Femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery in a public teaching hospital setting

Update on Femtosecond Laser-Assisted Cataract Surgery: A Review

The advent of femtosecond lasers has resulted in a new standard in cataract surgery, intended to overmatch the paradigm of conventional phacoemulsification. Femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) enables a higher level of reproducibility, precision, accuracy, and customization when performing several steps of cataract (or lens) surgery. Capsulotomy, corneal incisions, lens fragmentation, and arcuate incisions are the main procedures performed using FLACS. As the demand for better refractive outcomes and spectacle independence increases, the features of FLACS are highly relevant, especially when considering the implantation of premium intraocular lenses, such as toric, enhanced depth-of-focus, or multifocal lenses. The present article reviews the state of the art of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract (lens) surgery, contemplating the advantages and limitations of the two types of femtosecond laser pulses available (high and low energy) by evaluating their reported outcomes and complications.

Laser-assisted cataract surgery versus standard ultrasound phacoemulsification cataract surgery

BACKGROUND

Cataract is the leading cause of blindness in the world and, as such, cataract surgery is one of the most commonly performed operations globally. Surgical techniques have changed dramatically over the past half century with associated improvements in outcomes and safety. Femtosecond lasers can be used to perform the key steps in cataract surgery, such as corneal incisions, lens capsulotomy and fragmentation. The potential advantage of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) is greater precision and reproducibility of these steps compared to manual techniques. The disadvantages are the costs associated with FLACS technology.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness and safety of FLACS with standard ultrasound phacoemulsification cataract surgery (PCS) by gathering evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2022, Issue 5); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; LILACS; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov; the WHO ICTRP and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) website. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 10 May 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs where FLACS was compared to PCS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently screened the search results, assessed risk of bias and extracted data using the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcome for this review was intraoperative complications in the operated eye, namely anterior capsule, and posterior capsule tears. The secondary outcomes included corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), quality of vision (as measured by any validated patient-reported outcome measure (PROM)), postoperative cystoid macular oedema complications, endothelial cell loss and cost-effectiveness. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 42 RCTs conducted in Europe, North America, South America and Asia, which enrolled a total of 7298 eyes of 5831 adult participants. Overall, the studies were at unclear or high risk of bias. In 16 studies the authors reported financial links with the manufacturer of the laser platform evaluated in their studies. Thirteen of the studies were within-person (paired-eye) studies with one eye allocated to one procedure and the other eye allocated to the other procedure. These studies were reported ignoring the paired nature of the data. There was low-certainty evidence of little or no difference in the odds of developing anterior capsular tears when comparing FLACS and PCS (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 1.72; 5835 eyes, 27 studies) There was one fewer anterior capsule tear per 1000 operations in the FLACS group compared with the PCS group (95% CI 4 fewer to 3 more).  There was low-certainty evidence of lower odds of developing posterior capsular tears with FLACS compared to PCS (Peto OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.00; 5767 eyes, 26 studies). There were four fewer posterior capsule tears per 1000 operations in the FLACS group compared with the PCS group (95% CI 6 fewer to same).  There was moderate-certainty evidence of a very small advantage for the FLACS arm with regard to CDVA at six months or more follow-up, (mean difference (MD) -0.01 logMAR, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.00; 1323 eyes, 7 studies). This difference is equivalent to 1 logMAR letter between groups and is not thought to be clinically important. From the three studies (1205 participants) reporting a variety of PROMs (Cat-PROMS, EQ-5D, EQ-SD-3L, Catquest9-SF and patient survey) up to three months following surgery, there was moderate-certainty evidence of little or no difference in the various parameters between the two treatment arms. There was low-certainty evidence of little or no difference in the odds of developing cystoid macular oedema when comparing FLACS and PCS (Peto OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.28; 4441 eyes, 18 studies). There were three fewer cystoid macular oedema cases per 1000 operations in the FLACS group compared with the PCS group (95% CI 10 fewer to 6 more).  In one study the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) (cost difference divided by quality-adjusted life year (QALY) difference) was GBP £167,620 when comparing FLACS to PCS. In another study, the ICER was EUR €10,703 saved per additional patient who had treatment success with PCS compared to FLACS. Duration ranged from three minutes in favour of FLACS to eight minutes in favour of PCS (I2 = 100%, 11 studies) (low-certainty evidence).  There was low-certainty evidence of little or no important difference in endothelial cell loss when comparing FLACS with PCS (MD 12 cells per mm2 in favour of FLACS, 95% CI -40 to 64; 1512 eyes, 10 studies).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review of 42 studies provides evidence that there is probably little or no difference between FLACS and PCS in terms of intraoperative and postoperative complications, postoperative visual acuity and quality of life. Evidence from two studies suggests that FLACS may be the less cost-effective option. Many of the included studies only investigated very specific outcome measures such as effective phacoemulsification time, endothelial cell count change or aqueous flare, rather than those directly related to patient outcomes. Standardised reporting of complications and visual and refractive outcomes for cataract surgery would facilitate future synthesis, and guidance on this has been recently published.

