Effect of Femtosecond Laser-Assisted Versus Conventional Clear Corneal Incisions on Endothelial Cell Density and Surgical Efficiency in Cataract Surgery
Abstract
1. Introduction
Study Rationale and Hypothesis
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Design
2.2. Sample Size Justification
2.3. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
2.4. Surgical Technique
- anterior capsulotomy with a targeted diameter of 5.0 mm,
- lens fragmentation into six radial segments combined with a concentric circular cut,
- creation of a 2.2 mm main incision and two 0.8 mm paracenteses.
2.5. Performance, Safety, and Surgery-Related Outcomes
2.6. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Corneal Parameter Analysis
3.1.1. Endothelial Corneal Cell Density (ECD)
3.1.2. Grade-Stratified Analyses
3.1.3. The Coefficient of Variation (CV) of Endothelial Cell Area
3.1.4. The Percentage of Hexagonal Cells (6A)
3.2. Central Corneal Thickness (CCT)
3.3. Best-Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA)
3.4. Effective Phacoemulsification Time (EPT) and Ultrasound Time (UT)
- IT: Mean intraoperative time was shorter in FLACS than CCS in Grades ≤ 2 and =3 (p < 0.001 and p = 0.007, respectively). In Grade ≥ 4, the difference was not significant (p = 0.207; CCS, n = 3).
- EPT: For Grade ≤ 2, EPT was significantly shorter in FLACS (p = 0.046). Two-way ANOVA showed independent effects of cataract grade (p = 0.031) and surgical technique (p = 0.007) on EPT.
- UT: For Grade ≤ 2, UT was significantly shorter in FLACS (p = 0.030). Two-way ANOVA again showed independent effects of cataract grade (p = 0.003) and technique (p = 0.012) on UT.
3.5. Surgery Time (IT)
4. Discussion
Limitations
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
| FLACS | Femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery |
| CCS | Conventional cataract surgery |
| CCT | Central corneal thickness |
| CD | Endothelial cell density |
| BCVA | Best-corrected visual acuity |
| PT | Phacoemulsification time |
| IT | Intraoperative time |
| EPT | Effective phacoemulsification time |
| LOCSIII | Lens Opacities Classification System III |
| CV | Coefficient of variation of endothelial cell area |
| 6A | Percentage of hexagonal cells |
| UT | Ultrasound time |
References
- Brian, G.; Taylor, H. Cataract blindness--challenges for the 21st century. Bull. World Health Organ. 2001, 79, 249–256. [Google Scholar]
- Pajic, B.; Cvejic, Z.; Pajic-Eggspuehler, B. Cataract Surgery Performed by High Frequency LDV Z8 Femtosecond Laser: Safety, Efficacy, and Its Physical Properties. Sensors 2017, 17, 1429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Riemey, J.; Latz, C.; Mirshahi, A. Intraoperative complications of cataract surgery using a low-energy femtosecond laser: Results from a real-world high-volume setting. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0279023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Trikha, S.; Turnbull, A.M.; Morris, R.J.; Anderson, D.F.; Hossain, P. The journey to femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery: New beginnings or a false dawn? Eye 2013, 27, 461–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lubatschowski, H.; Maatz, G.; Heisterkamp, A.; Hetzel, U.; Drommer, W.; Welling, H.; Ertmer, W. Application of ultrashort laser pulses for intrastromal refractive surgery. Graefe’s Arch. Clin. Exp. Ophthalmol. 2000, 238, 33–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Latz, C.; Asshauer, T.; Rathjen, C.; Mirshahi, A. Femtosecond-Laser Assisted Surgery of the Eye: Overview and Impact of the Low-Energy Concept. Micromachines 2021, 12, 122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Asshauer, T.; Latz, C.; Mirshahi, A.; Rathjen, C. Femtosecond lasers for eye surgery applications: Historical overview and modern low pulse energy concepts. Adv. Opt. Technol. 