Phacoemulsification is a surgical procedure commonly used to remove cataracts. It involves using an ultrasonic device to break up the cloudy lens and then removing the fragments with suction. In recent years, there has been a development of active-fluidics systems (AFS) to assist in surgery. This system automatically detects and maintains stable intraocular pressure at the set value, making the surgery more efficient, safer, and potentially more comfortable for patients.
A clinical study aimed to compare the efficacy, effects, safety, and patients’ subjective perceptions of phacoemulsification with Active-fluidics Systems (AFS) and gravity-fluidics systems (GFS). The study was a prospective, randomized, double-masked, and controlled clinical study, with 107 age-related cataract patients recruited and randomly assigned to either the AFS group or the GFS group in a 1:1 ratio.
The study followed up with participants at one day, one week, one month, and three months postoperatively. The results showed that the total aspiration time of the AFS group was significantly less than that of the GFS group, indicating that AFS is more efficient. However, there was no significant difference in cumulative dissipated energy and estimated fluid usage between the two groups.
The best-corrected visual acuity was significantly better in the AFS group at one day and one week postoperatively, and the recovery of central corneal thickening and macular superficial vasculature increase was earlier in the AFS group. The central retinal thickness was significantly higher in the GFS group at one month and three months postoperatively, indicating that AFS may be safer. The incidence of corneal adverse events was also higher in the GFS group.
Furthermore, pain scores and the scores of the Cat-PROM5 questionnaire of the AFS group were significantly lower than those of the GFS group, suggesting that patients may have a more positive subjective perception of the surgery with AFS.
This study supports the idea that AFS improves the efficiency, effects, safety, and patients’ subjective perceptions of phacoemulsification compared with GFS. As such, it is worth promoting its application in cataract surgery.
If you or a loved one is facing cataract surgery, it is important to discuss with your healthcare provider the options available to you, including the use of AFS. While every patient’s situation is unique, this study offers valuable insights into the potential benefits of using AFS in phacoemulsification.
Overall, this study highlights the importance of continued research and development in the field of ophthalmology to improve surgical outcomes and patient satisfaction. With the introduction of AFS, we may be seeing the start of a new era in cataract surgery.