Cost Utility and Value of Information Analysis of Femtosecond Laser-Assisted Cataract Surgery.

Importance: The efficacy and safety of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery is well documented. An important requirement for decision makers is the evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) over a sufficiently long horizon. Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of this treatment was a preplanned secondary objective of the Economic Evaluation of Femtosecond Laser Assisted Cataract Surgery (FEMCAT) trial. Objective: To estimate the cost utility of FLACS compared with phacoemulsification cataract surgery (PCS) on a 12-month time horizon. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter randomized clinical trial compared FLACS with PCS in parallel groups. All FLACS procedures were performed using the CATALYS precision system. Participants were recruited and treated in ambulatory surgery settings in 5 university-hospital centers in France. All consecutive patients eligible for a unilateral or bilateral cataract surgery 22 years or older with written informed consent were included. Data were collected from October 2013 to October 2018, and data were analyzed from January 2020 to June 2022. Interventions: FLACS or PCS. Main Outcomes and Measures: Utility was measured through the Health Utility Index questionnaire. Costs of cataract surgery were estimated by microcosting. All inpatient and outpatient costs were collected from the French National Health Data System. Results: Of 870 randomized patients, 543 (62.4%) were female, and the mean (SD) age at surgery was 72.3 (8.6) years. A total of 440 patients were randomized to receive FLACS and 430 to receive PCS; the rate of bilateral surgery was 63.3% (551 of 870). The mean (SD) costs of cataract surgery were €1124.0 (€162.2; US $1235) for FLACS and €565.5 (€61.4; US $621) for PCS. The total mean (SD) cost of care at 12 months was €7085 (€6700; US $7787) in participants treated with FLACS and €6502 (€7323; US $7146) in participants treated with PCS. FLACS yielded a mean (SD) of 0.788 (0.009) quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and PCS yielded 0.792 (0.009) QALYs. The difference in mean costs was €545.9 (95% CI, -434.1 to 1525.8; US $600), and the difference in QALYs was -0.004 (95% CI, -0.028 to 0.021). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was -€136 476 (US $150 000) per QALY. The cost-effectiveness probability of FLACS compared with PCS was 15.7% for a cost-effectiveness threshold of €30 000 (US $32 973) per QALY. At this threshold, the expected value of perfect information was €246 139 079 (US $270 530 231). Conclusions and Relevance: The ICER of FLACS compared with PCS was not within the $50 000 to $100 000 per QALY range frequently cited as cost-effective. Additional research and development on FLACS is needed to improve its effectiveness and lower its price. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01982006.

Comparison of Incremental Costs and Medicare Reimbursement for Simple vs Complex Cataract Surgery Using Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing.

Importance: Cataract surgery is one of the most commonly performed surgeries across medicine and an integral part of ophthalmologic care. Complex cataract surgery requires more time and resources than simple cataract surgery, yet it remains unclear whether the incremental reimbursement for complex cataract surgery, compared with simple cataract surgery, offsets the increased costs. Objective: To measure the difference in day-of-surgery costs and net earnings between simple and complex cataract surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study is an economic analysis at a single academic institution using time-driven activity-based costing methodology to determine the operative-day costs of simple and complex cataract surgery. Process flow mapping was used to define the operative episode limited to the day of surgery. Simple and complex cataract surgery cases (Current Procedural Terminology codes 66984 and 66982, respectively) at the University of Michigan Kellogg Eye Center from 2017 to 2021 were included in the analysis. Time estimates were obtained using an internal anesthesia record system. Financial estimates were obtained using a mix of internal sources and prior literature. Supply costs were obtained from the electronic health record. Main Outcomes and Measures: Difference in day-of-surgery costs and net earnings. Results: A total of 16 092 cataract surgeries were included, 13 904 simple and 2188 complex. Time-based day-of-surgery costs for simple and complex cataract surgery were $1486.24 and $2205.83, respectively, with a mean difference of $719.59 (95% CI, $684.09-$755.09; P < .001). Complex cataract surgery required $158.26 more for costs of supplies and materials (95% CI, $117.00-$199.60; P < .001). The total difference in day-of-surgery costs between complex and simple cataract surgery was $877.85. Incremental reimbursement for complex cataract surgery was $231.01; therefore, complex cataract surgery had a negative earnings difference of $646.84 compared with simple cataract surgery. Conclusions and Relevance: This economic analysis suggests that the incremental reimbursement for complex cataract surgery undervalues the resource costs required for the procedure, failing to cover increased costs and accounting for less than 2 minutes of increased operating time. These findings may affect ophthalmologist practice patterns and access to care for certain patients, which may ultimately justify increasing cataract surgery reimbursement.

