Skip to main content

  • FLACS vs. Standard Phacoemulsification Cataract Surgery

    By Marianne Doran and selected by Deepak P. Edward, MD
    Add to My Bookmarks

    Journal Highlights

    Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery
    2016;42:1779-1790

    Download PDF

    In a multicenter case-control study, Manning et al. compared the visual, refractive, and adverse outcomes of femtosecond laser–assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) and conventional phacoemulsification cataract surgery. They found that FLACS did not yield better visual or refractive outcomes than conventional phaco.

    The researchers matched 2,814 FLACS cases performed by experienced surgeons in Europe and Australia to 4,987 conventional phaco cases drawn from the European Registry of Quality Outcomes for Cataract and Refractive Surgery (EUREQUO). Matching criteria included baseline corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), age, number of ocular comorbidities, and surgical risk factors. Intraoperative and postoperative complications and refrac­tive outcomes were compared. Patient follow-up was 7 to 60 days.

    Results obtained with FLACS and conventional phaco, respectively, were as follows: posterior capsule compli­cations, 0.7% versus 0.4%; postopera­tive logMAR CDVA, 0.05 versus 0.03; postoperative CDVA worse at follow-up by 5 letters or more, 1.0% versus 0.4%; CDVA of 0.3 or better, 96.3% versus 97.1%; absolute biometry prediction error, 0.43 D versus 0.40 D; within ±0.5 D of target, 72% versus 74.3%; and postoperative complications, 3.4% versus 2.3%.

    The researchers concluded that both FLACS and conventional phacoemul­sification cataract surgery provided excellent visual outcomes, with few complications. However, they found no evidence to support claims that FLACS is superior to conventional phaco; in fact, postoperative complications were lower with the conventional surgery.

    The original article can be found here.