2021, 10, 393–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mirshahi, A.; Ponto, K.A. Changes in Pupil Area during Low-energy Femtosecond Laser-assisted Cataract Surgery. J. Ophthalmic. Vis. Res. 2019, 14, 251–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mayer, W.J.; Klaproth, O.K.; Ostovic, M.; Terfort, A.; Vavaleskou, T.; Hengerer, F.H.; Kohnen, T. Cell death and ultrastructural morphology of femtosecond laser-assisted anterior capsulotomy. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2014, 55, 893–898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mirshahi, A.; Schneider, A.; Latz, C.; Ponto, K.A. Perioperative pupil size in low-energy femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0251549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bala, C.; Xia, Y.; Meades, K. Electron microscopy of laser capsulotomy edge: Interplatform comparison. J. Cataract. Refract. Surg. 2014, 40, 1382–1389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williams, G.P.; George, B.L.; Wong, Y.R.; Seah, X.Y.; Ang, H.P.; Loke, M.K.; Mehta, J.S. The effects of a low-energy, high frequency liquid optic interface femtosecond laser system on lens capsulotomy. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 24352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwarzenbacher, L.; Schartmüller, D.; Leydolt, C.; Menapace, R. Prostaglandin Release After Low-Energy Femtosecond Laser-Assisted Cataract Surgery Without Anti-Inflammatory Drug Premedication. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2022, 238, 103–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Abell, R.G.; Kerr, N.M.; Vote, B.J. Toward zero effective phacoemulsification time using femtosecond laser pretreatment. Ophthalmology 2013, 120, 942–948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Conrad-Hengerer, I.; Hengerer, F.H.; Schultz, T.; Dick, H.B. Effect of femtosecond laser fragmentation on effective phacoemulsification time in cataract surgery. J. Refract. Surg. 2012, 28, 879–883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, K.J.; Huang, Y.; Wang, Y.; Pan, A.P.; Shao, X.; Tu, R.X.; Yu, A.Y. Safety and efficacy of cataract surgery performed with a low-energy femtosecond laser compared with conventional phacoemulsification in Chinese patients: A randomized clinical trial. Eye Vis. 2023, 10, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cavallini, G.M.; Fornasari, E.; De Maria, M.; Lazzerini, A.; Campi, L.; Verdina, T. Bimanual femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery compared to standard bimanual phacoemulsification: A case-control study. Eur. J. Ophthalmol. 2019, 29, 629–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ou, Y.; Wang, Y.; Wu, T. Comparison of ultrasound energy consumption between low-energy femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery and conventional phacoemulsification cataract surgery in patients with different cataract densities. Eur. J. Ophthalmol. 2023, 33, 1373–1379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pahlitzsch, M.; Torun, N.; Pahlitzsch, M.L.; Klamann, M.K.J.; Gonnermann, J.; Bertelmann, E.; Pahlitzsch, T. Impact of the Femtosecond Laser in Line with the Femtosecond Laser-Assisted Cataract Surgery (FLACS) on the Anterior Chamber Characteristics in Comparison to the Manual Phacoemulsification. Semin. Ophthalmol. 2017, 32, 456–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Slezak, F.; Thumann, G.; Kropp, M.; Cvejic, Z.; De Clerck, E.E.B.; Bravetti, G.E.; Guber, I.; Pajic, B. Comparison of Conventional and Femtosecond Laser-Assisted Cataract Surgery Regarding Macula Behavior and Thickness. Medicina 2023, 59, 639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, J.; Kao, X.; Sun, X.; Zhang, M.; Liu, Y. Clinical observation of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery for diabetic cataract. Am. J. Transl. Res. 2023, 15, 249–255. [Google Scholar]
