Skip to main content
PMC home page
Medline Book to support NIHPA logoLink to Medline Book to support NIHPA
. 2021 Jan;25(6):1–68. doi: 10.3310/hta25060

Femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery compared with phacoemulsification: the FACT non-inferiority RCT.

Alexander C Day, Jennifer M Burr, Kate Bennett, Rachael Hunter, Catey Bunce, Caroline J Doré, Mayank A Nanavaty, Kamaljit S Balaggan, Mark R Wilkins
PMCID: PMC7883211  PMID: 33511963

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Cataract surgery is one of the most common operations. Femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) is a technique that automates a number of operative steps.

OBJECTIVES

To compare FLACS with phacoemulsification cataract surgery (PCS).

DESIGN

Multicentre, outcome-masked, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial.

SETTING

Three collaborating NHS hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 785 patients with age-related cataract in one or both eyes were randomised between May 2015 and September 2017.

INTERVENTION

FLACS (n = 392 participants) or PCS (n = 393 participants).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was uncorrected distance visual acuity in the study eye after 3 months, expressed as the logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR): 0.00 logMAR (or 6/6 if expressed in Snellen) is normal (good visual acuity). Secondary outcomes included corrected distance visual acuity, refractive outcomes (within 0.5 dioptre and 1.0 dioptre of target), safety and patient-reported outcome measures at 3 and 12 months, and resource use. All trial follow-ups were performed by optometrists who were masked to the trial intervention.

RESULTS

A total of 353 (90%) participants allocated to the FLACS arm and 317 (81%) participants allocated to the PCS arm attended follow-up at 3 months. The mean uncorrected distance visual acuity was similar in both treatment arms [0.13 logMAR, standard deviation 0.23 logMAR, for FLACS, vs. 0.14 logMAR, standard deviation 0.27 logMAR, for PCS, with a difference of -0.01 logMAR (95% confidence interval -0.05 to 0.03 logMAR; p = 0.63)]. The mean corrected distance visual acuity values were again similar in both treatment arms (-0.01 logMAR, standard deviation 0.19 logMAR FLACS vs. 0.01 logMAR, standard deviation 0.21 logMAR PCS; p = 0.34). There were two posterior capsule tears in the PCS arm. There were no significant differences between the treatment arms for any secondary outcome at 3 months. At 12 months, the mean uncorrected distance visual acuity was 0.14 logMAR (standard deviation 0.22 logMAR) for FLACS and 0.17 logMAR (standard deviation 0.25 logMAR) for PCS, with a difference between the treatment arms of -0.03 logMAR (95% confidence interval -0.06 to 0.01 logMAR; p = 0.17). The mean corrected distance visual acuity was 0.003 logMAR (standard deviation 0.18 logMAR) for FLACS and 0.03 logMAR (standard deviation 0.23 logMAR) for PCS, with a difference of -0.03 logMAR (95% confidence interval -0.06 to 0.01 logMAR; p = 0.11). There were no significant differences between the arms for any other outcomes, with the exception of the mean binocular corrected distance visual acuity with a difference of -0.02 logMAR (95% confidence interval -0.05 to 0.00 logMAR) (p = 0.036), which favoured FLACS. There were no significant differences between the arms for any health, social care or societal costs. For the economic evaluation, the mean cost difference was £167.62 per patient higher for FLACS (95% of iterations between -£14.12 and £341.67) than for PCS. The mean QALY difference (FLACS minus PCS) was 0.001 (95% of iterations between -0.011 and 0.015), which equates to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (cost difference divided by QALY difference) of £167,620.

LIMITATIONS

Although the measurement of outcomes was carried out by optometrists who were masked to the treatment arm, the participants were not masked.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence suggests that FLACS is not inferior to PCS in terms of vision after 3 months' follow-up, and there were no significant differences in patient-reported health and safety outcomes after 12 months' follow-up. In addition, the statistically significant difference in binocular corrected distance visual acuity was not clinically significant. FLACS is not cost-effective.

FUTURE WORK

To explore the possible differences in vision in patients without ocular co-pathology.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN77602616.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 6. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Moorfields Eye Charity (grant references GR000233 and GR000449 for the endothelial cell counter and femtosecond laser used).

