Toric intraocular lens outcomes with a new protocol for IOL selection and implantation

Clinical outcomes and rotational stability after implantation of a monofocal toric intraocular lens with textured haptics in normal vs high axial lengths

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical outcomes and rotational stability after implantation of a toric intraocular lens (IOL) with textured haptics in eyes with normal vs high axial lengths (ALs).

SETTING

Nethradhama Superspeciality Eye Hospital, Bangalore, India.

DESIGN

2-arm, retrospective comparative study.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 114 eyes of 114 patients who underwent femtolaser cataract surgery followed by implantation of the HOYA Vivinex Toric monofocal IOL (Model XY1A-SP), of which 62 and 52 eyes belonged to normal (≤23.9 mm) and high (≥24 mm) AL groups, respectively. 1 week and 3 months postoperatively, clinical outcomes and rotational stability of the toric IOL was evaluated.

RESULTS

3 months postoperatively, % eyes achieving refractive astigmatism accuracy within ≤0.50 diopter, was 100% (n = 62) in the normal vs 94% (n = 49) in the high AL group. All eyes that is, 100% (n = 62) in the normal and 96.15% (n = 50) eyes in the high myopia group were <5 degrees of the intended axis. The mean change in postoperative rotation from 1 week to 3 months was 0.28 ± 0.09 degrees in the normal, and 0.30 ± 1.11 degrees in the high AL group ( P = .80). No significant correlation was observed between AL and white-to-white diameter with 1-week postoperative rotation values. No eye required repositioning of toric IOL for significant misalignment.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant differences were observed for clinical outcomes and postoperative rotational stability between eyes with normal and high ALs, suggesting excellent rotational stability of the Vivinex Toric IOL with textured haptics in all eyes, irrespective of the preoperative AL measurements.

Short-term clinical results with a trifocal diffractive toric intraocular lens using an optimized preoperative and intraoperative protocol

PURPOSE

To evaluate the short-term clinical outcomes of a specific toric diffractive trifocal intraocular lens (IOL) implanted following an optimized clinical protocol in a large population.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 337 eyes of 231 patients (mean age, 62.2 years) undergoing cataract surgery with implantation of the trifocal diffractive IOL AT.LISA tri toric 939M/MP (Carl Zeiss Meditec). A strict and careful clinical protocol was followed, including an accurate measurement of corneal astigmatism, use of a latest generation IOL power calculator, photography-based method intraoperative control of IOL alignment and IOL reposition at 1 week postoperatively if needed. Clinical outcomes in terms of visual acuity, refraction, efficacy of astigmatic correction analysed by vector analysis and patient satisfaction were evaluated during a 3-month follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 82% and 98% of eyes achieved a postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity of 0.00 and 0.10 logMAR or better, respectively. Furthermore, 99.7%, and 100.0% of eyes showed a postoperative spherical equivalent within ± 0.50 D and ± 1.00 D, with 97.9% of eyes having a postoperative cylinder ≤ 0.50 D. Uncorrected near and intermediate visual acuities were 0.2 logMAR or better in 89.0% and 99.1% of eyes, respectively. Mean difference vector, magnitude of error and angle of error were 0.02  ±  0.14 D, 0.02  ±  0.13 D and 0.11  ±  1.18°. Patient satisfaction was referred as high or very high by 97.6% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The implantation of the trifocal toric IOL evaluated following a careful clinical protocol provides an efficacious visual rehabilitation and astigmatic correction, leading to high levels of patient satisfaction.

A Review of Smartphone Apps Used for Toric Intraocular Lens Calculation and Alignment

Smartphone apps are becoming increasingly popular in ophthalmology, one specific area of their application being toric intraocular lens (IOL) surgery for astigmatism correction. Our objective was to identify, review and objectively score smartphone apps applicable to toric IOL calculation and/or axis alignment. This review was divided into three phases. A review was conducted on four major app databases (phase I): National Health Service (NHS) Apps Library, Google Play Store, Apple App Store and Amazon Appstore. A systematic literature review (phase II) was conducted to identify studies for included apps in phase I of our study. Keywords used in both searches included: “toric lens”, “toric IOL”, “refraction”, “astigmatism”, “ophthalmology”, “eye calculator”, “ophthalmology calculator” and “refractive calculator”. Included apps were objectively scored (phase III) by three independent reviewers using the mobile app rating scale (MARS), a validated tool that ranks the quality of mobile health apps using a calculated mean app quality (MAQ) score. Phase I of our study screened 2428 smartphone apps, of which six apps for toric IOL calculation and four apps for axis marking were eligible and were selected for quantitative analysis. Phase II of our study screened 477 studies from PubMed, Medline and Google Scholar. Three studies validating two apps (toriCAM, iToric Patwardhan) in a clinical setting as adjunct tools for preoperative axis marking were identified. Phase III ranked Toric Calculator for iPhone (Apple iOS, MAQ 4.13; average MAQ 3.34 ± 0.54) as the highest-scoring toric IOL calculator, and iToric Patwardhan (Android OS, MAQ 4.13; average MAQ 3.41 ± 0.44) was the highest-scoring axis marker in our study. Our review identified and objectively scored ten smartphone apps available for toric IOL surgery adjuncts. Toric Calculator for iPhone and iToric Patwardhan were the highest-scoring toric IOL calculator and axis marker, respectively. Current literature, though limited, suggests that axis marking smartphone apps can achieve similar levels of misalignment reduction when compared to digital systems.

Astigmatism Management with Astigmatism-Correcting Intraocular Lens Using Two Toric Calculators - A Comparative Case Series

Background

To compare refractive outcomes after phacoemulsification and toric IOL implantation using two different toric calculators for initial astigmatism assessment in a real-world setting.

Methods

This was a retrospective, comparative, interventional case series. Patients over 30-year-old who underwent phacoemulsification and toric IOL implantation (AcrySof^® Toric IOL) by the same surgeon between 2017 and 2018 were included. Eyes with irregular astigmatism, previous corneal refractive surgery, intraocular surgery, corneal pathology, macular pathology and pupil abnormalities were excluded. IOL toricity was determined by using a calculator provided by the AcrySof Toric calculator before 2018 and Barrett Toric Calculator after 2018. Patient demographics, corneal topography, vector and preoperative and postoperative refraction were collected and analyzed at three months postoperative.

Results

Thirty-two eyes of 32 patients were included in the final analysis. 0.1D for surgically induced astigmatism was used. Group 1 included 14 eyes assessed with the original (AcrySof) toric IOL calculator, and group 2 included 18 eyes assessed with the Barrett toric IOL calculator. In group 1, postoperative astigmatism less than −1.00D, −0.75 D, and −0.5D was achieved in 88.2%, 76.1% and 53.7% of eyes, respectively, while, in group 2, 89% eyes achieved postoperative residual astigmatism less than 0.5D and all eyes achieved postoperative residual astigmatism less than 0.75D. The proportion of patients with lower postoperative astigmatism was significantly higher in Group 2 (p< 0.05 by chi-square test), a pattern that still held when we divided patients into multiple groups. Vector analysis with the Alpins methods also supported better outcomes in the Barrett group (0.71 D vs 0.35 D).

Conclusion

The Barrett Toric calculator resulted in better results in the prediction of residual astigmatism than original (AcrySof) toric calculators.