Ex-vivo study on the surface quality of corneal lenticule and stroma after low energy femtosecond laser lenticule extraction

This study aimed to assess the surface quality of cap, stroma and lenticular surfaces created using low-energy femtosecond laser lenticule extraction (Ziemer FEMTO LDV Z8). Twenty-four porcine eyes were divided into four groups (n = 6 each): two with optimal laser power (32%) with posterior curvature equivalent to a spherical correction of -2D and -5D, respectively and the other two with high power (64%) with spherical correction of -2D and -5D respectively. Samples were analysed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Surface morphology was evaluated using a standard scoring system; surface relief, surface regularity, extent and position of irregularities were graded by four independent clinicians. Eyes with 32% power and -2D correction had significantly less size of the irregular area than those with -5D; however, no significant difference was found between the two groups with 64% power. When comparing eyes with -2D correction, the size of the irregular area was lesser with 32% power. Surface relief was lesser with -5D correction with 32% power than 64% power. Low-energy femtosecond laser lenticule extraction (Ziemer FEMTO LDV Z8) produces good surface quality results. There is a tendency for smoother surface stromal quality with lower power settings than a higher power.

Femtosecond laser-assisted anterior capsulotomy in children undergoing cataract surgery: a large case series

Objective

To evaluate safety and postoperative visual outcomes of low-energy femtosecond laser-assisted (FLA) anterior capsulotomy in paediatric cataract surgery.

Methods and analysis

We report a retrospective single-centre consecutive case series of 51 eyes of 33 paediatric cataract patients with a mean age of 3.22 years (range: 2 months to 13 years) who underwent cataract surgery with FLA anterior capsulotomy, using FEMTO LDV Z8 femtosecond laser (Ziemer Ophthalmic Systems). Anterior laser capsulotomy, phacoaspiration and intraocular lens implantation were performed in all eyes. Both intraoperative and long-term postoperative complications, along with long-term monocular corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), were assessed during average follow-up period of 32.96 months (range: 13–69 months).

Results

In 48 out of 51 eyes, a well-sized and well-located anterior capsulotomy was achieved without intraoperative complications. Anterior capsule tears occurred in three eyes; however, they did not extend posteriorly and the intraocular lens were placed in the bags without any further complications. Posterior capsular opacification developed in 45.10% of eyes (23 out of 51) and was subsequently treated with neodymium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Nd:YAG) laser capsulotomy. Mean CDVA at final follow-up was 20/40 (range: 20/63 to 20/32) in unilateral cases younger than 12 months, 20/40 (range: 20/1000 to 20/25) in unilateral cases older than 12 months, 20/66 (range: 20/400 to 20/32) in bilateral cases younger than 12 months and 20/40 (range: 20/200 to 20/20) in bilateral cases older than 12 months.

Conclusions

Paediatric cataract surgery with low-energy FLA anterior capsulotomy is a procedure with long-term safety, resulting in significant improvement in CDVA.

Study of the efficiency and workflow of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery in a Spanish public hospital

BACKGROUND

To assess the time-efficiency of a designated operating room (OR) workflow in the introduction of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS, LenSx, Alcon®). The study was carried out in a public hospital a with high-volume of procedures.