Plain language summary

Cataract is a condition in which the natural lens inside the eye becomes cloudy, leading to loss of vision. In cataract surgery, the cloudy lens is replaced by a clear, artificial one. The standard surgical method (phacoemulsification) is carried out manually by the surgeon using ultrasound. Part of the procedure can now be automated using a computer-controlled laser. This is called femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS). The potential advantages of FLACS include greater precision reproducibility, but this new technique is more expensive than the standard surgery. We performed a randomised controlled trial comparing the two techniques. We assessed vision, surgical complications, patient-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness at 3 and 12 months. We found that the outcomes were almost identical for eyesight, quality of life and complications. Overall, the evidence suggests that the new technique is not worth the additional costs.

Full text of this article can be found in Bookshelf.

References

  1. Day AC, Burr JM, Bennett K, Bunce C, Doré CJ, Rubin GS, et al. Femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery versus phacoemulsification cataract surgery (FACT): a randomized noninferiority trial. Ophthalmology 2020;127:1012–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2020.02.028 doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2020.02.028. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  2. Day AC, Burr JM, Bennett K, Doré CJ, Bunce C, Hunter R, et al. Femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery compared with phacoemulsification cataract surgery: randomized noninferiority trial with 1-year outcomes. J Cataract Refract Surg 2020;46:1360–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000257 doi: 10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000257. [DOI] [PubMed]
  3. The Royal College of Ophthalmologists. The Way Forward Resources. London: The Royal College of Ophthalmologists. URL: www.rcophth.ac.uk/standards-publications-research/the-way-forward/ (accessed 17 May 2020).
  4. Kelman CD. Phaco-emulsification and aspiration. A new technique of cataract removal. A preliminary report. Am J Ophthalmol 1967;64:23–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9394(67)93340-5 doi: 10.1016/0002-9394(67)93340-5. [DOI] [PubMed]
  5. The Royal College of Ophthalmologists. National Ophthalmology Database Audit. Year 3 Annual Report – The Second Prospective Report of the National Ophthalmology Database Audit. London: The Royal College of Ophthalmologists; 2018. URL: www.nodaudit.org.uk/u/docs/20/avusuryktz/NOD%20Audit%20Annual%20Report%202018.pdf (accessed 17 May 2020).
  6. Johansson B, Lundström M, Montan P, Stenevi U, Behndig A. Capsule complication during cataract surgery: long-term outcomes: Swedish Capsule Rupture Study Group report 3. J Cataract Refract Surg 2009;35:1694–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2009.05.027 doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2009.05.027. [DOI] [PubMed]
  7. Qatarneh D, Mathew RG, Palmer S, Bunce C, Tuft S. The economic cost of posterior capsule tear at cataract surgery. Br J Ophthalmol 2012;96:114–17. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2010.200832 doi: 10.1136/bjo.2010.200832. [DOI] [PubMed]
  8. Jakobsson G, Montan P, Zetterberg M, Stenevi U, Behndig A, Lundström M. Capsule complication during cataract surgery: retinal detachment after cataract surgery with capsule complication: Swedish Capsule Rupture Study Group report 4. J Cataract Refract Surg 2009;35:1699–705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2009.05.028 doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2009.05.028. [DOI] [PubMed]
  9. Narendran N, Jaycock P, Johnston RL, Taylor H, Adams M, Tole DM, et al. The Cataract National Dataset electronic multicentre audit of 55,567 operations: risk stratification for posterior capsule rupture and vitreous loss. Eye 2009;23:31–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.eye.6703049 doi: 10.1038/sj.eye.6703049. [DOI] [PubMed]
  10. Friedman NJ, Palanker DV, Schuele G, Andersen D, Marcellino G, Seibel BS, et al. Femtosecond laser capsulotomy. J Cataract Refract Surg 2011;37:1189–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2011.04.022 doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2011.04.022. [DOI] [PubMed]
  11. Kránitz K, Takacs A, Miháltz K, Kovács I, Knorz MC, Nagy ZZ. Femtosecond laser capsulotomy and manual continuous curvilinear capsulorrhexis parameters and their effects on intraocular lens centration. J Refract Surg 2011;27:558–63. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20110623-03 doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20110623-03. [DOI] [PubMed]
  12. Nagy ZZ, Kránitz K, Takacs AI, Miháltz K, Kovács I, Knorz MC. Comparison of intraocular lens decentration parameters after femtosecond and manual capsulotomies. J Refract Surg 2011;27:564–9. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20110607-01 doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20110607-01. [DOI] [PubMed]