Perioperative time and economic impact of an intracameral combination of mydriatics and anaesthetics in routine cataract surgery.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the perioperative time and economic impact of a licensed intracameral anaesthetic/mydriatic combination (Mydrane) during routine cataract surgery. METHODS: A real-life, prospective, comparative study was performed in 3 clinical centres in France. Preoperative, surgical, and post-operative times were determined for two mydriasis strategies using conventional preoperative mydriatics/anaesthetics eye drops (control regimen) or Mydrane administered at time of surgery. Staff, surgery schedules and drugs utilisation were collected over 12 surgery half-days. The total cost of each strategy was estimated based on treatment cost and nursing costs. RESULTS: The analysis included 112 routine cataract surgeries (57 surgeries using Mydrane and 55 using the topical regimen) without protocol deviations or complicated surgery. Overall, the mean time between administration of the first mydriatic eye drops or Mydrane and the end of the surgery was 27.4 ± 21.1 min in the Mydrane group vs. 90.3 ± 30.4 min in the control group (P < 0.0001). The total time of the procedure (from admission to discharge) was not significantly different between groups (P = 0.1611). On average, the extra cost of drugs per patient in the Mydrane group (€5.81) was almost balanced by the reduced nursing time (€5.57) with some variations between centres, due to different organisation including staff resource and consumable. CONCLUSIONS: The Mydrane strategy produced perioperative nursing time saving and cost reduction provided that adaptation and reorganisation of routine cataract surgery are implemented.

Health economics and manual small-incision cataract surgery: An illustrative mini review.

Cataract extraction is one of the most common surgical procedures performed worldwide. Manual small-incision cataract surgery (MSICS) is a popular technique of cataract extraction. Full economic evaluation of different techniques is of value to policy makers. This was a systematic review of published literature to present a brief overview of evidence available in respect of economic evaluation measures like cost effectiveness, cost utility, and cost parameters in cataract patients regarding MSICS. The data on these was sparse and heterogeneous. Direct costs of MSICS were lower than phacoemulsification (PE): $25.55 (PE) to $17.03 (MSICS) in India, $15 (MSICS) to $70 (PE) in Nepal, and $62.25 (MSICS) to $104.15 (PE) in Thailand. The cost utility analysis for MSICS demonstrated savings of $79.57 (INR6175) per gain in LogMAR BCVA, $8.91 (INR691) per QALY gained and $1.42 (INR110) per VF 14 score increment in India. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) $368.20 (13,215.50 Baht) for MSICS was better than $489.30 (17,561.70 Baht) for PE in Thailand. ICER for femto laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) compared to was €10,703 in femtosecond laser-assisted versus phacoemulsification cataract surgery (FEMCAT) study. The corrected ICER for PE against MSICS is €146.50. The limited data available demonstrates that MSICS is the most cost-effective technique among FLACS, PE, and MSICS. MSICS scores over other existing alternatives of cataract extraction from cost-effectiveness and cost-minimization approaches. Further research is required in this area.

Femtosecond Laser-Assisted Cataract Surgery: A Report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology.

PURPOSE: To evaluate refractive outcomes, safety, and cost-effectiveness of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) compared with phacoemulsification cataract surgery (PCS). METHODS: A PubMed search of FLACS was conducted in August 2020. A total of 727 abstracts were reviewed and 33 were selected for full-text review. Twelve articles met inclusion criteria and were included in this assessment. The panel methodologist assigned a level of evidence rating of I to all 12 studies. RESULTS: No significant differences were found in mean uncorrected distance visual acuity, best-corrected distance visual acuity, or the percentage of eyes within ± 0.5 and ± 1 diopter of intended refractive target between FLACS and PCS. Intraoperative and postoperative complication rates were similar between the 2 groups, and most studies showed no difference in endothelial cell loss between FLACS and PCS at various time points between 1 and 6 months. In large randomized controlled studies in the United Kingdom and France, FLACS was less cost-effective than PCS. CONCLUSIONS: Both FLACS and PCS have similar excellent safety and refractive outcomes. At this time, one technique is not superior to the other, but economic analyses performed in some populations have shown that FLACS is less cost-effective.

Immediate sequential bilateral surgery versus delayed sequential bilateral surgery for cataracts.

