11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Comparison of Two Toric IOL Calculation Methods

      research-article
      , , , , ,
      Journal of Ophthalmology
      Hindawi

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose

          To compare two calculators for toric intraocular lens (IOL) calculation and to evaluate the prediction of refractive outcome.

          Methods

          Sixty-four eyes of forty-five patients underwent cataract surgery followed by implantation of a toric intraocular lens (Zeiss Torbi 709 M) calculated by a standard industry calculator using front keratometry values. Prediction error, median absolute error, and refractive astigmatism error were evaluated for the standard calculator. The predicted postoperative refraction and toric lens power values were evaluated and compared after postoperative recalculation using the Barrett calculator.

          Results

          We observed a significant undercorrection in the spherical equivalent (0.19 D) by using a standard calculator ( p ≤ 0.05). According to the Baylor nomogram and the refractive influence of posterior corneal astigmatism (PCA), undercorrection of the cylinder was lower for patients with WTR astigmatism, because of the tendency of overcorrection. An advantage of less residual postoperative SE, sphere, and cylinder for the Barrett calculator was observed when retrospectively comparing the calculated predicted postoperative refraction between calculators ( p ≤ 0.01).

          Conclusion

          Consideration of only corneal front keratometric values for toric lens calculation may lead to postoperative undercorrection of astigmatism. The prediction of postoperative refractive outcome can be improved by using appropriate methods of adjustment in order to take PCA into account.

          Related collections

          Most cited references27

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Contribution of posterior corneal astigmatism to total corneal astigmatism.

          To determine the contribution of posterior corneal astigmatism to total corneal astigmatism and the error in estimating total corneal astigmatism from anterior corneal measurements only using a dual-Scheimpflug analyzer. Cullen Eye Institute, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA. Case series. Total corneal astigmatism was calculated using ray tracing, corneal astigmatism from simulated keratometry, anterior corneal astigmatism, and posterior corneal astigmatism, and the changes with age were analyzed. Vector analysis was used to assess the error produced by estimating total corneal astigmatism from anterior corneal measurements only. The study analyzed 715 corneas of 435 consecutive patients. The mean magnitude of posterior corneal astigmatism was -0.30 diopter (D). The steep corneal meridian was aligned vertically (60 to 120 degrees) in 51.9% of eyes for the anterior surface and in 86.6% for the posterior surface. With increasing age, the steep anterior corneal meridian tended to change from vertical to horizontal, while the steep posterior corneal meridian did not change. The magnitudes of anterior and posterior corneal astigmatism were correlated when the steeper anterior meridian was aligned vertically but not when it was aligned horizontally. Anterior corneal measurements underestimated total corneal astigmatism by 0.22 @ 180 and exceeded 0.50 D in 5% of eyes. Ignoring posterior corneal astigmatism may yield incorrect estimation of total corneal astigmatism. Selecting toric intraocular lenses based on anterior corneal measurements could lead to overcorrection in eyes that have with-the-rule astigmatism and undercorrection in eyes that have against-the-rule astigmatism. The authors received research support from Ziemer Group. In addition, Dr. Koch has a financial interest with Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Abbott Medical Optics, Inc., Calhoun Vision, Inc., NuLens, and Optimedica Corp. Copyright © 2012 ASCRS and ESCRS. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Protocols for studies of intraocular lens formula accuracy.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Correcting astigmatism with toric intraocular lenses: effect of posterior corneal astigmatism.

              To evaluate the impact of posterior corneal astigmatism on outcomes with toric intraocular lenses (IOLs). Cullen Eye Institute, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA. Case series. Corneal astigmatism was measured using 5 devices before and 3 weeks after cataract surgery. Toric IOL alignment was recorded at surgery and at the slitlamp 3 weeks postoperatively. The actual corneal astigmatism was calculated based on refractive astigmatism 3 weeks postoperatively and the effective toric power calculated with the Holladay 2 formula. The prediction error was calculated as the difference between the astigmatism measured by each device and the actual corneal astigmatism. Vector analysis was used in all calculations. With the IOLMaster, Lenstar, Atlas, manual keratometer, and Galilei (combined Placido-dual Scheimpflug analyzer), the mean prediction errors (D) were, respectively, 0.59 @ 89.7, 0.48 @ 91.2, 0.51 @ 78.7, 0.62 @ 97.2, and 0.57 @ 93.9 for with-the-rule (WTR) astigmatism (60 to 120 degrees), and 0.17 @ 86.2, 0.23 @ 77.7, 0.23 @ 91.4, 0.41 @ 58.4, and 0.12 @ 7.3 for against-the-rule (ATR) astigmatism (0 to 30 degrees and 150 to 180 degrees). In the WTR eyes, there were significant WTR prediction errors (0.5 to 0.6 diopters [D]) by all devices. In ATR eyes, WTR prediction errors were 0.2 to 0.3 D by all devices except the Placido-dual Scheimpflug analyzer (all P<.05 with Bonferroni correction). Corneal astigmatism was overestimated in WTR by all devices and underestimated in ATR by all except the Placido-dual Scheimpflug analyzer. A new toric IOL nomogram is proposed. Copyright © 2013 ASCRS and ESCRS. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                J Ophthalmol
                J Ophthalmol
                JOPH
                Journal of Ophthalmology
                Hindawi
                2090-004X
                2090-0058
                2018
                10 January 2018
                : 2018
                : 2840246
                Affiliations
                Department of Ophthalmology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany
                Author notes

                Academic Editor: Lisa Toto

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9699-9255
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9442-0708
                Article
                10.1155/2018/2840246
                5818930
                29545950
                318a1217-4529-4492-b64d-0588630c072c
                Copyright © 2018 C. Kern et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 30 May 2017
                : 17 October 2017
                : 23 November 2017
                Categories
                Research Article

                Ophthalmology & Optometry
                Ophthalmology & Optometry

                Comments

                Comment on this article