Safety and visual outcomes comparison between techniques of handheld femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (H-FLACS) and manual phacoemulsification (with continuous curvilinear capsulorhexis

26doc066 10.3205/26doc066 urn:nbn:de:0183-26doc0660 Meeting Abstract Safety and visual outcomes comparison between techniques of handheld femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (H-FLACS) and manual phacoemulsification (with continuous curvilinear capsulorhexis – CCC), for monofocal IOLs Lignereux Lignereux François F

Santé Atlantique, St. Herblain, Frankreich

author German Medical Science GMS Publishing House

Düsseldorf

610 20260617 engl This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Dieser Artikel ist ein Open-Access-Artikel und steht unter den Lizenzbedingungen der Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (Namensnennung). M0651 066 38. Internationaler Kongress der Deutschen Ophthalmochirurgie (DOC) Katarakt II Nürnberg 20260618 20260620 FP 6.8 TextPurpose: To compare the techniques and refractive outcomes of H-FLACS with CCC, when using monofocal IOLs. To note, H-FLACS are fully mobile, handheld, suction-free and very significantly price efficient compared to traditional FLACS current generation. Methods: A retrospective study of 9 patients operated for cataract with monofocal IOLs was conducted. H-FLACS was performed in one eye, and CCC was performed in the controlateral eye by the same surgeon – with no systematization of the technique used for the first eye. H-FLACS procedures were used to perform a 5-mm anterior capsulotomy in the induction room. Safety, 4-days and/or 30-days postoperative visual evaluation were analyzed. Results: No adverse events were reported in any of the groups. Data at 4-days and 30-days post-operation was available for 7 and 5 patients respectively. At 4 days post-operation in the H-FLACS group, 85.7% (n=6) and 100% (n=7) of eyes had spherical equivalent refraction (SER) of ±0.50 D and ±1.00 D respectively. In the CCC group, there were 100% (n=7) of eyes with SER of ±0.50 D. In both groups at day 30, 80% (n=4) and 100% (n=5) of eyes had SER of ±0.50 D and ±1.00 D respectively. Conclusions: As expected for monofocal IOLs, no statistical differences in visual outcomes were observed between both groups. H-FLACS demonstrate the same level of safety, reproducibility and standardization as FLACS, while being easier to use, much more integrated into surgical workflows, and much less expensive (3 to 4 times less expensive). Given these results obtained with monofocal implants, we expect refractive outcomes with H-FLACS to be similar to those with FLACS when using premium implants. 0 0 0 0