BACKGROUND: Age-related cataract affects both eyes in most cases. Most people undergo cataract surgery in both eyes on separate days, referred to as delayed sequential bilateral cataract surgery (DSBCS). An alternative procedure involves operating on both eyes on the same day, but as two separate procedures, known as immediate sequential bilateral cataract surgery (ISBCS). Potential advantages of ISBCS include fewer hospital visits for the patient, faster visual recovery, and lower healthcare costs. Nevertheless, concerns exist about possible bilateral, postoperative, sight-threatening adverse effects with ISBCS. Therefore, there is a clear need for evaluating evidence regarding the safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of ISBCS versus DSBCS. OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety of ISBCS compared to DSBCS in people with bilateral age-related cataracts and to summarise current evidence for the incremental resource use, utilities, costs, and cost-effectiveness associated with the use of ISBCS compared to DSBCS in people with bilateral age-related cataracts (primary objectives). The secondary objective was to assess visual and patient-reported outcomes of ISBCS compared to DSBCS in people with bilateral age-related cataracts. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2021, Issue 5); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov; the WHO ICTRP; and DARE and NHS EED on the CRD Database on 11 May 2021. There were no language restrictions. We limited the searches to a date range of 2007 onwards. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to assess complications, refractive outcomes, best-corrected distance visual acuity (BCDVA) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) with ISBCS compared to DSBCS. We included non-randomised (NRSs), prospective, and retrospective cohort studies comparing ISBCS and DSBCS for safety assessment, because of the rare incidence of important adverse events. To assess cost-effectiveness of ISBCS compared to DSBCS, we included both full and partial economic evaluations, and both trial-based and model-based economic evaluations. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures and assessed risk of bias for NRSs using the ROBINS-I tool. For cost-evaluations, we used the CHEC-list, the CHEERS-checklist, and the NICE-checklist to investigate risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence with the GRADE tool. We reported results for economic evaluations narratively. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 studies in the review; two RCTs, seven NRSs, and six economic evaluations (one study was both an NRS and economic evaluation). The studies reported on 276,260 participants (7384 for ISBCS and 268,876 for DSBCS) and were conducted in Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, Iran, (South) Korea, Spain (Canary Islands), Sweden, the UK, and the USA. Overall, we considered the included RCTs to be at 'high to some concerns' risk of bias for complications, 'some concerns' risk of bias for refractive outcomes and visual acuity, and 'high' risk of bias for PROMs. The overall risk of bias for NRSs was graded 'serious' regarding complications and 'serious to critical' regarding refractive outcomes.  With regard to endophthalmitis, we found that relative effects were estimated imprecisely and with low certainty, so that relative estimates were not reliable. Nonetheless, we found a very low risk of endophthalmitis in both ISBCS (1/14,076 participants) and DSBCS (55/556,246 participants) groups. Based on descriptive evidence and partially weak statistical evidence we found no evidence of an increased risk of endophthalmitis with ISBCS. Regarding refractive outcomes, we found moderate-certainty (RCTs) and low-certainty (NRSs) evidence there was no difference in the percentage of eyes that did not achieve refraction within 1.0 dioptre of target one to three months after surgery (RCTs: risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 1.26; NRSs: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.75). Similarly, postoperative complications did not differ between groups (RCTs: RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.52 to 3.40; NRSs: 1.04, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.29), although the certainty of this evidence was very low for both RCTs and NRSs. Furthermore, we found low-certainty (RCTs) to very low-certainty (NRSs) evidence that total costs per participant were lower for ISBCS compared to DSBCS, although results of individual studies could not be pooled. Only one study reported on cost-effectiveness. This study found that ISBCS is cost-effective compared to DSBCS, but did not measure quality-adjusted life years using preferred methods and calculated costs erroneously. Finally, regarding secondary outcomes, we found limited evidence on BCDVA (data of two RCTs could not be pooled, although both studies individually found no difference between groups (very low-certainty evidence)). Regarding PROMs, we found moderate-certainty evidence (RCTs only) that there was no difference between groups one to three months after surgery (standardised mean difference -0.08, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.03). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence supports there are probably no clinically important differences in outcomes between ISBCS and DSBCS, but with lower costs for ISBCS. However, the amount of evidence is limited, and the certainty of the evidence was graded moderate to very low. In addition, there is a need for well-designed cost-effectiveness studies.

Cost-effective and adaptable cataract surgery simulation with basic technology.

PURPOSE: To assess the subjective validity of a cost-effective and adaptable cataract surgery simulation technique using basic technology. METHODS: We devised and filmed a range of simulation techniques that mimic steps of phacoemulsification cataract surgery using various "everyday" basic materials. This video was combined in a "parallel" fashion with live cataract surgery so that all steps of surgery were simulated. Subsequently, we distributed an online subjective validation questionnaire on Google Forms with the embedded simulation video in a generic invitation that was forwarded via email and/or text messages/WhatsApp messenger amongst Ophthalmologists of all grades within our regions (Kent, Surrey and Sussex, London and Wales Postgraduate Deaneries). RESULTS: Face validity: 66 (99%) participants agreed that the explanations in the video were clear and 53 (79%) concurred with the realistic feel of simulated technique. Instrumentation and adaptations demonstrated were deemed user friendly and conducive to replicate by 99% participants. Content validity: 60 (90%) of participants agreed the techniques described in the video reflected the technical skills required to train cataract surgeons. Forty-nine (74%) agreed that the simulation techniques were relevant for acquiring other generic and transferable microsurgical and manual dexterity skills. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated subjective validity of our cost-effective cataract simulation technique. Our model can be used as an adjunct to intraocular and virtual reality training for cataract surgery by removing the barrier of cost and improved exposure to real instruments used in cataract surgery.

