BACKGROUND: To analyse the magnitude of cylindrical corrections over which cyclotorsion compensation with iris recognition (IR) technology is beneficial during wavefront laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis. DESIGN: A retrospectively comparative case series. PARTICIPANTS OR SAMPLES: Fifty-four eyes that underwent wavefront laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis without IR (non-IR group) and 53 eyes that underwent wavefront laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis with IR (IR group) were recruited. METHODS: Subgroup analysis based on baseline astigmatism were: a low degree of astigmatism (≥1.00 D to <2.00 D), a moderate degree of astigmatism (≥2.00 D to <3.00 D) and a high degree of astigmatism (≥3.00 D). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Vector and non-vector analyses were used for comparison. RESULTS: The mean cylinder was -1.89 ± 0.76 D in the non-IR group and -2.00 ± 0.77 D in the IR group. Postoperatively, 38 eyes (74.50%) in the IR group and 31 eyes (57.50%) in the non-IR group were within ± 0.50 D of the target induced astigmatism vector (P = 0.063). The difference vector was 0.49 ± 0.28 in the IR group and 0.63 ± 0.40 in the non-IR group (P = 0.031). In the analysis of subgroups, the magnitude of error was significantly lower in the moderate IR subgroup than that of the moderate non-IR subgroup (P = 0.034). Furthermore, the moderate IR subgroup had a lower mean difference vector (P = 0.0078) and a greater surgically induced astigmatism (P = 0.036) than those of the moderate non-IR group. CONCLUSIONS: Wavefront laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis for the treatment of astigmatism using IR technology was effective and accurate for the treatment of myopic astigmatism.
BACKGROUND: To analyse the magnitude of cylindrical corrections over which cyclotorsion compensation with iris recognition (IR) technology is beneficial during wavefront laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis. DESIGN: A retrospectively comparative case series. PARTICIPANTS OR SAMPLES: Fifty-four eyes that underwent wavefront laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis without IR (non-IR group) and 53 eyes that underwent wavefront laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis with IR (IR group) were recruited. METHODS: Subgroup analysis based on baseline astigmatism were: a low degree of astigmatism (≥1.00 D to <2.00 D), a moderate degree of astigmatism (≥2.00 D to <3.00 D) and a high degree of astigmatism (≥3.00 D). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Vector and non-vector analyses were used for comparison. RESULTS: The mean cylinder was -1.89 ± 0.76 D in the non-IR group and -2.00 ± 0.77 D in the IR group. Postoperatively, 38 eyes (74.50%) in the IR group and 31 eyes (57.50%) in the non-IR group were within ± 0.50 D of the target induced astigmatism vector (P = 0.063). The difference vector was 0.49 ± 0.28 in the IR group and 0.63 ± 0.40 in the non-IR group (P = 0.031). In the analysis of subgroups, the magnitude of error was significantly lower in the moderate IR subgroup than that of the moderate non-IR subgroup (P = 0.034). Furthermore, the moderate IR subgroup had a lower mean difference vector (P = 0.0078) and a greater surgically induced astigmatism (P = 0.036) than those of the moderate non-IR group. CONCLUSIONS: Wavefront laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis for the treatment of astigmatism using IR technology was effective and accurate for the treatment of myopic astigmatism.