  13. Kránitz K, Miháltz K, Sándor GL, Takacs A, Knorz MC, Nagy ZZ. Intraocular lens tilt and decentration measured by Scheimpflug camera following manual or femtosecond laser-created continuous circular capsulotomy. J Refract Surg 2012;28:259–63. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20120309-01 doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20120309-01. [DOI] [PubMed]
  14. Miháltz K, Knorz MC, Alió JL, Takács AI, Kránitz K, Kovács I, Nagy ZZ. Internal aberrations and optical quality after femtosecond laser anterior capsulotomy in cataract surgery. J Refract Surg 2011;27:711–16. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20110913-01 doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20110913-01. [DOI] [PubMed]
  15. Abell RG, Kerr NM, Vote BJ. Toward zero effective phacoemulsification time using femtosecond laser pretreatment. Ophthalmology 2013;120:942–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.11.045 doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.11.045. [DOI] [PubMed]
  16. Abell RG, Kerr NM, Vote BJ. Femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery compared with conventional cataract surgery. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol 2013;41:455–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/ceo.12025 doi: 10.1111/ceo.12025. [DOI] [PubMed]
  17. Conrad-Hengerer I, Hengerer FH, Schultz T, Dick HB. Effect of femtosecond laser fragmentation on effective phacoemulsification time in cataract surgery. J Refract Surg 2012;28:879–83. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20121116-02 doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20121116-02. [DOI] [PubMed]
  18. Trikha S, Turnbull AM, Morris RJ, Anderson DF, Hossain P. The journey to femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery: new beginnings or a false dawn? Eye 2013;27:461–73. https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2012.293 doi: 10.1038/eye.2012.293. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  19. National Institute for Health Research. Femtosecond Lasers for Cataract Surgery. URL: www.io.nihr.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/migrated/2243.19c90e0a.Femtosecondlasersforcataractsurgery.pdf (accessed 26 November 2020).
  20. Day AC, Gore DM, Bunce C, Evans JR. Laser-assisted cataract surgery versus standard ultrasound phacoemulsification cataract surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016;7:CD010735. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010735.pub2 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010735.pub2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  21. Chen X, Xiao W, Ye S, Chen W, Liu Y. Efficacy and safety of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery versus conventional phacoemulsification for cataract: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Sci Rep 2015;5:13123. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep13123 doi: 10.1038/srep13123. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  22. Popovic M, Campos-Möller X, Schlenker MB, Ahmed II. Efficacy and safety of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery compared with manual cataract surgery: a meta-analysis of 14 567 eyes. Ophthalmology 2016;123:2113–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.07.005 doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.07.005. [DOI] [PubMed]
  23. Ye Z, Li Z, He S. A meta-analysis comparing postoperative complications and outcomes of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery versus conventional phacoemulsification for cataract. J Ophthalmol 2017;2017:3849152. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/3849152 doi: 10.1155/2017/3849152. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  24. Schweitzer C, Brezin A, Cochener B, Monnet D, Germain C, Roseng S, et al. Femtosecond laser-assisted versus phacoemulsification cataract surgery (FEMCAT): a multicentre participant-masked randomised superiority and cost-effectiveness trial. Lancet 2020;395:212–24. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32481-X. [DOI] [PubMed]
  25. Roberts HW, Wagh VK, Sullivan DL, Hidzheva P, Detesan DI, Heemraz BS, et al. A randomized controlled trial comparing femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery versus conventional phacoemulsification surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 2019;45:11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2018.08.033 doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2018.08.033. [DOI] [PubMed]
  26. Alcon closes acquisition of LenSx. Ophthalmology Times, 27 August 2010. URL: www.ophthalmologytimes.com/ophthalmology/alcon-closes-acquisition-lensx (accessed 17 May 2020).