Cefuroxime (Aprokam®) in the Prophylaxis of Postoperative Endophthalmitis After Cataract Surgery Versus Absence of Antibiotic Prophylaxis: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Poland.

OBJECTIVE: The analysis aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of cefuroxime (Aprokam®) in the prophylaxis of postoperative endophthalmitis (POE) after cataract surgery compared with the absence of antibiotic prophylaxis from the National Health Fund perspective in Poland. METHODS: We performed a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis using the decision tree and Markov model, respectively, for patients after cataract surgery. The efficacy of Aprokam was 0.21 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.08-0.55) and is based on the results of the European Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery study. According to the epidemiological data from Poland, the risk of POE is 0.377%. The costs associated with the Aprokam administration and POE treatment costs were included. We determined the utilities of the health states in the model depending on visual loss due to POE. To determine the uncertainty of estimates parameters, a one-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed. RESULTS: Using Aprokam allows avoiding 0.003 POEs per patient. The benefit from the intervention is 0.0007 quality-adjusted life years per patient in the lifetime horizon. The total costs of prophylaxis are higher at about €1.70. The cost of avoiding one POE (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) is about €569.85. The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness utility ratio is equal to €2427.72/quality-adjusted life-years, and it is significantly lower than the cost-effectiveness threshold in Poland in 2019 (about 7.5% of the threshold). In all scenarios of performed one-way sensitivity analyses, Aprokam is cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: In Poland, the use of Aprokam is cost-effective, with the estimated incremental cost-utility ratio significantly lower than the cost-effectiveness threshold.

Cost Effectiveness Analysis Using Disability-Adjusted Life Years for Cataract Surgery.

Cataracts are the second most prioritized eye disease in the world. Cataracts are an expensive treatment because surgery is the only method that can treat the disease. This study aims to analyze the cost effectiveness of each operating procedure. Specifically, phacoemulsification and Small Incision Cataract Surgery (SICS) with Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) as the effectiveness indicator is used. This study is an observational analytic study with a prospective framework. The sample size is 130 patients who have undergone phacoemulsification and 25 patients who have undergone SICS. The DALY for phacoemulsification at Day-7 (D-7) is 0.3204, and at Day-21 (D-21), it is 0.3204, while the DALY for SICS at D-7 is 0.3060, and at D-21, it is 0.3158. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) for cataract surgery at D-7 is USD $1872.49, and at D-21, it is USD $5861.71, whereas the Indonesian Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is USD $4174.90. In conclusion, the phacoemulsification technique is more cost effective than the SICS technique. The ICER value is very cost effective at D-7 post-surgery compared to at D-21 post-surgery because the ICER is less than 1 GDP per capita per DALY.

Análise da qualidade de vida antes e após cirurgia de catarata com implante de lente intraocular / Life quality assessment before and after cataract surgery with intraocular lens implantation

Resumo Objetivo: Analisar a qualidade de vida dos pacientes antes e após cirurgia de remoção da catarata associada ao implante de lente intraocular (LIO). Metodos: Este é um estudo observacional, prospectivo, de série de casos. Os dados foram coletados em um serviço privado de oftalmologia em Aracaju - SE, de agosto de 2018 a julho de 2019. A avaliação da qualidade de vida de pacientes antes e após 4 meses da cirurgia de catarata, pela técnica de facoemulsificação associada ao implante de LIO, foi realizada aplicando a versão brasileira validada do Questionário de Função Visual de 25 itens do National Eye Institute (NEI-VFQ-25) e realização do teste de acuidade visual com a tabela de Snellen. Resultados: O grupo final foi constituído por 41 pacientes, com média de idade de 72 anos (DP: 9,01), sendo 14 do sexo masculino e 27 do feminino. Além disso, dos 41 pacientes, 37 foram submetidos à facectomia em ambos os olhos, 03 apenas no olho direito e 01 apenas no olho esquerdo. Diante da coleta e da análise dos dados, notou-se melhora na qualidade de vida dos pacientes submetidos ao procedimento cirúrgico proposto. Houve um aumento estatisticamente significativo (p<0,001) na acuidade visual binocular, na acuidade visual monocular e nas pontuações de 11 dos 12 subdomínios do NEI-VFQ-25. Não foi observada significância estatística no subdomínio "Dor ocular" (p=0,934). Conclusão: Houve melhora significativa na qualidade de vida dos pacientes submetidos à cirurgia de catarata com implante de LIO.

