Correction of moderate corneal astigmatism during cataract surgery: Toric intraocular lens versus peripheral corneal relaxing incisions

Toric Intraocular Lenses in the Correction of Astigmatism During Cataract Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

TOPIC

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the benefit and harms associated with implantation of toric intraocular lenses (IOLs) during cataract surgery. Outcomes were postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity (UCDVA) and distance spectacle independence. Harms were evaluated as surgical complications and residual astigmatism.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Postoperative astigmatism is an important cause of suboptimal UCDVA and need for distance spectacles. Toric IOLs may correct for preexisting corneal astigmatism at the time of surgery.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search in the Embase, PubMed, and CENTRAL databases within the Cochrane Library. We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) if they compared toric with non-toric IOL implantation (± relaxing incision) in patients with regular corneal astigmatism and age-related cataracts. We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. We assessed the quality of evidence across studies using the GRADE profiler software (available at: www.gradeworkinggroup.org).

RESULTS

We included 13 RCTs with 707 eyes randomized to toric IOLs and 706 eyes randomized to non-toric IOLs; 225 eyes had a relaxing incision. We found high-quality evidence that UCDVA was better in the toric IOL group (logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution [logMAR] mean difference, -0.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.10 to -0.04) and provided greater spectacle independence (risk ratio [RR], 0.51; 95% CI, 0.36-0.71) and moderate quality evidence that toric IOL implantation was not associated with an increased risk of complications (RR, 1.73; 95% CI, 0.60-5.04). Residual astigmatism was lower in the toric IOL group than in the non-toric IOL plus relaxing incision group (mean difference, 0.37 diopter [D]; 95% CI, -0.55 to -0.19).

CONCLUSIONS

We found that toric IOLs provided better UCDVA, greater spectacle independence, and lower amounts of residual astigmatism than non-toric IOLs even when relaxing incisions were used.

Comparison of astigmatism correction using either peripheral corneal relaxing incisions or toric intraocular lenses

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy and short-term stability of toric intraocular lenses (tIOL) and peripheral cornea relaxing incisions (PCRI) during phacoemulsification.

METHODS

Patients with preexisting corneal astigmatism had cataract surgery either with tIOL (AcrySof Toric) (39 eyes of 35 patients) or standard intraocular lens (AcrySof) + PCRIs (38 eyes of 33 patients). Patients were retrospectively evaluated for manifest refraction, corneal topography, and uncorrected and corrected visual acuities preoperatively and at postoperative 1 and 6 months. The Alpins vectorial method was used to analyze the target induced astigmatism (TIA) and surgically induced astigmatism (SIA), magnitude of error (the difference between the magnitude of SIA and TIA) (ME), and correction index.

RESULTS

Mean preoperative corneal astigmatism was 2.21 ± 1.32 D in the tIOL group and 2.24 ± 0.96 D in the PCRI group; the difference was not significant. The decrease in astigmatism was significant in both groups at last follow-up (64% tIOL group, 32% PCRI group, p<0.01, Wilcoxon signed rank test). The mean remaining refractive astigmatism was significantly higher in the PCRI group than in the tIOL group at 1-month (1.42 ± 1.22, 0.89 ± 0.68, respectively) and 6-month follow-ups (1.75 ± 1.37 D, 0.92 ± 0.72, respectively) (p<0.01). The mean ME was significantly lower (-0.35 versus -0.88) with a higher correction index (0.96 versus 0.56) in the tIOL group at 6 months postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

Both tIOL implantation and using PCRI were effective methods to reduce preoperative astigmatism at the time of the cataract surgery. However, tIOLs provided better remaining astigmatism with a more stable refraction than PCRI.

Comparison Between Digital and Manual Marking for Toric Intraocular Lenses: A Randomized Trial

To compare the clinical outcome of digital and manual marking for toric intraocular lens (IOL) alignment. This is a prospective clinical study that included 60 eyes of 60 patients undergoing cataract surgery with coexisting corneal astigmatism more than 1 diopter (D). The eyes were randomly assigned to either digital image guidance using VERION digital marker (Alcon Laboratories, Ft. Worth, TX) or manual slitlamp-assisted preoperative marking using pendulum-attached marker. Tecnis toric IOL (Abbott Medical Optics, Inc, Santa Ana, CA) was implanted in all cases. The mean postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity (UCDVA) for the digital-marking group was 0.12 + 0.12 logMAR, and for the manual-marking group was 0.18 + 0.14 logMAR (P = 0.104). The mean deviation from targeted induced astigmatism (TIA) for the first group was 0.10 + 0.08 D and for the second group was 0.20 + 0.14 D (P = 0.001). The mean postoperative toric IOL misalignment measured by the slitlamp was 2.4° + 1.96° for the first group and was 4.33° + 2.72° for the second group (P = 0.003). Accurate alignment of the toric IOL is important to achieve the desired astigmatism correction. VERION system has the advantage of preoperative planning and intraoperative digital guidance of the toric IOL alignment. The use of VERION system resulted in less postoperative deviation from TIA and showed less postoperative toric IOL misalignment than using manual-marking technique.

