Toric Intraocular Lens Results Considering Posterior Corneal Astigmatism with Online Calculators: Phacoemulsification vs. Femtosecond

To evaluate the prediction error (PE) obtained in Phacoemulsification (Phaco) or Femtosecond (Femto) surgeries without considering posterior corneal astigmatism correction (non-PCA) versus the correction based on Abulafia-Koch + Medicontur (AK) and Barrett calculators in toric intraocular lens (IOL)...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Optics 2021-09, Vol.2 (3), p.184-192
Main Authors: Fernández, Joaquín, Rodríguez-Vallejo, Manuel, Burguera, Noemí, Salvestrini, Patrizia, Garzón, Nuria
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Cataracts
Cornea
Eye surgery
femtosecond
Patients
phacoemulsification
posterior corneal astigmatism
prediction error
toric intraocular lens
Variables
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:To evaluate the prediction error (PE) obtained in Phacoemulsification (Phaco) or Femtosecond (Femto) surgeries without considering posterior corneal astigmatism correction (non-PCA) versus the correction based on Abulafia-Koch + Medicontur (AK) and Barrett calculators in toric intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation. 58 right eyes were retrospectively retrieved from our database. Two groups formed by 28 and 30 eyes depending on the surgery type, Phaco or Femto respectively, were defined. Astigmatism PE were evaluated considering the approach used for calculation of the implanted IOL power (AK) versus the estimation of PEs in non-PCA and Barrett formula. A doubly-multivariate analysis was conducted to assess the differences between-surgery types, within-methods of calculation, and interaction. Mean centroid PE was significantly different between non-PCA, AK and Barrett approaches (p < 0.0005), and neither differences (p < 0.239) nor interaction (p = 0.672) between Phaco or Femto were found. Post-hoc univariate analysis showed a higher PE for the x-component of the non-PCA method versus AK (0.15 D, p < 0.0005) and non-PCA versus Barrett (0.18 D, p < 0.0005), though no differences were found between AK and Barrett (0.03 D, p = 0.93). Against-the-rule under-correction and with-the-rule overcorrection were found in both arms when PCA was not considered. Both calculators provide comparable clinical results.
ISSN:2673-3269
2673-3269
DOI:10.3390/opt2030017