- Belgrade '18
- Vienna '18
- ESCRS Player
- On Demand
- ESCRS iLearn
- ESCRS YO's
First Author: A.Valero Marcos SPAIN
Co Author(s): J. Fernández Pérez F. Martínez Peña
Back to previous
The latest advances in cataract surgery as femtosecond-laser cataract requires evaluation and comparison with traditional techniques. We propose to compare corneal endothelial cell loss during cataract extraction with posterior chamber intraocular lens implantation (PC IOL) with two different techniques: microincision under 1mm femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery and conventional phacoemulsification.
Department of Ophthalmology, Vithas Vírgen del Mar Hospital, Almería, Spain.
Prospective and randomised study, including In each group, 20 eyes of 16 patients with a mean age of 70.52ḟ10.45 years (range 40-85 years), underwent cataract surgery using either femtosecond laser-assisted (Victus-technolas / Bausch & Lomb) (femtolaser group) or conventional phacoemulsification (phaco group). Patients were evaluated preoperatively with the Lens Opacities Classification System III (LOCS III). Endothelial cell density was measured by non-contact specular microscope preoperatively and 1 month postoperatively. The loss of endothelial cells was calculated as follows: Loss of endothelial cells (%)=(pre-op count post-op count) Ṫ 100 /pre-op count.
The variations between pre- and postoperative parameters showed no statistically significant differences between the two surgical procedures (p>0.05).
Femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery is an effective and safe technique that offers an excellent alternative for cataract surgery, with a smaller incision under 1mm and postoperative outcomes comparable to the standard technique. Femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery causes less corneal swelling in the early postoperative period and may cause less trauma to corneal endothelial cells than manual phacoemulsification. Prospective studies with more patients and longer follow-ups are needed to establish if there really are statistically significant and clinically relevant differences between both techniques.