Abstract Objective: To analyze patients' quality of life before and after cataract removal surgery associated with intraocular lens (IOL) implantation. Methods: This is an observational, prospective, case series study. Data were collected at a private ophthalmology service in Aracaju - SE, from August 2018 to July 2019. The quality of life assessment of patients before and after 4 months of cataract surgery, using the phacoemulsification technique associated with IOL implantation, was performed by applying the validated Brazilian version of the 25-item Visual Function Questionnaire from the National Eye Institute (NEI-VFQ-25) and performing the visual acuity test with the Snellen chart. Results: The final group consisted of 41 patients, with a mean age of 72 years (SD: 9.01), of which 14 were male and 27 female. In addition, out of 41 patients, 37 underwent facectomy in both eyes, 03 only in the right eye and 01 only in the left eye. Given the collection and thorough analysis of the data, the improvement in the quality of life of patients submitted to cataract surgery with intraocular lens implantation was noticed. There was a statistically significant increase (p<0.001) in binocular visual acuity, monocular visual acuity and scores in 11 of the 12 subdomains of the NEI-VFQ-25. No statistical significance was observed in the subdomain "Eye Pain" (p=0.934). Conclusion: There was a significant improvement in the quality of life of patients who underwent cataract surgery with intraocular lens implantation.

Comparative efficacy and cost-utility of combined cataract and minimally invasive glaucoma surgery in primary open-angle glaucoma.

PURPOSE: To assess the comparative efficacy and the long-term cost-utility of alternative minimally invasive glaucoma surgeries (MIGSs) when combined with cataract surgery in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG). METHODS: Treatment effects, as measured by the 1-year reduction in intraocular pressure (IOP), were estimated with an adjusted indirect treatment comparison. Evidence from randomized clinical trials was identified for four different MIGS methods. A disease-transition model was developed by capturing clinically relevant POAG stages and the expected natural disease evolution. Outcomes of the disease-transition model were the comparative utility [quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)], cost and cost-utility of included strategies in a lifetime horizon. RESULTS: Estimated 1-year IOP reductions were: cataract surgery - 2.05 mmHg (95% CI - 3.38; - 0.72), one trabecular micro-bypass stent - 3.15 mmHg (95% CI - 5.66; - 0.64), two trabecular micro-bypass stents - 4.85 mmHg (95% CI - 7.71; - 1.99) and intracanalicular scaffold - 2.25 mmHg (95% CI - 4.87; 0.37). Discounted outcomes from the disease-transition model appraised the strategy of two trabecular micro-bypass stents with cataract surgery in the moderate POAG stage as the one providing the greatest added value, with 10,955€ per additional QALY. Improved outcomes were seen when assessing MIGS in the moderate POAG stage. CONCLUSIONS: When indirectly comparing alternative MIGS methods combined with cataract surgery, the option of two trabecular micro-bypass stents showed both a superior efficacy and long-term cost-utility from a German perspective. Moreover, outcomes of the disease-transition model suggest POAG patients to beneficiate the most from an earlier intervention in the moderate stage contrary to waiting until an advanced disease is present.

A dificuldade de acesso ao tratamento da catarata senil em Aparecida de Goiânia - Goiás, Brasil / The difficulty of access to senile cataract treatment in Aparecida de Goiânia - Goiás. Brazil

Resumo Objetivo: Identificar as dificuldades dos pacientes portadores de catarata senil no acesso a facectomia pelo Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS) no Centro Médico e Diagnóstico (CEMED) de Aparecida de Goiânia. Métodos: Pesquisa transversal e observacional com coleta de dados a partir de questionário padronizado aplicado no momento pré-cirúrgico. Resultados: A amostra foi composta por 150 pacientes: 56% mulheres e 44% homens. A média de idade foi de 66,05±9,21 anos. A maioria (57,3%) possuía diagnóstico prévio de catarata e, destes, 56,7% não procurou tratamento anterior. Os motivos que impossibilitaram o tratamento prévio foram: dificuldade de acesso ao serviço de saúde (43,5%), medo da cirurgia (18,8%) e falta de condição clínica para a cirurgia (18,8%). 78,7% dos pacientes gostariam de realizar a cirurgia no mesmo dia em que são diagnosticados com catarata. 21,3% foram contra essa proposta, sendo o medo da cirurgia (65%) o principal motivo para a não realização imediata da facectomia. Quanto ao prejuízo nas atividades de vida diária (AVD), 20,6% não conseguiam ler revistas e jornais, em contrapartida, 20,6% não relataram prejuízo considerável em suas AVD. Conclusão: As principais dificuldades de acesso ao tratamento da catarata senil foram: dificuldade de acesso ao sistema de saúde especializado, medo do procedimento, falta de condição clínica para cirurgia. Assim, mostra-se necessária a realização de projetos que facilitem o diagnóstico e tratamento, que atuem na educação populacional, promovendo a conscientização da população e estimulando a procura pelo tratamento.