Refractive cylinder outcomes after calculating toric intraocular lens cylinder power using total corneal refractive power

PURPOSE

To determine whether the total corneal refractive power (TCRP) value, which is based on measurement of both anterior and posterior corneal astigmatism, is effective for toric intraocular lens (IOL) calculation with AcrySof(®) Toric IOLs.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A consecutive series of cataract surgery cases with AcrySof toric IOL implantation was studied retrospectively. The IOLMaster(®) was used for calculation of IOL sphere, the Pentacam(®) TCRP 3.0 mm apex/ring value was used as the keratometry input to the AcrySof Toric IOL Calculator and the VERION™ Digital Marker for surgical orientation. The keratometry readings from the VERION reference unit were recorded but not used in the actual calculation. Vector differences between expected and actual residual refractive cylinder were calculated and compared to simulated vector errors using the collected VERION keratometry data.

RESULTS

In total, 83 eyes of 56 patients were analyzed. Residual refractive cylinder was 0.25 D or lower in 58% of eyes and 0.5 D or lower in 80% of eyes. The TCRP-based calculation resulted in a statistically significantly lower vector error (P<0.01) and significantly more eyes with a vector error ≤0.5 D relative to the VERION-based calculation (P=0.02). The TCRP and VERION keratometry readings suggested a different IOL toric power in 53/83 eyes. In these 53 eyes the TCRP vector error was lower in 28 cases, the VERION error was lower in five cases, and the error was equal in 20 cases. When the anterior cornea had with-the-rule astigmatism, the VERION was more likely to suggest a higher toric power and when the anterior cornea had against-the-rule astigmatism, the VERION was less likely to suggest a higher toric power.

CONCLUSION

Using the TCRP keratometry measurement in the AcrySof toric calculator may improve overall postoperative refractive results. Consideration of measured posterior corneal astigmatism, rather than a population-averaged value, appears advantageous.

Correction of low corneal astigmatism in cataract surgery

AIM

To evaluate and compare aspheric toric intraocular lens (IOL) implantation and aspheric monofocal IOL implantation with limbal relaxing incisions (LRI) to manage low corneal astigmatism (1.0-2.0 D) in cataract surgery.

METHODS

A prospective randomized comparative clinical study was performed. There were randomly recruited 102 eyes (102 patients) with cataracts associated with corneal astigmatism and divided into two groups. The first group received toric IOL implantation and the second one monofocal IOL implantation with peripheral corneal relaxing incisions. Outcomes considered were: visual acuity, postoperative residual astigmatism, endothelial cell count, the need for spectacles, and patient satisfaction. To determine the postoperative toric axis, all patients who underwent the toric IOL implantation were further evaluated using an OPD Scan III (Nidek Co, Japan). Follow-up lasted 6mo.

RESULTS

The mean uncorrected distance visual acuity (UCVA) and the best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) demonstrated statistically significant improvement after surgery in both groups. At the end of the follow-up the UCVA was statistically better in the patients with toric IOL implants compared to those patients who underwent implantation of monofocal IOL plus LRI. The mean residual refractive astigmatism was of 0.4 D for the toric IOL group and 1.1 D for the LRI group (P<0.01). No difference was observed in the postoperative endothelial cell count between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

The two surgical procedures demonstrated a significant decrease in refractive astigmatism. Toric IOL implantation was more effective and predictable compared to the limbal relaxing incision.

Vector Analysis of Corneal Astigmatism After Combined Femtosecond-Assisted Phacoemulsification and Arcuate Keratotomy

PURPOSE

To evaluate the outcomes of femtosecond-assisted arcuate keratotomy combined with cataract surgery in eyes with low to moderate corneal astigmatism.

DESIGN

Retrospective, interventional case series.

METHODS

This study included patients who underwent combined femtosecond-assisted phacoemulsification and arcuate keratotomy between March 2013 and August 2013. Keratometric astigmatism was evaluated before and 2 months after the surgery. Vector analysis of the astigmatic changes was performed using the Alpins method.