METHODS

We performed this prospective, controlled, surgical intervention study in the ophthalmology department of a Spanish tertiary referral public hospital. A total of 167 eyes were enrolled, including 62 eyes undergoing conventional phacoemulsification surgery. In phase I, patients were assigned either to FLACS-I (n=63) or conventional phacoemulsification surgery (n=62). One surgeon operated the femtosecond laser, and another completed the procedure, while a third performed conventional phacoemulsification. In the second phase (FLACS-II), all the surgeries were FLACS (n=42). One surgeon performed the FLACS procedure, and two different surgeons completed the surgeries in separate ORs. Surgical and turnover times of all the patients were recorded.

RESULTS

Preparation time was statistically significantly lower in FLACS-I and FLACS-II (P<0.001), whereas the duration of the cataract procedure per se was higher in FLACS-II compared to conventional phacoemulsification (P=0.03). Phacoemulsification energy was higher in FLACS-II compared to FLACS-I (P=0.01), whereas laser-related surgical time was lower (P=0.001). Surgical complications and total surgical time showed no statistically significant differences between any of the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests a time-efficient and suitable workflow model for FLACS, considering the specific requirements and restrictions of a fully booked public hospital. Even so, we have shown that the FLACS procedure does not take longer than conventional phacoemulsification when following a detailed plan for OR workflow. In addition, our data reflect an improvement in FLACS surgical times with ongoing experience.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03931629 (retrospectively registered).

Femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery compared with phacoemulsification cataract surgery: randomized noninferiority trial with 1-year outcomes

PURPOSE

To report the 1-year outcomes of a randomized trial comparing femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) and phacoemulsification cataract surgery (PCS).

SETTING

Moorfields Eye Hospital, New Cross Hospital, and Sussex Eye Hospital, United Kingdom.

DESIGN

Multicenter, randomized controlled noninferiority trial.

METHODS

Patients undergoing cataract surgery were randomized to FLACS or PCS. Postoperative assessments were masked. Outcomes included uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), complications, corneal endothelial cell count, and patient-reported outcomes measures.

RESULTS

The study enrolled 785 participants. A total of 311 of 392 (79%) participants were allocated to FLACS and 292 of 393 (74%) participants were allocated to PCS attended follow-up at 1 year. Mean UDVA was 0.14 (SD = 0.22) for FLACS and 0.17 (0.25) for PCS with difference of -0.03 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) (95%, -0.06 to 0.01, P = .17). Mean CDVA was 0.003 (0.18) for FLACS and 0.03 (0.23) for PCS with difference of -0.03 logMAR (95% CI, -0.06 to 0.01, P = .11); 75% of both FLACS (230/307) and PCS (218/290) cases were within ±0.5 diopters (D) refractive target, and 292 (95%) of 307 eyes of FLACS and 279 (96%) of 290 eyes of PCS groups were within ±1.0 D. There were no significant differences between arms for all other outcomes with the exception of binocular CDVA mean difference -0.02 (-0.05 to 0.002) logMAR (P = .036) favoring FLACS. Mean cost difference was £167.62 per patient greater for FLACS (95% iterations between -£14.12 and £341.67).

CONCLUSIONS

PCS is not inferior to FLACS regarding vision, patient-reported health, and safety outcomes after 1-year follow-up. A difference was found for binocular CDVA, which, although statistically significant, was not clinically important. FLACS was not cost-effective.

Surgical outcomes with high and low pulse energy femtosecond laser systems for cataract surgery

Currently, there is no clear consensus in cataract surgery if low compared to high energy femto-lasers may enable better capsulotomy quality and induce lower inflammatory response. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the intra-operative outcomes achieved with high and low pulse energy femtosecond laser systems for cataract surgery. The charts of 200 eyes of 200 patients aged 68.3 ± 10.3 years who had undergone femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery using either group 1 high pulse energy: LenSx (Alcon Laboratories) (N = 100) or group 2 low pulse energy: FEMTO LDV Z8 (Ziemer) (N = 100) laser were reviewed retrospectively. Integrity of anterior capsulotomy, classified as (1) complete (free-floating or with minor microadhesions), (2) incomplete and (3) with capsular tears, intraoperative completeness of the clear corneal incisions (CCI, main incision and side port), incidences of intraoperative miosis and incidence of subconjunctival hemorrhage were evaluated and compared between the two groups. The proportion of complete capsulotomies was significantly higher in the group 2 than the group 1 (100% vs 94%; p = 0.03). The incidences of intraoperative miosis (0% vs 19%) and subconjunctival hemorrhage (1% vs 63%) were significantly lower in the group 2 than the group 1 (p < 0.001). Completeness of the main incision was comparable (97% vs 95%; p = 0.721) between the two groups. Although not statistically significant, the completeness of side-port incision was slightly better in the group 2 than the group 1 (91% vs 86%). Low energy laser system performed significantly better in terms of completeness of capsulotomy, intraoperative miosis and sub-conjunctival hemorrhage, compared with high energy laser; the CCI outcomes were comparable.

