Comparing the efficacy and safety between femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery and conventional phacoemulsification cataract surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

To investigate the efficacy and safety of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) compared with conventional phacoemulsification cataract surgery (CPCS). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were systematically searched in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, CNKI, and Wanfang. Main outcomes were visual acuity, capsulotomy parameters, effective lens position, and complications. Secondary outcomes included refractive outcomes, intraoperative parameters, and corneal parameters. In total, 41 RCTs involving 9310 eyes were included. There was a statistically significant difference in favour of FLACS over CPCS for uncorrected distance visual acuity at 12 months (mean difference [MD] -0.03; 95% CI -0.05 to -0.01); corrected distance visual acuity at 1 week (MD -0.05; 95% CI -0.07 to -0.02) and 12 months (MD -0.02; 95% CI -0.04 to -0.00); area of capsulotomy at 1 month (MD 4.04 mm2; 95% CI 3.45-4.64) and 6 months (MD 5.02 mm2; 95% CI 3.28-6.77); and intraocular lens centroid-pupil centroid distance at 1 week (MD -0.06 mm; 95% CI -0.08 to -0.05), 1 month (MD -0.07 mm; 95% CI -0.09 to -0.06), and 6 months (MD -0.06 mm; 95% CI -0.07 to -0.04). With regard to surgical complications, FLACS was less than CPCS for the incidence of decentred IOL (odds ratio 0.06; 95% CI 0.01-0.24). However, FLACS did not increase the incidence of other intraoperative or postoperative complications except subconjunctival hemorrhage. Both FLACS and CPCS are effective and safe. FLACS achieves better visual outcomes in the early postoperative period and long-term follow-up, accompanied by more accurate capsulotomy and more optimized effective lens position than CPCS. However, no difference of visual outcomes was found after middle-term follow-up.