- Pirazzoli, G.; D’Eliseo, D.; Ziosi, M.; Acciarri, R. Effects of phacoemulsification time on the corneal endothelium using phacofracture and phaco chop techniques. J. Cataract. Refract. Surg. 1996, 22, 967–969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Conrad-Hengerer, I.; Hengerer, F.H.; Schultz, T.; Dick, H.B. Effect of femtosecond laser fragmentation of the nucleus with different softening grid sizes on effective phaco time in cataract surgery. J. Cataract. Refract. Surg. 2012, 38, 1888–1894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abell, R.G.; Kerr, N.M.; Vote, B.J. Femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery compared with conventional cataract surgery. Clin. Exp. Ophthalmol. 2013, 41, 455–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boden, K.T.; Julich-Haertel, H.; Rickmann, A.; Szurman, P.; Januschowski, K.; Seitz, B.; Schlosser, R.; Wakili, P.; Müller, L.J. Efficacy of a new fragmentation pattern in femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery with the Ziemer FEMTO LDV Z8. Int. Ophthalmol. 2023, 43, 2237–2245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nagy, Z.Z.; Kránitz, K.; Takacs, A.I.; Miháltz, K.; Kovács, I.; Knorz, M.C. Comparison of intraocular lens decentration parameters after femtosecond and manual capsulotomies. J. Refract. Surg. 2011, 27, 564–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kránitz, K.; Takacs, A.; Miháltz, K.; Kovács, I.; Knorz, M.C.; Nagy, Z.Z. Femtosecond laser capsulotomy and manual continuous curvilinear capsulorrhexis parameters and their effects on intraocular lens centration. J. Refract. Surg. 2011, 27, 558–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Friedman, N.J.; Palanker, D.V.; Schuele, G.; Andersen, D.; Marcellino, G.; Seibel, B.S.; Batlle, J.; Feliz, R.; Talamo, J.H.; Blumenkranz, M.S.; et al. Femtosecond laser capsulotomy. J. Cataract. Refract. Surg. 2011, 37, 1189–1198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Palanker, D.V.; Blumenkranz, M.S.; Andersen, D.; Wiltberger, M.; Marcellino, G.; Gooding, P.; Angeley, D.; Schuele, G.; Woodley, B.; Simoneau, M.; et al. Femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery with integrated optical coherence tomography. Sci. Transl. Med. 2010, 2, 58ra85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kohnen, T.; Klaproth, O.K.; Ostovic, M.; Hengerer, F.H.; Mayer, W.J. Morphological changes in the edge structures following femtosecond laser capsulotomy with varied patient interfaces and different energy settings. Graefes Arch. Clin. Exp. Ophthalmol. 2014, 252, 293–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Llopis Sanmillan, I.; Thumann, G.; Kropp, M.; Cvejic, Z.; Pajic, B. Predictability of Astigmatism Correction by Arcuate Incisions with a Femtosecond Laser Using the Gaussian Approximation Calculation. Micromachines 2023, 14, 1009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lim, X.H.; Patil, M.; Mehta, J.S. Femtosecond laser-assisted posterior capsulotomy for the treatment of capsular block syndrome. Taiwan J. Ophthalmol. 