Femtosecond Laser-assisted Lens Surgery with Low-energy Pulse versus Conventional Phacoemulsification for Presbyopia Correction: An Intraindividual Study

Background:

Lens surgery with multifocal IOL implantation for presbyopia correction is performed by femtosecond laser-assisted lens surgery or conventional phacoemulsification.

Objective:

To compare the clinical results of femtosecond laser-assisted with low-energy pulse conventional phacoemulsification lens surgery for presbyopia correction intraindividually.

Methods:

Charts from patients who underwent Refractive Lens Exchange (RLE) for presbyopia correction in a single center, with Femtosecond Laser-Assisted Lens Surgery (FLALS) in one eye and Conventional Phacoemulsification (CP) in the other, were retrospectively reviewed. All eyes had the same multifocal Intraocular Lens (IOL) implanted. The clinical outcomes and the results of the level of satisfaction questionnaire were compared between the two groups according to the technique employed (FLALS vs. CP) for a period of up to four years. Stability, efficacy and safety indices were also assessed.

Results:

This study comprised a total of 56 eyes of 28 patients randomly assigned FLALS in one eye and CP in the other. No statistically significant difference was observed between the two techniques regarding postoperative visual acuities, duration of surgical procedure, efficacy or safety indexes (p>0.05). Refraction was stable in all FLALS eyes, whereas a change occurred in 2 eyes (7.1%) operated with CP upon 6 months postoperatively, but without statistical significance (p˃0.05). Satisfaction was slightly better with FLALS but not statistically significant (p=0.134). No immediate myosis or other adverse events after the femtosecond laser were registered.

Conclusion:

The parameters assessed showed no significant differences between the two techniques, in spite of a difference of refraction stability upon 6 months postoperatively.

Femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery compared with phacoemulsification: the FACT non-inferiority RCT

BACKGROUND

Cataract surgery is one of the most common operations. Femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) is a technique that automates a number of operative steps.

OBJECTIVES

To compare FLACS with phacoemulsification cataract surgery (PCS).

DESIGN

Multicentre, outcome-masked, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial.

SETTING

Three collaborating NHS hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 785 patients with age-related cataract in one or both eyes were randomised between May 2015 and September 2017.

INTERVENTION

FLACS (n = 392 participants) or PCS (n = 393 participants).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was uncorrected distance visual acuity in the study eye after 3 months, expressed as the logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR): 0.00 logMAR (or 6/6 if expressed in Snellen) is normal (good visual acuity). Secondary outcomes included corrected distance visual acuity, refractive outcomes (within 0.5 dioptre and 1.0 dioptre of target), safety and patient-reported outcome measures at 3 and 12 months, and resource use. All trial follow-ups were performed by optometrists who were masked to the trial intervention.

