Conventional Phacoemulsification Surgery Versus Femtosecond Laser Phacoemulsification Surgery: A Comparative Analysis of Cumulative Dissipated Energy and Corneal Endothelial Loss in Cataract Patients

Figures & data

Table 1 Epidemiological Characteristics of the Sample After Propensity Score Matching

Features	After Propensity Score Matching
	No Laser (n = 84)	With Laser (n = 84)	p-value^a
Age	68.38 ± 0.76	68.68 ± 0.76	0.8112
Sex	–	–	1.0000
Female	48 (57.14%)	48 (57.14%)	–
Male	36 (42.86%)	36 (42.86%)	–
SAH	–	–	0.1021
No	40 (47.62%)	28 (33.33%)	–
Yes	44 (52.38%)	56 (66.67%)	–
Diabetes	–	–	0.0241
No	66 (78.57%)	50 (59.52%)	–
Yes	18 (21.43%)	34 (40.48%)

Notes: Values are expressed as mean ± standard error or frequency (%). ^ap-value calculated using a linear mixed-effects model fit/binary logit (generalized estimation equation)/proportional odds logit (generalized estimation equation).

Abbreviation: SAH, Systemic Arterial Hypertension.

Table 2 Sample Characteristics by Technique Type After Propensity Score Matching

Features	After Propensity Score Matching
	No Laser (n = 84)	With Laser (n = 84)	p-value^a
CDE	7.03 ± 0.57	6.80 ± 0.55	0.8026
Severity	–	–	0.1093
Grade 2	52 (61.90%)	42 (50.60%)	–
Grade 3	26 (30.95%)	28 (33.73%)	–
Grade 4	6 (7.14%)	13 (15.66%)	–

Notes: Values are expressed as mean ± standard error or frequency (%). ^ap-value calculated using a linear mixed-effects model fit/binary logit (generalized estimation equation)/proportional odds logit (generalized estimation equation).

Abbreviation: CDE, Cumulative Dissipated Energy.

Table 3 Average CDE Values by Severity and Technique After Pairing: Mixed-Effects Linear Model Fitting Results

CDE	After Propensity Score Matching
	Technique		p-value^a
	No Laser	With Laser	Between Techniques
Severity	–	–	0.5425
Grade 2	5.17 ± 0.61	4.73 ± 0.67	>0.05
Grade 3	8.79 ± 0.85	6.77 ± 0.80	>0.05
Grade 4	14.71 ± 1.72	13.09 ± 1.16	>0.05

Note: ^ap-value adjusted for sex, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and age.

Abbreviation: CDE, cumulative dissipated energy.