2023, 13, 371–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Furino, C.; Niro, A.; Reibaldi, M.; Boscia, F.; Alessio, G. Dexamethasone intravitreal implant along with femtosecond laser assisted cataract surgery in patients with diabetic macular edema and cataract. Eur. J. Ophthalmol. 2023, 33, 1425–1433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garcin, T.; Gain, P.; Thuret, G. Femtosecond laser-cut autologous anterior lens capsule transplantation to treat refractory macular holes. Eye 2023, 37, 1073–1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dick, H.B.; Gerste, R.D.; Taneri, S. Femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery. Asia-Pac. J. Ophthalmol. 2025, 14, 100228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nagy, Z.Z.; McAlinden, C. Femtosecond laser cataract surgery. Eye Vis. 2015, 2, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]



| FLACS | CCS | p-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| All Grades | |||
| Preoperative | 2428 ± 353 | 2434 ± 324 | p = 0.856 |
| Day 1 | 2323 ± 380 | 2326 ± 380 | p = 0.776 |
| Day 12 | 2322 ± 384 | 2311 ± 400 | p = 0.280 |
| Week 4 | 2295 ± 387 | 2261 ± 417 | p = 0.432 |
| Week 6 | 2213 ± 397 | 2254 ± 417 | p = 0.225 |
| Grade 2 | |||
| Preoperative | 2508 ± 435 | 2421 ± 249 | p = 0.906 |
| Day 1 | 2445 ± 477 | 2290 ± 384 | p = 0.398 |
| Day 12 | 2452 ± 531 | 2200 ± 519 | p = 0.048 * |
| Week 4 | 2314 ± 503 | 2147 ± 512 | p = 0.767 |
| Week 6 | 2440 ± 505 | 2146 ± 481 | p = 0.040 * |
| Grade 3 | |||
| Preoperative | 2300 ± 259 | 2423 ± 482 | p = 0.260 |
| Day 1 | 2244 ± 380 | 2343 ± 433 | p = 0.249 |
| Day 12 | 2280 ± 251 | 2282 ± 544 | p = 0.726 |
| Week 4 | 2251 ± 290 | 2263 ± 495 | p = 0.779 |
| Week 6 | 2241 ± 338 | 2235 ± 518 | p = 0.441 |
| Grades 2 and 3 | |||
| Preoperative | 2438 ± 328 | 2402 ± 307 | p = 0.476 |
| Day 1 | 2314 ± 417 | 2275 ± 417 | p = 0.390 |
| Day 12 | 2340 ± 370 | 2188 ± 415 | p = 0.021 * |
| Week 4 | 2274 ± 374 | 2146 ± 498 | p = 0.024 * |
| Week 6 | 2307 ± 402 | 2140 ± 478 | p = 0.024 * |
| Grade 4 | |||
| Preoperative | 2447 ± 251 | 2285 ± 443 | p = 0.593 |
| Day 1 | 2212 ± 385 | 2287 ± 374 | p = 0.655 |
| Day 12 | 2085 ± 523 | 1624 ± 573 | p = 0.010 * |
| Week 4 | 2084 ± 621 | 1869 ± 704 | p = 0.011 * |
| Week 6 | 2247 ± 527 | 1956 ± 750 | p = 0.011 * |
| FLACS | CCS | p-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| All Grades | |||
| Preoperative | 38.74 ± 8.04 | 37.51 ± 4.55 | p = 0.539 |
| Day 1 | 40.88 ± 7.12 | 41.35 ± 6.84 | p = 0.933 |
| Day 12 | 38.64 ± 5.48 | 39.10 ± 4.93 | p = 0.410 |
| Week 4 | 39.42 ± 4.90 | 39.50 ± 5.13 | p = 0.933 |
| Week 6 | 40.03 ± 7.00 | 40.30 ± 5.79 | p = 0.362 |
| Grade 2 | |||
| Preoperative | 39.42 ± 12.50 | 37.44 ± 4.86 | p = 0.833 |
| Day 1 | 39.18 ± 4.26 | 42.59 ± 7.74 | p = 0.293 |
| Day 12 | 36.82 ± 4.85 | 39.28 ± 5.10 | p = 0.888 |
| Week 4 | 39.08 ± 5.89 | 39.76 ± 5.64 | p = 0.833 |
| Week 6 | 37.27 ± 4.92 | 40.40 ± 6.11 | p = 0.018 * |
| Grade 3 | |||
| Pre-operative | 39.94 ± 6.61 | 37.25 ± 2.32 | p = 0.246 |
| Preoperative | 39.87 ± 5.51 | 38.86 ± 3.76 | p = 0.686 |
| Day 1 | 39.07 ± 4.98 | 38.56 ± 3.61 | p = 0.726 |
| Day 12 | 40.13 ± 5.08 | 38.44 ± 3.75 | p = 0.445 |
| Week 4 | 41.00 ± 5.59 | 40.00 ± 6.14 | p = 0.314 |
| Grades 2 and 3 | |||
| Preoperative | 39.40 ± 6.28 | 37.39 ± 4.34 | p = 0.454 |
| Day 1 | 39.83 ± 5.21 | 41.69 ± 7.11 | p = 0.329 |
| Day 12 | 38.48 ± 5.08 | 39.09 ± 4.71 | p = 0.276 |
| Week 4 | 40.04 ± 5.47 | 39.41 ± 5.19 | p = 0.267 |
| Week 6 | 40.21 ± 5.52 | 40.29 ± 6.03 | p = 0.532 |
| Grade 4 | |||
| Preoperative | 37.33 ± 5.14 | 40.33 ± 8.33 | p = 0.285 |
| Day 1 | 44.13 ± 5.10 | 43.50 ± 6.36 | p = 0.157 |
| Day 12 | 37.22 ± 3.67 | 41.67 ± 6.74 | p = 0.285 |