RESULTS

A total of 353 (90%) participants allocated to the FLACS arm and 317 (81%) participants allocated to the PCS arm attended follow-up at 3 months. The mean uncorrected distance visual acuity was similar in both treatment arms [0.13 logMAR, standard deviation 0.23 logMAR, for FLACS, vs. 0.14 logMAR, standard deviation 0.27 logMAR, for PCS, with a difference of -0.01 logMAR (95% confidence interval -0.05 to 0.03 logMAR; p = 0.63)]. The mean corrected distance visual acuity values were again similar in both treatment arms (-0.01 logMAR, standard deviation 0.19 logMAR FLACS vs. 0.01 logMAR, standard deviation 0.21 logMAR PCS; p = 0.34). There were two posterior capsule tears in the PCS arm. There were no significant differences between the treatment arms for any secondary outcome at 3 months. At 12 months, the mean uncorrected distance visual acuity was 0.14 logMAR (standard deviation 0.22 logMAR) for FLACS and 0.17 logMAR (standard deviation 0.25 logMAR) for PCS, with a difference between the treatment arms of -0.03 logMAR (95% confidence interval -0.06 to 0.01 logMAR; p = 0.17). The mean corrected distance visual acuity was 0.003 logMAR (standard deviation 0.18 logMAR) for FLACS and 0.03 logMAR (standard deviation 0.23 logMAR) for PCS, with a difference of -0.03 logMAR (95% confidence interval -0.06 to 0.01 logMAR; p = 0.11). There were no significant differences between the arms for any other outcomes, with the exception of the mean binocular corrected distance visual acuity with a difference of -0.02 logMAR (95% confidence interval -0.05 to 0.00 logMAR) (p = 0.036), which favoured FLACS. There were no significant differences between the arms for any health, social care or societal costs. For the economic evaluation, the mean cost difference was £167.62 per patient higher for FLACS (95% of iterations between -£14.12 and £341.67) than for PCS. The mean QALY difference (FLACS minus PCS) was 0.001 (95% of iterations between -0.011 and 0.015), which equates to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (cost difference divided by QALY difference) of £167,620.

LIMITATIONS

Although the measurement of outcomes was carried out by optometrists who were masked to the treatment arm, the participants were not masked.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence suggests that FLACS is not inferior to PCS in terms of vision after 3 months' follow-up, and there were no significant differences in patient-reported health and safety outcomes after 12 months' follow-up. In addition, the statistically significant difference in binocular corrected distance visual acuity was not clinically significant. FLACS is not cost-effective.

FUTURE WORK

To explore the possible differences in vision in patients without ocular co-pathology.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN77602616.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 6. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Moorfields Eye Charity (grant references GR000233 and GR000449 for the endothelial cell counter and femtosecond laser used).

[Current value of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery]

After more than 10 years of experience with the femtosecond laser in cataract surgery, it can be concluded that the safety profile of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) is comparable to that of conventional cataract surgery. This technique offers the possibility to perform incisions with a precision superior to that of any surgeon in the world, based on the connection of preoperative and intraoperative diagnostics. This results in new possibilities to revolutionize the surgical procedure of cataract surgery and to generate new therapeutic approaches for the treatment of cataracts. The combination of keratotomy for correcting astigmatism, intraocular lenses supported by capsulotomy and individually adapted fragmentation patterns is already a component of a personalized cataract surgery.

Femtosecond Laser-Assisted Cataract Surgery Versus Phacoemulsification Cataract Surgery (FACT): A Randomized Noninferiority Trial

Purpose

To report the 3-month results of a randomized trial (Femtosecond Laser-Assisted Cataract Trial [FACT]) comparing femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) with standard phacoemulsification cataract surgery (PCS).

Design

Multicenter, randomized controlled trial funded by the UK National Institute of Health Research (HTA 13/04/46/).

Participants

Seven hundred eighty-five patients with age-related cataract.

Methods

This trial took place in 3 hospitals in the UK National Health Service (NHS). Randomization (1:1) was stratified by site, surgeon, and 1 or both eyes eligible using a secure web-based system. Postoperative assessments were masked to the allocated intervention. The primary outcome was unaided distance visual acuity (UDVA) in the study eye at 3 months. Secondary outcomes included corrected distance visual acuity, complications, and patient-reported outcomes measures. The noninferiority margin was 0.1 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR). ISRCTN.com registry, number ISRCTN77602616.

Main Outcome Measures

We enrolled 785 participants between May 2015 and September 2017 and randomly assigned 392 to FLACS and 393 to PCS. At 3 months postoperatively, mean UDVA difference between treatment arms was −0.01 logMAR (−0.05 to 0.03), and mean corrected distance visual acuity difference was −0.01 logMAR (95% confidence interval [CI], −0.05 to 0.02). Seventy-one percent of both FLACS and PCS cases were within ±0.5 diopters (D) of the refractive target, and 93% of FLACS and 92% of PCS cases were within ±1.0 D. There were 2 posterior capsule tears in the PCS arm and none in the FLACS arm. There were no significant differences between arms for any secondary outcome.

Conclusions

Femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery is not inferior to conventional PCS surgery 3 months after surgery. Both methods are as good in terms of vision, patient-reported health, and safety outcomes at 3 months. Longer-term outcomes of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness are awaited.