Jonathan C Lake1, Gustavo Victor2, Gerry Clare3, Gustavo Jm Porfírio4, Ashleigh Kernohan5, Jennifer R Evans6. 1. UNIFESP - Federal University of São Paulo, Ophthalmology, Rua Pedro de Toledo 650, 2nd floor, São Paulo, Brazil. 2. Av. Republica do Libano 1034, São Paulo, Brazil. 3. Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, 162 City Road, London, UK. 4. Centro de Estudos de Saúde Baseada em Evidências e Avaliação Tecnológica em Saúde, Cochrane Brazil, Rua Borges Lagoa, 564 cj 63, São Paulo, SP, Brazil, 04038-000. 5. Newcastle University, Institute of Health & Society, Baddiley-Clark Building, Richardson Road, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE2 4AA. 6. London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Cochrane Eyes and Vision, ICEH, Keppel Street, London, UK, WC1E 7HT.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cataract is the leading cause of blindness in the world, and clinically significant astigmatism may affect up to approximately 20% of people undergoing cataract surgery. Pre-existing astigmatism in people undergoing cataract surgery may be treated, among other techniques, by placing corneal incisions near the limbus (limbal relaxing incisions or LRIs) or by toric intraocular lens (IOLs) specially designed to reduce or treat the effect of corneal astigmatism on unaided visual acuity. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of toric IOLs compared with LRIs in the management of astigmatism during phacoemulsification cataract surgery. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2019, Issue 9); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase and four other databases. The date of the search was 27 September 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing toric IOLs with LRIs during phacoemulsification cataract surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methods expected by Cochrane. We graded the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Our primary outcome was the proportion of participants with postoperative residual refractive astigmatism of less than 0.50 dioptres (D) six months or more after surgery. We also collected data on mean residual refractive astigmatism. Secondary outcomes included: uncorrected distance visual acuity, vision-related quality of life, spectacle independence and adverse effects including postoperative lens rotation requiring re-alignment. To supplement the main systematic review assessing the effects of toric IOLs compared with LRIs in the management of astigmatism during phacoemulsification cataract surgery, we sought to identify economic evaluations on the subject. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 10 relevant studies including 517 people (626 eyes). These studies took place in China (three studies), UK (three), Brazil (one), India (one), Italy (one) and Spain (one). The median age of participants was 71 years. The level of corneal astigmatism specified in the inclusion criteria of these studies ranged from 0.75 D to 3 D. A variety of toric IOLs were used in these studies, in all but one study, these were monofocal. Studies used three different nomograms to determine the size and placement of the LRI. Two studies did not specify this. None of the studies were at low risk of bias in all domains, but two studies were at low risk of bias in all domains except selective outcome reporting, which was unclear. The remaining studies were at a mixture of low, unclear or high risk of bias. People receiving toric IOLs were probably more likely to achieve a postoperative residual refractive astigmatism of less than 0.5 D six months or more after surgery (risk ratio (RR) 1.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10 to 1.78; 5 RCTs, 262 eyes). We judged this to be moderate-certainty evidence, downgrading for risk of bias. In the included studies, approximately 500 eyes per 1000 achieved postoperative astigmatism less than 0.5 D in the LRI group compared with 700 per 1000 in the toric IOLs group. There was a small difference in residual astigmatism between the two groups, favouring toric IOLs (mean difference (MD) -0.32 D, 95% CI -0.48 to -0.15 D; 10 RCTs, 620 eyes). Although all studies favoured toric IOLs, the results of individual studies were inconsistent (range of effects -0.02 D to -0.71 D; I² = 89%). We considered this to be low-certainty evidence, downgrading for risk of bias and inconsistency. People receiving a toric IOL probably have a small improvement in visual acuity at six months or more after surgery compared to people receiving LRI, but the difference is small and probably clinically insignificant (MD -0.04 logMAR, 95% CI -0.07 to -0.02; 8 RCTs, 474 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence). Low-certainty evidence from one study of 40 people suggested little difference in vision-related quality of life measured using the Visual Function Index (VF-14) (MD -3.01, 95% CI -8.56 to 2.54). Two studies reported spectacle independence and suggested that people receiving toric IOLs may be more likely to be spectacle independent (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.15; 100 people; low-certainty evidence). There were no cases of lens rotation requiring surgery (very low-certainty evidence). Five studies (320 eyes) commented on a range of other adverse effects including corneal oedema, endophthalmitis and corneal ectasia. All these studies reported that there were no adverse events with the exception of one study (40 eyes) where one participant in the LRI group had a central de-epithelisation which recovered over 10 days. We found no economic studies that compared toric IOLs with LRIs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Toric IOLs probably provide a higher chance of achieving astigmatism within 0.5 D after cataract surgery compared with LRIs. There may be a small mean difference in postoperative astigmatism, favouring toric IOLs, but this difference is likely to be clinically unimportant. There was no evidence of an important difference in postoperative visual acuity or quality of life between the techniques. Evidence on adverse effects was uncertain. The apparent shortage of relevant economic evaluations indicates that economic evidence regarding the costs and consequence of these two procedures is currently lacking.