| Week 4 | 38.18 ± 3.55 | 43.67 ± 5.03 | p = 0.019 * |
| Week 6 | 39.56 ± 3.29 | 44.00 ± 3.46 | p = 0.017 * |
| FLACS | CCS | p-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| All Grades | |||
| Preoperative | 46.24 ± 7.49 | 45.23 ± 5.92 | p = 0.491 |
| Day 1 | 42.91 ± 6.35 | 42.09 ± 8.39 | p = 0.923 |
| Day 12 | 43.12 ± 6.05 | 42.30 ± 8.43 | p = 0.604 |
| Week 4 | 41.83 ± 7.87 | 42.15 ± 7.17 | p = 0.818 |
| Week 6 | 42.85 ± 7.95 | 41.68 ± 7.40 | p = 0.173 |
| Grade 2 | |||
| Preoperative | 43.67 ± 8.69 | 45.08 ± 6.34 | p = 0.888 |
| Day 1 | 44.00 ± 5.48 | 41.41 ± 7.85 | p = 0.237 |
| Day 12 | 46.13 ± 6.73 | 42.44 ± 7.71 | p = 0.528 |
| Week 4 | 42.11 ± 7.04 | 41.96 ± 7.59 | p = 0.953 |
| Week 6 | 43.88 ± 7.30 | 41.76 ± 7.06 | p = 0.726 |
| Grade 3 | |||
| Preoperative | 46.50 ± 7.38 | 45.50 ± 4.81 | p = 0.833 |
| Day 1 | 42.47 ± 8.00 | 42.29 ± 8.16 | p = 0.916 |
| Day 12 | 42.00 ± 6.60 | 43.22 ± 4.47 | p = 0.624 |
| Week 4 | 43.60 ± 6.13 | 42.56 ± 6.02 | p = 0.779 |
| Week 6 | 43.00 ± 6.84 | 40.33 ± 8.31 | p = 0.574 |
| Grades 2 and 3 | |||
| Preoperative | 45.48 ± 7.82 | 45.18 ± 5.94 | p = 0.831 |
| Day 1 | 43.00 ± 7.12 | 41.62 ± 8.55 | p = 0.322 |
| Day 12 | 43.43 ± 6.80 | 42.65 ± 6.95 | p = 0.300 |
| Week 4 | 43.04 ± 7.62 | 42.12 ± 7.13 | p = 0.345 |
| Week 6 | 43.29 ± 7.21 | 41.38 ± 7.30 | p = 0.391 |
| Grade 4 | |||
| Preoperative | 45.83 ± 5.73 | 42.67 ± 7.23 | p = 0.285 |
| Day 1 | 42.88 ± 4.29 | 38.00 ± 4.24 | p = 0.180 |
| Day 12 | 42.89 ± 3.95 | 29.33 ± 4.22 | p = 0.011 * |
| Week 4 | 39.36 ± 4.52 | 32.00 ± 2.64 | p = 0.012 * |
| Week 6 | 41.67 ± 5.27 | 31.00 ± 2.65 | p = 0.011 * |
| Parameter | FLACS (r) | p-Value | CCS (r) | p-Value | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EPT (s) | −0.312 | 0.032 * | −0.118 | 0.523 | Weak negative correlation in FLACS; shorter EPT associated with less ECD loss |
| UT (s) | −0.204 | 0.118 | −0.095 | 0.611 | No statistically significant correlation in either group |
| IT (min) | −0.162 | 0.214 | −0.084 | 0.654 | No significant relationship between procedure duration and ECD change |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.
Share and Cite
Bobot, N.; Thumann, G.; Kropp, M.; Cvejic, Z.; Pajic, V.; Onov, V.; Slezak, F.; Pajic, B. Effect of Femtosecond Laser-Assisted Versus Conventional Clear Corneal Incisions on Endothelial Cell Density and Surgical Efficiency in Cataract Surgery. J. Clin. Med. 2026, 15, 626. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm15020626
Bobot N, Thumann G, Kropp M, Cvejic Z, Pajic V, Onov V, Slezak F, Pajic B. Effect of Femtosecond Laser-Assisted Versus Conventional Clear Corneal Incisions on Endothelial Cell Density and Surgical Efficiency in Cataract Surgery. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2026; 15(2):626. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm15020626
Chicago/Turabian StyleBobot, Nikola, Gabriele Thumann, Martina Kropp, Zeljka Cvejic, Valentin Pajic, Vesko Onov, Filip Slezak, and Bojan Pajic. 2026. "Effect of Femtosecond Laser-Assisted Versus Conventional Clear Corneal Incisions on Endothelial Cell Density and Surgical Efficiency in Cataract Surgery" Journal of Clinical Medicine 15, no. 2: 626. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm15020626
APA StyleBobot, N., Thumann, G., Kropp, M., Cvejic, Z., Pajic, V., Onov, V., Slezak, F., & Pajic, B. (2026). Effect of Femtosecond Laser-Assisted Versus Conventional Clear Corneal Incisions on Endothelial Cell Density and Surgical Efficiency in Cataract Surgery. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 15(2), 626. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm15020626

