Comparison of two different methods of preoperative marking for toric intraocular lens implantation: bubble marker versus pendulum marker
Author:
  • Article
  • | |
  • Metrics
  • |
  • Reference [14]
  • |
  • Related [20]
  • | | |
  • Comments
    Abstract:

    AIM: To compare the accuracy of two different methods of preoperative marking for toric intraocular lens (IOL) implantation, bubble marker versus pendulum marker, as a means of establishing the reference point for the final alignment of the toric IOL to achieve an outcome as close as possible to emmetropia. METHODS: Toric IOLs were implanted in 180 eyes of 110 patients. One group (55 patients) had preoperative marking of both eyes done with bubble marker (ASICO AE-2791TBL) and the other group (55 patients) with pendulum marker (Rumex(3-193). Reference marks were placed at 3-, 6-, and 9-o'clock positions on the limbus. Slit-lamp photographs were analyzed using Adobe Photoshop (version 7.0). Amount of alignment error (in degrees) induced in each group was measured. RESULTS: Mean absolute rotation error in the preoperative marking in the horizontal axis was 2.42±1.71 in the bubble marker group and 2.83±2.31in the pendulum marker group (P=0.501). Sixty percent of the pendulum group and 70% of the bubble group had rotation error ≤3 (P=0.589), and 90% eyes of the pendulum group and 96.7% of the bubble group had rotation error ≤5 (P=0.612). CONCLUSION: Both preoperative marking techniques result in approximately 3 of alignment error. Both marking techniques are simple, predictable, reproducible and easy to perform.

    Reference
    1 Shimizu K, Misawa A, Suzuki Y. Toric intraocular lenses: correcting astigmatism while controlling axis shift. J Cataract Refract Surg 1994;20(5):523-526.
    2 Visser N, Berendschot TT, Bauer NJ, Jurich J, Kersting O, Nuijts RM. Accuracy of toric intraocular lens implantation in cataract and refractive surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 2011;37(8):1394-1402.
    3 Lane SS. The Acrysof toric IOL’s FDA trial results. Cataract & Refractive Surgery Today 2006;5:66-68.
    4 Crespo Bordonaba M, Alvarez-Rementería Fernandez L. Marking the axis for toric IOL implantation. Cataract & Refractive Surgery Today 2009;7:27-28.
    5 Graether JM. Simplified system of marking the cornea for a toric intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 2009;35(9):1498-1500.
    6 Osher RH. Iris fingerprinting: new method for improving accuracy in toric lens orientation. J Cataract Refract Surg 2010;36(2):351-352.
    7 Packer M. Effect ofintraoperativeaberrometryon the rate of postoperative enhancement: retrospective study. J Cataract Refract Surg 2010;36(5):747-755.
    8 Arba-Mosquera S, Merayo-Lloves J, de Ortueta D. Clinical effects of pure cyclotorsional errors during refractive surgery. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2008;49(11):4828-4836.
    9 Chernyak DA. Cyclotorsional eye motion occurring between wavefront measurement and refractive surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 2004;30(3):633-638.
    10 Swami AU, Steinert RF, Osborne WE, White AA. Rotationalmalposition during laser in situ keratomileusis. Am J Ophthalmol 2002;133(4):561-562.
    11 Popp N, Hirnschall N, Maedel S, Findl O. Evaluation of 4 corneal astigmatic marking methods. J Cataract Refract Surg 2012;38(12):2094-2099.
    12 Chang DF. Pearls on implanting the Staar toric IOL. Br J Ophthalmol 2001;85:1-126.
    13 Cha D, Kang SY, Kim SH, Song JS, Kim HM. New axis- marking method for a toric intraocular lens: mapping method. J Refreact Surg 2011;27(5):375-379.
    14 Farooqui JH, Sharma M, Koul A, Dutta R, Shroff NM. Evaluation of a new electronic pre-operative reference marker for toric IOL implantation by two different methods of analysis: Adobe photoshop versus iTrace. Adv Ophthalmol Vis Syst 2015;2(5):00057.
    Cited by
    Comments
    Comments
    分享到微博
    Submit
Get Citation

Javed Hussain Farooqui, Archana Koul, Ranjan Dutta,/et al.Comparison of two different methods of preoperative marking for toric intraocular lens implantation: bubble marker versus pendulum marker. Int J Ophthalmol, 2016,9(5):703-706

Copy
Share
Article Metrics
  • Abstract:1347
  • PDF: 657
  • HTML: 312
  • Cited by: 0
Publication History
  • Received:March 03,2015
  • Revised:July 21,2015
  • Online: May 23,2016