RESUMO
Purpose: To evaluate whether the toric intra?ocular lens (IOL) power calculation based on total corneal astigmatism (TCA) in eyes with high posterior corneal astigmatism (PCA) could result in a systematic over?correction or under?correction after operation. Methods: The present study included a mono?centric retrospective study design. The data were collected from 62 consecutive eyes during uncomplicated cataract surgery by a single surgeon with a measured PCA of 0.50 diopters (D) or higher. Toric IOL calculations were made using TCA measurements. The eyes were grouped as either “with?the?rule” (WTR) or “against?the?rule” (ATR) on the basis of the steep anterior corneal meridian. The post?operative refractive astigmatic prediction error was analyzed 1 month post?operatively using the vector analysis by the Alpins method and double?angle plots method. Results: The correction indexes were 1.14 ± 0.29 in the ATR eyes and 1.25 ± 0.18 for the WTR eyes, indicating a tendency toward over?correction. The mean over?correction was 0.22 ± 0.52D in the ATR group and 0.65 ± 0.60D in the WTR group. The magnitude of error (ME) values were significantly different from the ideal value of zero in both groups (ATR: P = 0.03; WTR: P = 0.00). No significant difference in mean absolute error (MAE) in predicted residual astigmatism was found between ATR and WTR groups (0.61 ± 0.42 D versus 0.64 ± 0.39 D; P = 0.54). The ATR group yielded better results, with 48% <0.50D prediction error in the main analysis. Conclusions: The results suggested that in cases of high PCA, the toric IOL calculation, which was performed using TCA, may cause a potential over?correction in the ATR and WTR eyes. For ATR eyes, over?correction led to slight disruption of post?operative visual quality because of the “with?the?rule” residual astigmatism after operation. Therefore, we suggested using TCA for toric IOL calculation in ATR eyes.
RESUMO
Purpose: To evaluate a method using measured values of total corneal refractive power (TCRP) for a manufacturer’s online calculator by comparing it with the Barrett toric calculator (BTC) and Kane toric calculator (KTC) combined with simulated keratometry values (SimK). Methods: This was a retrospective case series. Patient records were reviewed to identify the patients who had biometry with the IOL Master 700 and Pentacam recorded before toric IOL implantation and refractive follow?up data after implantation. The predicted error in residual astigmatism was calculated by vector analysis according to the calculation methods and the measurements used. Results: A total of 70 eyes of 56 patients were included. The mean absolute astigmatism prediction errors were 0.6 ± 0.32, 0.59 ± 0.35, and 0.61 ± 0.35 D for the ATCTCRP, BTCSimK, and KTCSimK calculators, respectively (P = 0.934), and the centroid of the prediction errors were 0.3 D @ 178°, 0.11 D @ 102°, and 0.09 D @ 147°, respectively (P = 0.23). In the with?the?rule subgroup, the centroid of the prediction error was 0.34 D @ 176° for ATCTCRP and was the highest among the three calculation methods (P = 0.046). Conclusion: The ATCTCRP, BTCSimK, and KTCSimK calculators had similar performance with regards to their astigmatism prediction accuracy. The ATCTCRP calculator combined with 4.0?mm apex/ ring readings of TCRP was slightly intended to result in against?the?rule residual astigmatism.