Abstract Objective: To identify the difficulties of patients with senile cataract in the access to the facectomy by Unified Health System ( SUS - Sistema Único de Saúde) in the Medical and Diagnostic Center (CEMED) of Aparecida de Goiânia. Methods: Cross-sectional and observational research with data collection from a standardized questionnaire applied preoperatively. Results: The sample consisted of 150 patients: 56% women and 44% men. The average age was 66.05 ± 9.21 years. Most (57.3%) had a previous diagnosis of cataract and, of these, 56.7% did not seek previous treatment. The reasons that prevented previous treatment were: difficulty in accessing the health service (43.5%), fear of surgery (18.8%) and lack of clinical condition for surgery (18.8%). 78.7% of patients would like to have surgery on the same day they are diagnosed with cataract. 21.3% were against this proposal, and the fear of surgery (65%) was the main reason for not performing the facectomy immediately. Regarding the impairment in activities of daily living (ADL), 20.6% could not read magazines and newspapers, in contrast, 20.6% reported no significant impairment in their ADL. Conclusion: The main difficulties in accessing senile cataract treatment were: difficulty in accessing the specialized health system, fear of the procedure, lack of clinical condition for surgery. Thus, it is necessary to promote good quality and affordable surgery; carrying out projects that facilitate diagnosis and treatment, that act in population education, promoting population awareness and stimulating the search for treatment.

Assessing the construct validity and responsiveness of Preference-Based Measures (PBMs) in cataract surgery patients.

PURPOSE: The validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D-3L in visual conditions has been questioned, inspiring development of a vision 'bolt-on' domain (EQ-5D-3L + VIS). Developments in preference-based measures (PBM) also includes the EQ-5D-5L and the ICECAP-O capability wellbeing measure. This study aimed to examine the construct validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-5L, EQ-5D-3L + VIS and ICECAP-O in cataract surgery patients for the first time, to inform choice of PBM for economic evaluation in this population. METHODS: The analyses used data from the UK Predict-CAT cataract surgery cohort study. PBMs and the Cat-PROM5 [a validated measure of cataract quality of life (QOL)] were completed before surgery and 4-8 weeks after. Construct validity was assessed using correlations and known-group differences evaluated using regression. Responsiveness was evaluated using effect sizes and analysis of variance to compare change scores between groups, defined by patient-reported and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: The sample comprised 1315 patients at baseline. No PBMs were associated with visual acuity and only the ICECAP-O (Spearman's rs = - 0.35), EQ-5D-3L + VIS (rs = - 0.42) and EQ-5D-5L (Value Set for England rs = - 0.31) correlated at least moderately with the Cat-PROM5. Effect sizes of change were consistently largest for the EQ-5D-3L + VIS (range 0.34-0.41), followed by the ICECAP-O (range 0.20-0.34). Results indicated no improvement in responsiveness using the EQ-5D-5L (range 0.13-0.16) compared to the EQ-5D-3L (range 0.17-0.20). CONCLUSIONS: Whilst no PBMs comprehensively demonstrated evidence of construct validity and responsiveness in cataract surgery patients, the ICECAP-O was the most responsive generic PBM to improvements in QOL. Surprisingly the EQ-5D-5L was not more responsive than the EQ-5D-3L in this setting.

Femtosecond laser-assisted versus phacoemulsification cataract surgery (FEMCAT): a multicentre participant-masked randomised superiority and cost-effectiveness trial.

