Suppr超能文献

激光辅助折射性白内障手术与传统手动手术:3144 只眼的疗效和安全性比较。

Refractive Laser-Assisted Cataract Surgery versus Conventional Manual Surgery: Comparing Efficacy and Safety in 3144 Eyes.

机构信息

Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.

Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.

出版信息

Am J Ophthalmol. 2019 Oct;206:32-39. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2019.04.010. Epub 2019 Apr 19.

Abstract

PURPOSE

To report on outcomes of the efficacy and safety in 1 of the largest series of eyes undergoing either conventional manual cataract surgery (MCS) or refractive femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (ReLACS).

DESIGN

Retrospective, consecutive, interventional comparative case series.

METHODS

This study included 3144 consecutive eyes, of which 1580 were treated via MCS, and 1564 were treated via ReLACS at Uptown Surgical Centre in Vaughan, Ontario, Canada. Preoperative characteristics, best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), mean absolute spherical error (MAE), rates of intraoperative posterior capsular rupture, and postoperative complications were evaluated.

RESULTS

Across all eyes, ReLACS was superior to MCS for reducing surgical time (MCS: 7.7 ± 0.1 min vs ReLACS: 6.8 ± 0.1 min, P < 0.001); was less commonly associated with postoperative cystoid macular edema (OR = 0.36, 95% CI: 0.14-0.91, P = 0.031) and more commonly reduced MAE (MCS: 0.60 ± 0.02 diopters (D) vs ReLACS: 0.54 ± 0.02 D, P = 0.02). There were no differences in rates of posterior capsular rupture (P = 0.918), overall postoperative complications (P = 0.088) or final BCVA (P = 0.881). When analyzing a subgroup of more difficult cases (n = 833), ReLACS was superior to MCS for: 1) being more likely to yield an improvement of more than 0.1 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution BCVA (OR = 1.80, 95% CI: 1.15-2.74, P = 0.01); 2) reducing MAE (MCS: 0.73 ± 0.3 D vs ReLACS: 0.60 ± 0.27 D, P = 0.04); and 3) being more likely to yield an MAE within 0.5 D (OR = 1.61, 95% CI: 1.11-2.33, P = 0.012).

CONCLUSIONS

Across all eyes, our results support that ReLACS and MCS yield similar outcomes. However, our results show trends toward a more pronounced benefit of ReLACS compared to MCS when treating more difficult eyes.

摘要

目的

报告在最大系列接受传统手动白内障手术(MCS)或屈光飞秒激光辅助白内障手术(ReLACS)的 1 只眼中的疗效和安全性结果。

设计

回顾性、连续、干预性比较病例系列。

方法

本研究包括 3144 只连续眼,其中 1580 只眼接受 MCS 治疗,1564 只眼接受 ReLACS 治疗,地点在加拿大安大略省沃恩市的 Uptown 外科中心。评估术前特征、最佳矫正视力(BCVA)、平均绝对球镜误差(MAE)、术中后囊破裂发生率和术后并发症。

结果

在所有眼中,ReLACS 比 MCS 更能缩短手术时间(MCS:7.7±0.1 分钟 vs ReLACS:6.8±0.1 分钟,P<0.001);与术后囊样黄斑水肿的发生几率较低相关(OR=0.36,95%CI:0.14-0.91,P=0.031),且更能降低 MAE(MCS:0.60±0.02 屈光度(D) vs ReLACS:0.54±0.02 D,P=0.02)。后囊破裂发生率(P=0.918)、总体术后并发症发生率(P=0.088)或最终 BCVA(P=0.881)均无差异。当分析更困难病例的亚组(n=833)时,ReLACS 比 MCS 更有优势:1)更有可能提高超过 0.1 对数最小角分辨率 BCVA(OR=1.80,95%CI:1.15-2.74,P=0.01);2)降低 MAE(MCS:0.73±0.3 D vs ReLACS:0.60±0.27 D,P=0.04);3)更有可能获得 0.5 D 以内的 MAE(OR=1.61,95%CI:1.11-2.33,P=0.012)。

结论

在所有眼中,我们的结果支持 ReLACS 和 MCS 产生相似的结果。然而,我们的结果显示,在治疗更困难的眼睛时,ReLACS 比 MCS 更有可能产生更明显的益处。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验