PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of posterior corneal astigmatism on outcomes with toric intraocular lenses (IOLs). SETTING: Cullen Eye Institute, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA. DESIGN: Case series. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSIONS: 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.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of posterior corneal astigmatism on outcomes with toric intraocular lenses (IOLs). SETTING: Cullen Eye Institute, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA. DESIGN: Case series. METHODS: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. RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSIONS: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.
Authors: Matthew J Duggan; Jennifer Rose-Nussbaumer; Charles C Lin; Ariana Austin; Paula C Labadzinzki; Winston D Chamberlain Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2019-02-16 Impact factor: 12.079