  27. Abbott MediaRoom. Abbott to Enter Laser Cataract Surgery Market through Acquisition of OptiMedica. Press release, 15 July 2013. URL: https://abbott.mediaroom.com/2013-07-15-Abbott-to-Enter-Laser-Cataract-Surgery-Market-through-Acquisition-of-OptiMedica (accessed 17 May 2020).
  28. Day AC, Burr JM, Bunce C, Doré CJ, Sylvestre Y, Wormald RP, et al. Randomised, single-masked non-inferiority trial of femtosecond laser-assisted versus manual phacoemulsification cataract surgery for adults with visually significant cataract: the FACT trial protocol. BMJ Open 2015;5:e010381. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010381 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010381. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  29. National Institute for Health Research. A randomised, single masked, non inferiority trial of femtosecond laser assisted vs manual phacoemulsification cataract surgery for adults with visually significant cataract: the FACT trial. URL: https://fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/award/13/04/46 (accessed 17 May 2020). doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010381. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  30. World Medical Association. WMA Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. URL: www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/ (accessed 26 November 2020).
  31. Day AC, Gartry DS, Maurino V, Allan BD, Stevens JD. Efficacy of anterior capsulotomy creation in femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 2014;40:2031–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2014.07.027 doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2014.07.027. [DOI] [PubMed]
  32. Day AC, Lau NM, Stevens JD. Nonpenetrating femtosecond laser intrastromal astigmatic keratotomy in eyes having cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 2016;42:102–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2015.07.045 doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2015.07.045. [DOI] [PubMed]
  33. 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:E1429. https://doi.org/10.3390/s17061429 doi: 10.3390/s17061429. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  34. Vasquez-Perez A, Simpson A, Nanavaty MA. Femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery in a public teaching hospital setting. BMC Ophthalmol 2018;18:26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-018-0693-6 doi: 10.1186/s12886-018-0693-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  35. Ferris FL, Bailey I. Standardizing the measurement of visual acuity for clinical research studies: guidelines from the Eye Care Technology Forum. Ophthalmology 1996;103:181–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0161-6420(96)30742-2 doi: 10.1016/S0161-6420(96)30742-2. [DOI] [PubMed]
  36. Yang Y, Rowen D, Brazier J, Tsuchiya A, Young T, Longworth L. An exploratory study to test the impact on three ‘bolt-on’ items to the EQ-5D. Value Health 2015;18:52–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2014.09.004 doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2014.09.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  37. Lundström M, Pesudovs K. Catquest-9SF patient outcomes questionnaire: nine-item short-form Rasch-scaled revision of the Catquest questionnaire. J Cataract Refract Surg 2009;35:504–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2008.11.038 doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2008.11.038. [DOI] [PubMed]
  38. Day AC, Donachie PH, Sparrow JM, Johnston RL, Royal College of Ophthalmologists’ National Ophthalmology Database. The Royal College of Ophthalmologists’ National Ophthalmology Database study of cataract surgery: report 1, visual outcomes and complications. Eye 2015;29:552–60. https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2015.3 doi: 10.1038/eye.2015.3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  39. Beecham J, Knapp M. Costing Psychiatric Interventions. In Thornicroft G, Brewin CR, Wing J, editors. Measuring Mental Health Needs. Gaskell/Royal College of Psychiatrists; 1992. pp. 163–83.
  40. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQoL health states. Med Care 1997;35:1095–108. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199711000-00002 doi: 10.1097/00005650-199711000-00002. [DOI] [PubMed]
  41. Mercier G, Naro G. Costing hospital surgery services: the method matters. PLOS ONE 2014;9:e97290. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0097290 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0097290. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  42. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.
  43. Curtis LA, Burns A. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2018. Canterbury: PSSRU, University of Kent; 2018.
  44. Joint Formulary Committee. British National Formulary (online). London: BMJ Group and Pharmaceutical Press. URL: www.medicinescomplete.com (accessed 17 May 2020).
  45. NHS Improvement. NHS Reference Costs 2017–2018. URL: https://improvement.nhs.uk/resources/reference-costs/ (accessed 17 May 2020).
