{"title":"两种不同激光和白内障手术工作流程的效率比较:前瞻性和回顾性分析。","authors":"Jack M Chapman","doi":"10.2147/OPTH.S548211","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare time efficiencies between a traditional femtosecond laser platform and workflow and a single-room model with a robotic laser in patients undergoing cataract surgery.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>Single site, prospective, non-masked study of 23 patients (n = 23 eyes) who underwent the femtosecond laser portion of their cataract surgery with the LenSx Femtosecond Laser System (Alcon, Ft. Worth, Texas) in one room and were subsequently moved to a second room for the remainder of their surgery compared to 23 patients who underwent surgery with a dual-modality, robotic laser (ALLY, Lensar, Orlando, FL) and remained in the same room for the rest of the surgery. Time parameters evaluated were laser set up, docking, suction, total laser time, docking attempts, surgeon total case time, patient total case time, transition to phacoemulsification start time, and transition preparation and draping. Third party observers tracked all time and motion parameters by using a stopwatch and documented activities with a time stamp.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were statistical differences in numerous parameters (all outcomes were measured in minutes): mean suction time [ALLY, 1:16 vs LenSx, 2:26, (<i>P</i> < 0.001)], laser completion to phacoemulsification initiation [ALLY, 0:57 vs LenSx, 4:39, (P < 0.001)], laser set up start to docking start [ALLY, 10:05 vs LenSx, 19:31, (<i>P</i> = 0.034)], total laser time for the surgeon [ALLY, 3:17 vs LenSx, 4:53; (<i>P</i> = <0.001)]; total case time for the surgeon [ALLY, 14:27 vs LenSx,19:40; (<i>P</i> < 0.001)], and total patient time spent in the OR [ALLY, 25:25 vs LenSx 33:22; (<i>P</i> = 0.021)]. There were no statistically significant differences in total phaco procedure time.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Using a robotic laser for cataract surgery can save about 5 minutes of surgeon time per case and 8 minutes of patient's time in the OR when compared to a traditional femtosecond laser platform set up.</p>","PeriodicalId":93945,"journal":{"name":"Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)","volume":"19 ","pages":"3603-3608"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12499575/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficiency Comparison Between Two Different Lasers and Cataract Surgery Workflows: A Prospective and Retrospective Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Jack M Chapman\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/OPTH.S548211\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare time efficiencies between a traditional femtosecond laser platform and workflow and a single-room model with a robotic laser in patients undergoing cataract surgery.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>Single site, prospective, non-masked study of 23 patients (n = 23 eyes) who underwent the femtosecond laser portion of their cataract surgery with the LenSx Femtosecond Laser System (Alcon, Ft. Worth, Texas) in one room and were subsequently moved to a second room for the remainder of their surgery compared to 23 patients who underwent surgery with a dual-modality, robotic laser (ALLY, Lensar, Orlando, FL) and remained in the same room for the rest of the surgery. Time parameters evaluated were laser set up, docking, suction, total laser time, docking attempts, surgeon total case time, patient total case time, transition to phacoemulsification start time, and transition preparation and draping. Third party observers tracked all time and motion parameters by using a stopwatch and documented activities with a time stamp.