TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of clinical outcomes among 3 marking methods for toric intraocular lens implantation
AU - Onishi, Hideyuki
AU - Torii, Hidemasa
AU - Watanabe, Kazuhiro
AU - Tsubota, Kazuo
AU - Negishi, Kazuno
PY - 2016/3/9
Y1 - 2016/3/9
N2 - Purpose: To compare the clinical outcomes of 3 marking methods for toric intraocular lens (IOL) implantation in cataract patients. Methods: This study included 48 eyes of 48 cataract patients who underwent cataract surgery with toric IOL implantation. The rotational errors of 3 marking methods—the iris pattern marking method (iris pattern group), the pendulum marking method (pendulum group), and the 3-point marking method (3-point group)—were assessed. Results: The respective rotational errors were 4.0° ± 3.1° (mean ± SD), 5.3° ± 4.1°, and 7.3° ± 6.0°. The iris pattern group had significantly (P = 0.048) smaller rotational errors than did the 3-point group; no significant difference was found between the iris pattern and pendulum groups. However, the differences in postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity and astigmatism did not reach significance among the 3 groups. Conclusion: The refractive and visual results of toric IOL implantation using the 3-point marking method were comparable to the other methods evaluated in this study, although the accuracy of the axis alignment of the toric IOLs was significantly lower than that obtained with the iris pattern method.
AB - Purpose: To compare the clinical outcomes of 3 marking methods for toric intraocular lens (IOL) implantation in cataract patients. Methods: This study included 48 eyes of 48 cataract patients who underwent cataract surgery with toric IOL implantation. The rotational errors of 3 marking methods—the iris pattern marking method (iris pattern group), the pendulum marking method (pendulum group), and the 3-point marking method (3-point group)—were assessed. Results: The respective rotational errors were 4.0° ± 3.1° (mean ± SD), 5.3° ± 4.1°, and 7.3° ± 6.0°. The iris pattern group had significantly (P = 0.048) smaller rotational errors than did the 3-point group; no significant difference was found between the iris pattern and pendulum groups. However, the differences in postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity and astigmatism did not reach significance among the 3 groups. Conclusion: The refractive and visual results of toric IOL implantation using the 3-point marking method were comparable to the other methods evaluated in this study, although the accuracy of the axis alignment of the toric IOLs was significantly lower than that obtained with the iris pattern method.
KW - Axis marking
KW - Refractive visual outcomes
KW - Toric intraocular lens
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84960091725&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84960091725&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s10384-016-0432-6
DO - 10.1007/s10384-016-0432-6
M3 - Article
C2 - 26960558
AN - SCOPUS:84960091725
SP - 1
EP - 8
JO - Japanese Journal of Ophthalmology
JF - Japanese Journal of Ophthalmology
SN - 0021-5155
ER -