RESULTS

Overall, 54 eyes of 54 patients (18 male and 36 female; mean age, 68.8 ± 11.4 years) were included. The mean preoperative (target-induced astigmatism) and postoperative astigmatism was 1.33 ± 0.57 diopters (D) and 0.87 ± 0.56 D, respectively (P < .001). The magnitude of error (difference between surgically induced and target-induced astigmatism) (-0.13 ± 0.68 D), as well as the correction index (ratio of surgically induced and target-induced astigmatism) (0.86 ± 0.52), demonstrated slight undercorrection. The angle of error was very close to 0, indicating no significant systematic error of misaligned treatment. However, the absolute angle of error showed a less favorable range (17.5 ± 19.2 degrees), suggesting variable factors such as healing or alignment at an individual level. There were no intraoperative or postoperative complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined phacoemulsification with arcuate keratotomy using femtosecond laser appears to be a relatively easy and safe means for management of low to moderate corneal astigmatism in cataract surgery candidates. Misalignment at an individual level can reduce its effectiveness. This issue remains to be elucidated in future studies.

Comparative evaluation of aspheric toric intraocular lens implantation and limbal relaxing incisions in eyes with cataracts and ≤3 dioptres of astigmatism

PURPOSE

To compare the visual outcomes of aspheric toric intraocular lens (IOL) implantation and limbal relaxing incisions (LRI) for management of coexisting age-related cataracts and astigmatism.

METHODS

In this prospective study, sixty eyes of 60 patients with visually significant cataract and coexisting corneal astigmatism ≤3 dioptres (D) were randomised to undergo phacoemulsification with either aspheric toric IOL or aspheric monofocal IOL with LRI. The main outcome measures were postoperative 3-month uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), contrast sensitivity, rotational stability of the toric IOL and spectacle independence.

RESULTS

The postoperative UCVA, contrast sensitivity and refractive astigmatism were significantly better than the baseline measurements for both groups (p≤0.001). There was no significant difference detected for these parameters between LRI and toric IOL groups postoperatively (p≥0.119). At both postoperative month 1 and 3, the percentages of eyes in need of spectacles were lower in toric group than LRI group (p≤0.030). IOL misalignment was noted in three eyes in the toric IOL group (mean misalignment 7.67±4.04°). On vector analysis, magnitude of error (ME) was negative in the LRI group indicating undercorrection, whereas the ME was close to zero for toric group.

CONCLUSIONS

Both toric IOL implantation and LRI were effective in correcting corneal astigmatism ≤3 D during phacoemulsification, while LRI tended to undercorrect astigmatism.

The Results of Toric Intraocular Lens Implantation in Patients With Cataract and High Astigmatism After Penetrating Keratoplasty

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the results of toric intraocular lens (IOL) implantation in patients with cataract and postpenetrating keratoplasty astigmatism.

METHODS

Seven eyes of 7 patients with cataract and more than 3.5 diopters (D) astigmatism following penetrating keratoplasty were included in this retrospective case series study. All of the eyes underwent phacoemulsification and Acrysof toric IOL (t5-t9) implantation at least 6 months later than the complete suture removal. Corrected visual acuity (CVA), manifest astigmatism, the keratometry measurements, and complications were assessed.

RESULTS

The mean preoperative CVA significantly increased (0.7±0.3 [range: 0.3-1.3] logMAR to 0.1±0.04 [range: 0.05-0.15] logMAR; P<0.05) at mean 8.71±4.11 months after the surgery. The mean preoperative corneal astigmatism and the average manifest refractive astigmatism at the last visit were 5.4±0.9 D (range: 4.25-7 D) and 1.6±0.6 D (range: 0.5-2.5 D), respectively. The mean attempted cylinder correction at spectacle plane was 4.3±0.9 D (range: 2.4-4.7 D) whereas the mean cylinder correction was 4.6±0.5 D (range: 3.9-5.9 D), showing a slightly tendency for overcorrection. All eyes (100%) were within 1 D of predicted residual astigmatism. No complication occurred during the follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Toric IOL implantation seems to be an effective, predictable, and safe procedure in patients with cataract formation and high astigmatism after penetrating keratoplasty.

Corneal astigmatism analysis for toric intraocular lens implantation: precise measurements for perfect correction

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Corneal astigmatism is a common refractive error observed in a significant percentage of cataract patients. Accurate measurements of the preexisting corneal astigmatism are essential in order to achieve the desired refractive outcome after toric intraocular lens (IOL) implantation. This article presents a comprehensive review of recent published literatures on methods for measuring preoperative corneal astigmatism for toric IOL implantation.

RECENT FINDINGS

A variety of instruments has been introduced and used to measure the magnitude and meridian of corneal astigmatism during preoperative assessments of cataract patients. Instruments that consider both the anterior and posterior corneal surfaces as critical factors for measuring total corneal astigmatism are expected to provide better accuracy. Although these instruments facilitate improved evaluations of corneal astigmatism and have helped minimize postoperative residual astigmatism, a perfect method to analyze preoperative corneal astigmatism has not yet been established.

SUMMARY

Perfect correction of astigmatism after toric IOL implantation by using accurate corneal astigmatism values is the goal of this surgical procedure. To achieve this, correct and precise measurements of corneal astigmatism to determine the magnitude and meridian should be obtained.