Journal: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Article Title: Laser‐assisted cataract surgery versus standard ultrasound phacoemulsification cataract surgery

doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010735.pub2

Figure Lengend Snippet: Conrad‐Hengerer 2013

Article Snippet: No masking of participants is described Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes High risk No masking of the outcome assessment is described Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes Low risk Based on the number of eyes reported in , there was no loss to follow‐up Selective reporting (reporting bias) Unclear risk No access to study protocol or trials registry entry (trial was not registered) Open in a separate window Mastropasqua 2014a table ft1 table-wrap mode="anchored" t5 caption a7 Methods Parallel‐group RCT Participants Number of participants randomised: 90 Number of eyes included: 90 Country: Italy Average age: 69 years Sex: not described Ethnic origin: not described Inclusion criteria: The inclusion criteria were age between 65 years and 75 years, nuclear cataract grade 3 to 4 (nuclear opalescence [NO] 3/4 on Lens Opacities Classification System III), and a corneal endothelial cell count greater than 1200 cells/mm 2 Exclusion criteria: poor pupil dilation, pathology that could alter the anterior segment (e.g. corneal opacities, keratoconus, chronic uveitis, zonular dialysis, pseudoexfoliation syndrome, glaucoma, diabetes), other ocular pathology that can impair visual function, previous anterior or posterior segment surgery, and intraoperative or postoperative complications Interventions Participants were randomised to one of 3 treatments with equal probability for each group: a) laser‐assisted cataract surgery using a Lensx femtosecond laser (Alcon Laboratories Inc); the capsulotomy, lens fragmentation and corneal incisions were performed using the femtosecond laser b) laser‐assisted cataract surgery using a Lensar femtosecond laser (Lensar Inc); the capsulotomy and lens fragmentation were performed using the femtosecond laser c) manual phacoemulsification Outcomes Difference in the distance between the intraocular lens centroid and the pupil centroid 180 days after surgery, visual parameters, refractive parameters, circularity, capsulorhexis area, intraocular lens centroid‐pupil centroid distance, and capsulorhexis centroid‐pupil centroid distance) Notes Funding source not reported Declaration of interest: " No author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned" Date study conducted: not reported Trial registration number: not reported Risk of bias Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk A computer‐generated, 6‐block, 15‐patient randomisation list was generated using an in‐house closed‐source software developed in Matlab 2009b.

Techniques: Sequencing, Selection