AIM: To compare the accuracy of two different methods of preoperative marking for toric intraocular lens (IOL) implantation, bubble marker versus pendulum marker, as a means of establishing the reference point for the final alignment of the toric IOL to achieve an outcome as close as possible to emmetropia. METHODS: Toric IOLs were implanted in 180 eyes of 110 patients. One group (55 patients) had preoperative marking of both eyes done with bubble marker (ASICO AE-2791TBL) and the other group (55 patients) with pendulum marker (Rumex(®)3-193). Reference marks were placed at 3-, 6-, and 9-o'clock positions on the limbus. Slit-lamp photographs were analyzed using Adobe Photoshop (version 7.0). Amount of alignment error (in degrees) induced in each group was measured. RESULTS: Mean absolute rotation error in the preoperative marking in the horizontal axis was 2.42±1.71 in the bubble marker group and 2.83±2.31in the pendulum marker group (P=0.501). Sixty percent of the pendulum group and 70% of the bubble group had rotation error ≤3 (P=0.589), and 90% eyes of the pendulum group and 96.7% of the bubble group had rotation error ≤5 (P=0.612). CONCLUSION: Both preoperative marking techniques result in approximately 3 of alignment error. Both marking techniques are simple, predictable, reproducible and easy to perform.
AIM: To compare the accuracy of two different methods of preoperative marking for toric intraocular lens (IOL) implantation, bubble marker versus pendulum marker, as a means of establishing the reference point for the final alignment of the toric IOL to achieve an outcome as close as possible to emmetropia. METHODS: Toric IOLs were implanted in 180 eyes of 110 patients. One group (55 patients) had preoperative marking of both eyes done with bubble marker (ASICO AE-2791TBL) and the other group (55 patients) with pendulum marker (Rumex(®)3-193). Reference marks were placed at 3-, 6-, and 9-o'clock positions on the limbus. Slit-lamp photographs were analyzed using Adobe Photoshop (version 7.0). Amount of alignment error (in degrees) induced in each group was measured. RESULTS: Mean absolute rotation error in the preoperative marking in the horizontal axis was 2.42±1.71 in the bubble marker group and 2.83±2.31in the pendulum marker group (P=0.501). Sixty percent of the pendulum group and 70% of the bubble group had rotation error ≤3 (P=0.589), and 90% eyes of the pendulum group and 96.7% of the bubble group had rotation error ≤5 (P=0.612). CONCLUSION: Both preoperative marking techniques result in approximately 3 of alignment error. Both marking techniques are simple, predictable, reproducible and easy to perform.
Authors: Nienke Visser; Tos T J M Berendschot; Noël J C Bauer; Jessica Jurich; Oliver Kersting; Rudy M M A Nuijts Journal: J Cataract Refract Surg Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 3.351
Authors: Bradley P O'Neill; Vasilios F Diakonis; Konstantinos T Tsaousis; Robert J Weinstock Journal: Int Ophthalmol Date: 2021-07-27 Impact factor: 2.031