Guy J Ben Simon1, Howard Desatnik. 1. Goldschleger Eye Institute and Department of Ophthalmology, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Aviv University, Tel Hashomer, Israel. simon@jsei.ucla.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Opposite clear corneal incisions (OCCIs) have been reported to reduce pre-existing astigmatism (PEA) during cataract surgery. Our goal was to evaluate the effect of OCCIs on correcting PEA in cataract surgery. METHODS: Non-randomized prospective study. Thirty-four patients with PEA of greater than 1.5 diopters (D) underwent clear cornea phacoemulsification cataract extraction with 3.2-mm OCCIs (OCCI group). The control group consisted of 23 successive patients with PEA <1.5 D who underwent cataract extraction without OCCI. Best-corrected visual acuity, keratometry and refraction were recorded for all patients pre-operatively and post-operatively. RESULTS: Using keratometric findings, mean astigmatism correction was 1.3 D (+/-0.9 SD; decreased from 2.6 D pre-operatively to 1.4 D post-operatively) in the OCCI group but only 0.4 D in the control group (P<0.005), 8 months post-operatively. Vector analysis of astigmatism correction showed greater change for OCCI patients (1.8 D vs 1.0 D, P=0.002). Using the Holladay method for calculating surgically induced refractive change (SIRC), the OCCI group showed a higher value of SIRC (-1.6 D vs -0.97 D), but this was not statistically significant. The OCCI patients showed a greater and significant change in refraction spherical equivalent than the controls. No complications related to OCCI or cataract surgery occurred during the follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: Opposite clear cornea incision seems to be a simple, predictable, safe and effective procedure in reducing pre-existing corneal astigmatism in cataract surgery. It has an enhanced effect in correcting astigmatism compared to a single clear cornea incision when using keratometric findings value but not when using refractive data. Future studies are needed to document the long-term effect of OCCI and to evaluate the correlation between incisions of different size and astigmatism correction.
BACKGROUND: Opposite clear corneal incisions (OCCIs) have been reported to reduce pre-existing astigmatism (PEA) during cataract surgery. Our goal was to evaluate the effect of OCCIs on correcting PEA in cataract surgery. METHODS: Non-randomized prospective study. Thirty-four patients with PEA of greater than 1.5 diopters (D) underwent clear cornea phacoemulsification cataract extraction with 3.2-mm OCCIs (OCCI group). The control group consisted of 23 successive patients with PEA <1.5 D who underwent cataract extraction without OCCI. Best-corrected visual acuity, keratometry and refraction were recorded for all patients pre-operatively and post-operatively. RESULTS: Using keratometric findings, mean astigmatism correction was 1.3 D (+/-0.9 SD; decreased from 2.6 D pre-operatively to 1.4 D post-operatively) in the OCCI group but only 0.4 D in the control group (P<0.005), 8 months post-operatively. Vector analysis of astigmatism correction showed greater change for OCCI patients (1.8 D vs 1.0 D, P=0.002). Using the Holladay method for calculating surgically induced refractive change (SIRC), the OCCI group showed a higher value of SIRC (-1.6 D vs -0.97 D), but this was not statistically significant. The OCCI patients showed a greater and significant change in refraction spherical equivalent than the controls. No complications related to OCCI or cataract surgery occurred during the follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: Opposite clear cornea incision seems to be a simple, predictable, safe and effective procedure in reducing pre-existing corneal astigmatism in cataract surgery. It has an enhanced effect in correcting astigmatism compared to a single clear cornea incision when using keratometric findings value but not when using refractive data. Future studies are needed to document the long-term effect of OCCI and to evaluate the correlation between incisions of different size and astigmatism correction.
Authors: Sofia Theodoulidou; Ioannis Asproudis; Aristidis Athanasiadis; Michael Kokkinos; Miltiadis Aspiotis Journal: Int J Ophthalmol Date: 2017-06-18 Impact factor: 1.779