BACKGROUND: Cataract is the leading cause of blindness in the world, and clinically significant astigmatism may affect up to approximately 20% of people undergoing cataract surgery. Pre-existing astigmatism in people undergoing cataract surgery may be treated, among other techniques, by placing corneal incisions near the limbus (limbal relaxing incisions or LRIs) or by toric intraocular lens (IOLs) specially designed to reduce or treat the effect of corneal astigmatism on unaided visual acuity. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of toric IOLs compared with LRIs in the management of astigmatism during phacoemulsification cataract surgery. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2019, Issue 9); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase and four other databases. The date of the search was 27 September 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing toric IOLs with LRIs during phacoemulsification cataract surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methods expected by Cochrane. We graded the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Our primary outcome was the proportion of participants with postoperative residual refractive astigmatism of less than 0.50 dioptres (D) six months or more after surgery. We also collected data on mean residual refractive astigmatism. Secondary outcomes included: uncorrected distance visual acuity, vision-related quality of life, spectacle independence and adverse effects including postoperative lens rotation requiring re-alignment. To supplement the main systematic review assessing the effects of toric IOLs compared with LRIs in the management of astigmatism during phacoemulsification cataract surgery, we sought to identify economic evaluations on the subject. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 10 relevant studies including 517 people (626 eyes). These studies took place in China (three studies), UK (three), Brazil (one), India (one), Italy (one) and Spain (one). The median age of participants was 71 years. The level of corneal astigmatism specified in the inclusion criteria of these studies ranged from 0.75 D to 3 D. A variety of toric IOLs were used in these studies, in all but one study, these were monofocal. Studies used three different nomograms to determine the size and placement of the LRI. Two studies did not specify this. None of the studies were at low risk of bias in all domains, but two studies were at low risk of bias in all domains except selective outcome reporting, which was unclear. The remaining studies were at a mixture of low, unclear or high risk of bias. People receiving toric IOLs were probably more likely to achieve a postoperative residual refractive astigmatism of less than 0.5 D six months or more after surgery (risk ratio (RR) 1.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10 to 1.78; 5 RCTs, 262 eyes). We judged this to be moderate-certainty evidence, downgrading for risk of bias. In the included studies, approximately 500 eyes per 1000 achieved postoperative astigmatism less than 0.5 D in the LRI group compared with 700 per 1000 in the toric IOLs group. There was a small difference in residual astigmatism between the two groups, favouring toric IOLs (mean difference (MD) -0.32 D, 95% CI -0.48 to -0.15 D; 10 RCTs, 620 eyes). Although all studies favoured toric IOLs, the results of individual studies were inconsistent (range of effects -0.02 D to -0.71 D; I² = 89%). We considered this to be low-certainty evidence, downgrading for risk of bias and inconsistency. People receiving a toric IOL probably have a small improvement in visual acuity at six months or more after surgery compared to people receiving LRI, but the difference is small and probably clinically insignificant (MD -0.04 logMAR, 95% CI -0.07 to -0.02; 8 RCTs, 474 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence). Low-certainty evidence from one study of 40 people suggested little difference in vision-related quality of life measured using the Visual Function Index (VF-14) (MD -3.01, 95% CI -8.56 to 2.54). Two studies reported spectacle independence and suggested that people receiving toric IOLs may be more likely to be spectacle independent (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.15; 100 people; low-certainty evidence). There were no cases of lens rotation requiring surgery (very low-certainty evidence). Five studies (320 eyes) commented on a range of other adverse effects including corneal oedema, endophthalmitis and corneal ectasia. All these studies reported that there were no adverse events with the exception of one study (40 eyes) where one participant in the LRI group had a central de-epithelisation which recovered over 10 days. We found no economic studies that compared toric IOLs with LRIs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Toric IOLs probably provide a higher chance of achieving astigmatism within 0.5 D after cataract surgery compared with LRIs. There may be a small mean difference in postoperative astigmatism, favouring toric IOLs, but this difference is likely to be clinically unimportant. There was no evidence of an important difference in postoperative visual acuity or quality of life between the techniques. Evidence on adverse effects was uncertain. The apparent shortage of relevant economic evaluations indicates that economic evidence regarding the costs and consequence of these two procedures is currently lacking.
Authors: Edward Holland; Stephen Lane; Jeffrey D Horn; Paul Ernest; Robert Arleo; Kevin M Miller Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2010-09-16 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Teresa Ferrer-Blasco; Robert Montés-Micó; Sofia C Peixoto-de-Matos; José M González-Méijome; Alejandro Cerviño Journal: J Cataract Refract Surg Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 3.351
Authors: Steven A Nissman; Rochelle E Tractenberg; Christopher M Saba; John C Douglas; Jay M Lustbader Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2006-03-09 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Jonathan C Lake; Gustavo Victor; Gerry Clare; Gustavo Jm Porfírio; Ashleigh Kernohan; Jennifer R Evans Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-12-17
Authors: Majid Moshirfar; Austin J Waite; James H Ellis; Rachel Huynh; John Placide; Matthew R Barke; Shannon E McCabe; Yasmyne C Ronquillo; Phillip C Hoopes; Michael J Bradley; Phillip C Hoopes Journal: Clin Ophthalmol Date: 2021-12-14