Back to Journals » Clinical Ophthalmology » Volume 13

Predictability of different calculators in the minimization of postoperative astigmatism after implantation of a toric intraocular lens

Authors Ribeiro FJ, Ferreira TB, Relha C, Esteves C, Gaspar S

Received 23 April 2019

Accepted for publication 1 August 2019

Published 29 August 2019 Volume 2019:13 Pages 1649—1656

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S213132

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single-blind

Peer reviewers approved by Dr Melinda Thomas

Peer reviewer comments 2

Editor who approved publication: Dr Scott Fraser


Filomena J Ribeiro,1,2 Tiago B Ferreira,1,3 Catarina Relha,1 Carina Esteves,1 Sylvia Gaspar1

1Ophthalmology Department, Luz Hospital, Lisbon, Portugal; 2Faculdade De Medicina Da Universidade De Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal; 3NOVA Medical School, Lisbon, Portugal

Correspondence: Filomena J Ribeiro
Luz Hospital, Avenida Lusíada 100, Lisbon 1500-650, Portugal
Tel +351 21 710 4400
Email tiagoferreira@netcabo.pt

Purpose: To assess the efficacy of five calculators for toric intraocular lenses (IOL).
Methods: Retrospective comparative case series in cataract patients undergoing implantation of trifocal toric IOLs (PhysIOL FineVision POD FT). Inclusion criteria were age-related cataract and a corneal astigmatism between 0.90D and 4.50D. Refractive astigmatism predictability of five different toric calculators or calculation methods were compared. Furthermore, two groups were differentiated according to the type of astigmatism. The mean absolute error and the centroid errors in the predicted residual astigmatism from each calculator were evaluated.
Results: Fifty-one eyes of 43 patients were included in the study. For the standard toric calculator using anterior keratometry values only, the centroid prediction error was 0.39D±0.41@166º, which was reduced by the application of the PhysIOL toric calculator that includes the Abulafia-Koch regression formula and adjustment for the effective lens position (0.05D±0.34@167º), and also by the application of the Barrett toric calculator (0.07D±0.28@160º). Regarding the techniques that directly evaluate posterior corneal surface, the Holladay toric calculator, using total corneal power provided by a color-LED topographer, generated better results (0.10D±0.44@156º) than those using Scheimpflug camera data (0.23D±0.56@158º). Similar results were found for both types of astigmatism.
Conclusion: The PhysIOL and the Barrett toric calculators taking into account the posterior corneal astigmatism by mathematical models, yielded lower astigmatic prediction errors compared to a standard toric calculator based on anterior keratometry data only. When total corneal power measurements were used, prediction errors were lower with color-LED than with Scheimpflug based topography.

Keywords: astigmatism, toric IOL, toric IOL calculation


Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

Download Article [PDF]  View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]