M Berendschot; Wouter Touwslager; Carroll A Webers; Rudy M M A Nuijts Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2013-11 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Yu-Chi Liu; Melina Setiawan; Jia Ying Chin; Benjamin Wu; Hon Shing Ong; Ecosse Lamoureux; Jodhbir S Mehta Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2021-12-17