{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.07482993197278912, 'fraction_numerical': 0.06922769107643058, 'mean_word_length': 4.720823798627002, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Clinical outcomes and complications between FLACS and conventional phacoemulsification cataract surgery: a PRISMA-compliant Meta-analysis of 25 randomized controlled trials.

AIM
To update and investigate the clinical outcomes and complications between femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) and conventional phacoemulsification cataract surgery (CPCS).


METHODS
A Meta-analysis was performed using databases, including Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane library. At least one of the clinical outcomes and/or complications data in each included randomized controlled trials (RCT) was reported. The quality of the RCT was assessed with the Cochrane risk assessments tool.


RESULTS
Overall, 25 RCTs including 3781 eyes were included. No statistically significant difference detected between FLACS and CPCS in terms of corrected distant visual acuity (CDVA), uncorrected distant visual acuity (UDVA), and central corneal thickness (CCT) at the long-term follow up, although FLACS showed better CDVA at 1wk postoperatively, and less increase in CCT at 1d and 1wk. FLACS had better postoperative endothelial cell count (ECC) at 1 and 4-6wk, while there was no significantly difference between FLACS and CPCS at 1d, 3 and 6mo [weighted mean difference (WMD): 51.54, 95% confidence interval (CI): -5.46 to 108.54, P=0.08; WMD: 48.52, 95%CI: -17.54 to 114.58, P=0.15; WMD: 12.17, 95%CI: -48.61 to 72.94, P=0.69, respectively]. Postoperative endothelial cell loss (ECL) of the FLACS was significantly lower than that of the CPCS at 1, 4-6wk, and 3mo (P=0.02, 0.008, 0.03, respectively). However, there was no significant difference between two groups at 6mo (WMD: -30.36, 95%CI: -78.84 to 18.12, P=0.22). No significant difference was discovered with respect to the macular edema [odds ratio (OR): 0.93, 95%CI: 0.42 to 2.05, P=0.85], capsular complication excluding posterior capsular tears (OR: 0.79, 95%CI: 0.42 to 1.50, P=0.47) and intraocular pressure change (OR: 0.82, 95%CI: 0.39 to 1.72, P=0.60). However, posterior capsular tears were more common in CPCS group (OR: 0.12, 95%CI: 0.01 to 0.98, P=0.05). The effective phacoemulsification times were significantly lower in the FLACS group compared to the CPCS group (WMD: -0.78, 95%CI: -1.23 to -0.34, P=0.0006).


CONCLUSION
No statistically significant difference is discovered between FLACS and CPCS in clinical outcomes at the long-term follow up. However, higher rate of posterior capsular tears is detected in patients receiving CPCS.