S Y Lee1, H J Kwon, H S Ahn, K Y Seo, E K Kim, T-I Kim. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, The Institute of Vision Research, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We compared visual and refractive outcomes after implantation of Visian toric implantable collamer lenses (toric ICLs) and iris-fixated toric pIOLs (toric Artisans). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A comparative retrospective analysis was performed. Toric ICLs were implanted into 30 eyes of 18 patients, and toric Artisans into 31 eyes of 22 recipients. We measured the logarithms of the minimum angle of resolution of uncorrected visual acuity (logMAR UCVA), logMAR of best spectacle-corrected corrected VA (logMAR BSCVA), MR, SE, and astigmatism (by the power vector method) before surgery and 1, 3, and 6 months thereafter. Differences between patients receiving each type of lens were compared by using a mixed model of repeated measures. RESULTS: Visual improvements were evident after operation in both groups. By comparing the attempted to the achieved SE values, we were able to confirm that correction of refractive error was similar in both groups. However, the logMAR UCVA was significantly higher in the toric ICL group at all postoperative time points. Although manifest cylinder power and astigmatism (calculated by using the power vector method) gradually decreased in the toric ICL group, cylinder power 1 month postoperatively increased from -2.62 to -2.75 D; astigmatism was also increased at this time in the toric Artisan group. CONCLUSION: The two tested toric pIOLs were similar in terms of the ability to correct refractive error, as assessed 3 months postoperatively. However toric ICLs corrected astigmatism more rapidly and safely. Notably, the large difference in astigmatism level between the two groups 1 month postoperatively indicates that toric ICLs are more effective when used to correct astigmatism.
PURPOSE: We compared visual and refractive outcomes after implantation of Visian toric implantable collamer lenses (toric ICLs) and iris-fixated toric pIOLs (toric Artisans). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A comparative retrospective analysis was performed. Toric ICLs were implanted into 30 eyes of 18 patients, and toric Artisans into 31 eyes of 22 recipients. We measured the logarithms of the minimum angle of resolution of uncorrected visual acuity (logMAR UCVA), logMAR of best spectacle-corrected corrected VA (logMAR BSCVA), MR, SE, and astigmatism (by the power vector method) before surgery and 1, 3, and 6 months thereafter. Differences between patients receiving each type of lens were compared by using a mixed model of repeated measures. RESULTS: Visual improvements were evident after operation in both groups. By comparing the attempted to the achieved SE values, we were able to confirm that correction of refractive error was similar in both groups. However, the logMAR UCVA was significantly higher in the toric ICL group at all postoperative time points. Although manifest cylinder power and astigmatism (calculated by using the power vector method) gradually decreased in the toric ICL group, cylinder power 1 month postoperatively increased from -2.62 to -2.75 D; astigmatism was also increased at this time in the toric Artisan group. CONCLUSION: The two tested toric pIOLs were similar in terms of the ability to correct refractive error, as assessed 3 months postoperatively. However toric ICLs corrected astigmatism more rapidly and safely. Notably, the large difference in astigmatism level between the two groups 1 month postoperatively indicates that toric ICLs are more effective when used to correct astigmatism.
Authors: H Burkhard Dick; Jorge Alió; Marco Bianchetti; Camille Budo; Bern Jurriën Christiaans; M Alaa El-Danasoury; José L Güell; Jörg Krumeich; Monika Landesz; Fransico Loureiro; Gregorius P M Luyten; Antonio Marinho; Mohamed Saleh Rahhal; Oliver Schwenn; Raimund Spirig; Urs Thomann; Jan Venter Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Rafic Antonios; Ali Dirani; Ali Fadlallah; Elias Chelala; Adib Hamade; Carole Cherfane; Elias Jarade Journal: J Ophthalmol Date: 2015-03-19 Impact factor: 1.909