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were statistical differences in numerous parameters (all outcomes were measured in minutes): mean suction time [ALLY, 1:16 vs LenSx, 2:26, (<i>P</i> < 0.001)], laser completion to phacoemulsification initiation [ALLY, 0:57 vs LenSx, 4:39, (P < 0.001)], laser set up start to docking start [ALLY, 10:05 vs LenSx, 19:31, (<i>P</i> = 0.034)], total laser time for the surgeon [ALLY, 3:17 vs LenSx, 4:53; (<i>P</i> = <0.001)]; total case time for the surgeon [ALLY, 14:27 vs LenSx,19:40; (<i>P</i> < 0.001)], and total patient time spent in the OR [ALLY, 25:25 vs LenSx 33:22; (<i>P</i> = 0.021)]. There were no statistically significant differences in total phaco procedure time.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Using a robotic laser for cataract surgery can save about 5 minutes of surgeon time per case and 8 minutes of patient's time in the OR when compared to a traditional femtosecond laser platform set up.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93945,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)\",\"volume\":\"19 \",\"pages\":\"3603-3608\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12499575/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S548211\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S548211","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:比较传统飞秒激光平台和工作流程与单室模型与机器人激光器在白内障手术患者中的时间效率。病人和方法:单站点,前瞻性研究non-masked 23 (n = 23眼)患者接受白内障手术的飞秒激光部分LenSx飞秒激光系统(爱尔康,英尺。价值,德克萨斯州)在一个房间,随后被转移到另一个房间剩余的手术相比,23日接受手术的患者二重形式,机器人激光(奥兰多盟友,Lensar)和保持在同一个房间里剩下的手术。评估的时间参数包括激光设置、对接、吸引、总激光时间、对接次数、外科医生总病例时间、患者总病例时间、过渡到超声乳化开始时间、过渡准备和悬垂。第三方观察员通过使用秒表和记录带有时间戳的活动来跟踪所有时间和运动参数。结果:许多参数(所有结果均以分钟计算)均有统计学差异:平均吸吸时间[ALLY, 1:16 vs LenSx, 2:26, (P < 0.001)],激光完成到超声乳化术开始[ALLY, 0:57 vs LenSx, 4:39, (P < 0.001)],激光设置开始到对接开始[ALLY, 10:05 vs LenSx, 19:31, (P = 0.034)],手术总激光时间[ALLY, 3:17 vs LenSx, 4:53;(P = P < 0.001)],患者在手术室的总时间[ALLY, 25:25 vs LenSx, 33:22;(p = 0.021)。两组间的总消融时间差异无统计学意义。结论:与传统的飞秒激光平台相比,使用机器人激光器进行白内障手术可节省5分钟的手术时间和8分钟的手术时间。
Efficiency Comparison Between Two Different Lasers and Cataract Surgery Workflows: A Prospective and Retrospective Analysis.
Purpose: To compare time efficiencies between a traditional femtosecond laser platform and workflow and a single-room model with a robotic laser in patients undergoing cataract surgery.
Patients and methods: Single site, prospective, non-masked study of 23 patients (n = 23 eyes) who underwent the femtosecond laser portion of their cataract surgery with the LenSx Femtosecond Laser System (Alcon, Ft. Worth, Texas) in one room and were subsequently moved to a second room for the remainder of their surgery compared to 23 patients who underwent surgery with a dual-modality, robotic laser (ALLY, Lensar, Orlando, FL) and remained in the same room for the rest of the surgery. Time parameters evaluated were laser set up, docking, suction, total laser time, docking attempts, surgeon total case time, patient total case time, transition to phacoemulsification start time, and transition preparation and draping. Third party observers tracked all time and motion parameters by using a stopwatch and documented activities with a time stamp.
Results: There were statistical differences in numerous parameters (all outcomes were measured in minutes): mean suction time [ALLY, 1:16 vs LenSx, 2:26, (P < 0.001)], laser completion to phacoemulsification initiation [ALLY, 0:57 vs LenSx, 4:39, (P < 0.001)], laser set up start to docking start [ALLY, 10:05 vs LenSx, 19:31, (P = 0.034)], total laser time for the surgeon [ALLY, 3:17 vs LenSx, 4:53; (P = <0.001)]; total case time for the surgeon [ALLY, 14:27 vs LenSx,19:40; (P < 0.001)], and total patient time spent in the OR [ALLY, 25:25 vs LenSx 33:22; (P = 0.021)]. There were no statistically significant differences in total phaco procedure time.
Conclusion: Using a robotic laser for cataract surgery can save about 5 minutes of surgeon time per case and 8 minutes of patient's time in the OR when compared to a traditional femtosecond laser platform set up.