BACKGROUND: Cataract surgery is one of the most common operations in health care. Femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) enables more precise ocular incisions and lens fragmentation than does phacoemulsification cataract surgery (PCS). We hypothesised that FLACS might improve outcomes in cataract surgery compared with PCS despite having higher costs. METHODS: We did a participant-masked randomised superiority clinical trial comparing FLACS and PCS in two parallel groups (permuted block randomisation stratified on centres via a centralised web-based application, allocation ratio 1:1, block size of 2 or 4 for unilateral cases and 2 or 6 for bilateral cases). Five French University Hospitals enrolled consecutive patients aged 22 years or older who were eligible for unilateral or bilateral cataract surgery. Participants, outcome assessors, and technicians carrying out examinations were masked to the surgical treatment allocation until the last follow-up visit and a sham laser procedure was set up for participants randomly assigned to the PCS arm. The primary clinical endpoint was the success rate of surgery, defined as a composite of four outcomes at a 3-month postoperative visit: absence of severe perioperative complication, a best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of 0·0 LogMAR (logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution) or better, an absolute refractive error of 0·75 dioptres or less, and unchanged postoperative corneal astigmatism power (≤0·5 dioptres) and axis (≤20°). The primary economic endpoint was the incremental cost per additional patient who had treatment success at 3 months. Primary outcomes were assessed in all randomly assigned patients who met all eligibility criteria (missing data considered as failure). We used mixed logistic regression models or mixed linear regression models for statistical comparisons, adjusted on centres and whether cataract surgery was bilateral or unilateral. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01982006. FINDINGS: Of the 907 patients (1476 eyes) randomly assigned between Oct 9, 2013, and Oct 30, 2015, 870 (704 eyes in FLACS group and 685 eyes in the PCS group) were analysed. We identified no significant difference in the success rate of surgery between the FLACS and PCS groups (FLACS: 41·1% [289 eyes]; PCS: 43·6% [299 eyes]); adjusted odds ratio 0·85, 95% CI 0·64-1·12, p=0·250). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €10 703 saved per additional patient who had treatment success with PCS compared with FLACS. We observed no severe adverse events during the femtosecond laser procedure, and most of the complications in the FLACS group related to the primary outcome measures occurred during the phacoemulsification phase or postoperatively. INTERPRETATION: Despite its advanced technology, femtosecond laser was not superior to phacoemulsification in cataract surgery and, with higher costs, did not provide an additional benefit over phacoemulsification for patients or health-care systems. FUNDING: French Ministry of Social Affairs and Health.

Inequity in Access: Cataract Surgery Throughput of Chinese Ophthalmologists from the China National Eye Care Capacity and Resource Survey.

Purpose: To investigate the distribution of cataract surgery performed by ophthalmologists in China.Methods: A cross-sectional study was designed to investigate nationwide ophthalmological resources and capacity for cataract surgery in China⁠-The 2014 China National Eye Care Capacity and Resource Survey. Data analyzed in this report included regional distribution, urban-rural comparison, levels and types of medical institutions, and cataract surgery types and volume per surgeon. In China, only ophthalmologists at or above the level of attending are eligible to perform cataract surgery independently, so the ability of cataract surgery for ophthalmologists at or above the level of attending is analyzed in the current study. Descriptive statistics were used.Results: 36,333 ophthalmologists were included in this survey, which is an average of 1.33 ophthalmologists to every 50,000 population. Of the surgeons in this survey, 23,412 (50.22%) were attending or more senior ophthalmologists and were mainly distributed in eastern urban areas. Annual average cataract surgeries per ophthalmologist in China were 259 in 2017, less than 300 cases.Conclusion: The average number of ophthalmologists per population in China has achieved the goal of WHO's Vision 2020; however, these surgeons are concentrated in urban areas. Further, the ability of cataract surgery among ophthalmologists is unbalanced. The annual average cataract surgeries performed by ophthalmologists are insufficient, which is an important factor resulting in the current situation in China that ophthalmic service capacity has not met the requirements for eliminating cataract blindness.

Femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery: A review.

PURPOSE: Review scientific literature concerning femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery. METHODS: Following databases were searched: CENTRAL (Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; Cochrane Library: Issue 2 of 12, June 2019), Ovid MEDLINE® without Revisions (1996 to June 2019), Ovid MEDLINE® (1946 to June 2019), Ovid MEDLINE® Daily Update June 2019, MEDLINE and MEDLINE Non-Indexed Items, Embase (1980-2019), Embase (1974 to June 2019), Ovid MEDLINE® and Epub Ahead of Print, in-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily (1946 to June 2019), Web of Science (all years), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials ( www.controlled-trials.com ), ClinicalTrials.gov ( www.clinicaltrial.gov ) and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform ( www.who.int/ictrp/search/en ). Search terms/keywords included 'Femtosecond laser' combined with 'cataract', 'cataract surgery'. RESULTS: Based on quality of their methodology and their originality, 121 articles were reviewed, including randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, case-controlled studies, case series, case reports and laboratory studies. Each step of the femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery procedure (corneal incisions, arcuate keratotomies, capsulotomy and lens fragmentation) has been discussed with relevance to published outcomes, as well as complication rates of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery, and what we can learn from the larger studies/meta-analyses and the economics of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery within different healthcare settings. CONCLUSION: Studies suggest that the current clinical outcomes of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery are not different to conventional phacoemulsification surgery and it is not cost effective when compared with conventional phacoemulsification surgery. In its current technological form, it is a useful surgical tool in specific complex cataract scenarios, but its usage has not been shown to translate into better clinical outcomes.