  46. Association for Perioperative Practice. Management of Operating Sessions for Elective and Schedule Surgery. Harrogate: Association for Perioperative Practice; 2016. URL: www.afpp.org.uk/filegrab/staffing-policy-template.pdf?ref=2016 (accessed 17 May 2020).
  47. Roberts HW, Ni MZ, O’Brart DP. Financial modelling of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery within the National Health Service using a ‘hub and spoke’ model for the delivery of high-volume cataract surgery. BMJ Open 2017;7:e013616. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013616 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013616. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  48. NRS Healthcare. URL: www.nrshealthcare.co.uk/ (accessed 17 May 2020).
  49. Office for National Statistics. Employee Earnings in the UK: 2018. Newport: Office for National Statistics; 2018. URL: www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/bulletins/annualsurveyofhoursandearnings/2018 (accessed 17 May 2020).
  50. Hunter RM, Baio G, Butt T, Morris S, Round J, Freemantle N. An educational review of the statistical issues in analysing utility data for cost-utility analysis. PharmacoEconomics 2015;33:355–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-014-0247-6 doi: 10.1007/s40273-014-0247-6. [DOI] [PubMed]
  51. NICE. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal 2013. London: NICE; 2013. URL: www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9/resources/guide-to-the-methods-of-technology-appraisal-2013-pdf-2007975843781 [PubMed]
  52. Leurent B, Gomes M, Faria R, Morris S, Grieve R, Carpenter JR. Sensitivity analysis for not-at-random missing data in trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis: a tutorial. PharmacoEconomics 2018;36:889–901. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0650-5 doi: 10.1007/s40273-018-0650-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  53. Reinstein DZ, Archer TJ, Srinivasan S, Mamalis N, Kohnen T, Dupps WJ, Randleman JB. Standard for reporting refractive outcomes of intraocular lens-based refractive surgery. J Refract Surg 2017;33:218–22. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20170302-01 doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20170302-01. [DOI] [PubMed]
  54. Abell RG, Davies PEJ, Phelan D, Goemann K, McPherson ZE, Vote BJ. Anterior capsulotomy integrity after femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery. Ophthalmology 2014;121:17–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.08.013 doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.08.013. [DOI] [PubMed]
  55. Lundström M, Dickman M, Henry Y, Manning S, Rosen P, Tassignon MJ, et al. Risk factors for refractive error after cataract surgery: analysis of 282 811 cataract extractions reported to the European Registry of Quality Outcomes for cataract and refractive surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 2018;44:447–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2018.01.031 doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2018.01.031. [DOI] [PubMed]
  56. Day AC, Dhallu SK, Maurino V, Wilkins MR. Initial experience using a femtosecond laser cataract surgery system at a UK National Health Service cataract surgery day care centre. BMJ Open 2016;6:e012078. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012078 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012078. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  57. O’Brart DPS, Roberts HW. RE: Initial experience using a femtosecond laser cataract surgery system at a UK National Health Service cataract surgery day care centre (BMJ Open 2016;6:e012078). BMJ Open [Internet], 31 August 2016. URL: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/7/e012078.responses#re-initial-experience-using-a-femtosecond-laser-cataract-surgery-system-at-a-uk-national-health-service-cataract-surgery-day-care-centre-bmj-open-20166e012078 (accessed 17 May 2020). doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012078. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  58. Elliott DB, Sheridan M. The use of accurate visual acuity measurements in clinical anti-cataract formulation trials. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1988;8:397–401. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-1313.1988.tb01176.x doi: 10.1111/j.1475-1313.1988.tb01176.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  59. Abell RG, Vote BJ. Cost-effectiveness of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery versus phacoemulsification cataract surgery. Ophthalmology 2014;121:10–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.07.056 doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.07.056. [DOI] [PubMed]
  60. Hoefman RJ, Van Exel NJA, Brouwer WBF. iMTA Valuation of Informal Care Questionnaire (iVICQ). Version 1.1. 2015. URL: www.imta.nl/assets/uploads/2018/01/iVICQ_UK_version_1.1.pdf (accessed 5 October 2020).

RESOURCES