Manual small incision cataract surgery.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To review various techniques of manual small incision cataract surgery (MSICS), updates on training residents and fellows, and cost-effectiveness of the surgery. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent population studies estimate that there are 53 million people blind worldwide from cataracts, up from previous figures. This is in part because of population growth and increased life expectancy worldwide. MSICS continues to play a significant role in addressing cataract burden and there is an increasing need to train surgeons in the technique. In response to this need, several modules and rubrics have been developed to assist in the training process. SUMMARY: MSICS has been refined over recent decades with overall outcomes comparable to phacoemulsification (phaco) in certain settings. MSICS cost and efficiency advantages support its ongoing essential role in addressing global cataract blindness.

Expediting cataract surgery in New Zealand is cost-effective for falls prevention and improving vision-so what might be the next steps?

Multifactorial individual assessment with interventions tailored to the individual's risk factors can reduce the rate of falls and risk of fractures. Assessment of vision is one key aspect of multifactorial assessment and first eye cataract surgery reduces the rate of falls. We recently modelled the impact of expediting first eye cataract surgery in New Zealand for falls prevention (Boyd et al Injury Prevention). The model used was the same model used for previous modelling of home safety assessment and modification and community exercise programmes. This study found that expedited cataract surgery was highly cost-effective by generating a quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for NZ$10,600 (95%UI: NZ$6,030-15,700). Routine cataract surgery itself (relative to no such surgery being available) was even more cost-effective at $4,380 per QALY gained, when considering vision benefits and falls prevention benefits. In this viewpoint article, we discuss the potential next steps for expediting cataract surgery and further improving its cost-effectiveness in the New Zealand setting.

Using Proactive Risk Assessment (HFMEA) to Improve Patient Safety and Quality Associated with Intraocular Lens Selection and Implantation in Cataract Surgery.

BACKGROUND: A proactive risk assessment using the Healthcare Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (HFMEA) process was completed on the intraocular lens (IOL) selection and implantation process to analyze system vulnerabilities that could cause patient harm. The three largest ophthalmology clinics based on patient surgical volume were studied in the analysis. The analysis included in-clinic eye measurements needed for IOL selection through the actual implantation of the lens in the operating room. METHODS: The HFMEA process was used for the analysis. A detailed process and subprocess diagram was created through interviews and observations. A multidisciplinary team met 12 times over a 14-week period, evaluating 170 discrete process and subprocess steps and identifying 177 failure modes and 75 failure mode causes for analysis. RESULTS: A high degree of process variability and lack of a robust quality assurance process was found. Areas for improvement included reducing variability between and within clinics, reducing variability in processes used by surgeons, modifying equipment and software to better support the work processes, and implementing a quality assurance program requiring observation of staff performing their routine work as opposed to relying on self-reports of quality metrics. CONCLUSION: The HFMEA process provided a more complete understanding of all of the processes associated with cataract surgery. This allowed for the identification of a variety of risk factors to patient safety that had not previously been identified by the more traditional reactive analysis methods, which tend to focus only on vulnerabilities identified by a specific event.

Shortened cataract surgery by standardisation of the perioperative protocol according to the Joint Commission International accreditation: a retrospective observational study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the impact of standardisation of the perioperative protocol based on the Joint Commission International (JCI) accreditation guidelines for operating time in cataract surgery. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: Single centre in Japan. PARTICIPANTS: Between March 2014 and June 2016, 3127 patients underwent cataract surgery under topical anaesthesia including 2581 and 546 patients before and after JCI accreditation, respectively. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: We compared three time periods, comprising the preprocedure/surgery time (pre-PT), PT and post-PT, and total PT (TPT) of cataract surgery between patients before and after JCI accreditation, by regression analysis adjusted for age, sex and cataract surgery-associated confounders. RESULTS: The main outcomes were pre-PT, PT, post-PT and TPT. Pre-PT (19.8±10.5 vs 13.9±8.5 min, p<0.001) and post-PT (3.5±4.6 vs 2.6±2.1 min, p<0.001) significantly decreased after JCI accreditation, while PT did not significantly change (16.8±6.7 vs 16.2±6.3 min, p=0.065). Consequently, TPT decreased on average by 7.3 min per person after JCI accreditation (40.1±13.4 vs 32.8±10.9 min, p<0.001). After adjusting for confounders, pre-PT (ß=-5.82 min, 95% CI -6.75 to -4.88), PT (ß=-0.76 min, 95% CI -1.34 to -1.71), post-PT (ß=-0.85 min, 95% CI -1.24 to -0.45) and TPT (ß=-7.43 min, 95% CI -8.61 to -6.24) were significantly shortened after JCI accreditation. CONCLUSION: Perioperative protocol standardisation, based on JCI accreditation, shortened TPT in cataract surgery under local anaesthesia.