Correction of pre-existing astigmatism with phacoemulsification using toric intraocular lens versus spherical intraocular lens and wave front guided surface ablation.
Astigmatism
Phacoemulsification
Spherical intraocular lens
Toric intraocular lens
Wave front guided surface ablation
Journal
BMC ophthalmology
ISSN: 1471-2415
Titre abrégé: BMC Ophthalmol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967802
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 Mar 2022
12 Mar 2022
Historique:
received:
11
11
2021
accepted:
07
03
2022
entrez:
13
3
2022
pubmed:
14
3
2022
medline:
16
3
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
This study aimed to evaluate toric intraocular lens to correct of pre-existing astigmatism at the time of phacoemulsification compared to using of spherical intraocular lens followed by wavefront guided surface ablation. The patients were classified into three groups: Group A with 20 eyes of 19 patients having phacoemulsification with spherical intraocular lens only as a control group, group B with 20 eyes of 14 patients had phacoemulsification with toric intraocular lens and group C with 20 eyes of 16 patients had phacoemulsification with spherical intraocular lens and wavefront guided PRK three months later. Comparison pre-operative data for all groups showed no statistically significant difference regarding UCVA, BCVA, MRSE, and refractive astigmatism (P>0.05). Post operatively, there was a statistically significant difference for UCVA, BCVA, MRSE, and refractive astigmatism for group A compared to group B (P<0.05) and group A compared to group C but there was no statistically significant difference for group B compared to C regarding all these parameters (P>0.05). In this study, we found similar effects for both techniques in astigmatism corrected groups while both differed from the control group that was not corrected. Correcting preexisting astigmatism during cataract surgery should be in mind in every case to improve visual outcomes. Longer period of follow up are required to evaluate stability of these techniques and possibility of regression.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
This study aimed to evaluate toric intraocular lens to correct of pre-existing astigmatism at the time of phacoemulsification compared to using of spherical intraocular lens followed by wavefront guided surface ablation.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The patients were classified into three groups: Group A with 20 eyes of 19 patients having phacoemulsification with spherical intraocular lens only as a control group, group B with 20 eyes of 14 patients had phacoemulsification with toric intraocular lens and group C with 20 eyes of 16 patients had phacoemulsification with spherical intraocular lens and wavefront guided PRK three months later. Comparison pre-operative data for all groups showed no statistically significant difference regarding UCVA, BCVA, MRSE, and refractive astigmatism (P>0.05). Post operatively, there was a statistically significant difference for UCVA, BCVA, MRSE, and refractive astigmatism for group A compared to group B (P<0.05) and group A compared to group C but there was no statistically significant difference for group B compared to C regarding all these parameters (P>0.05).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
In this study, we found similar effects for both techniques in astigmatism corrected groups while both differed from the control group that was not corrected. Correcting preexisting astigmatism during cataract surgery should be in mind in every case to improve visual outcomes. Longer period of follow up are required to evaluate stability of these techniques and possibility of regression.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35279107
doi: 10.1186/s12886-022-02347-5
pii: 10.1186/s12886-022-02347-5
pmc: PMC8917725
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
114Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Zhonghua Yan Ke Za Zhi. 2010 Dec;46(12):1090-4
pubmed: 21211222
Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2009 Jan;20(1):19-24
pubmed: 19077825
Ophthalmic Surg Lasers. 1999 May;30(5):341-9
pubmed: 10334020
Eye Vis (Lond). 2014 Oct 16;1:2
pubmed: 26605349
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009 Oct;35(10):1834-5
pubmed: 19781484
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002 Feb;28(2):295-301
pubmed: 11821213
Ophthalmology. 2010 Nov;117(11):2104-11
pubmed: 20846724
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008 Apr;34(4):562-9
pubmed: 18361976
J Refract Surg. 2009 Oct;25(10):899-901
pubmed: 19835331
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010 Oct;36(10):1700-8
pubmed: 20870116
Arch Ophthalmol. 2011 Aug;129(8):1004-8
pubmed: 21825184
Am J Ophthalmol. 2005 Jan;139(1):64-71
pubmed: 15652829
J Cataract Refract Surg. 1999 Nov;25(11):1456-60
pubmed: 10569159
J Refract Surg. 2013 Oct;29(10):676-83
pubmed: 23991761
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2015 Jun;41(6):1289-99
pubmed: 26096522
J Biomech Eng. 2006 Feb;128(1):150-60
pubmed: 16532629
Am J Ophthalmol. 2015 Sep;160(3):479-486.e2
pubmed: 26095261
J Refract Surg. 1999 May-Jun;15(3):299-308
pubmed: 10367571
Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2003 Feb;14(1):35-8
pubmed: 12544808
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2014 May;40(5):741-7
pubmed: 24684966
JAMA Ophthalmol. 2014 Dec;132(12):1462-8
pubmed: 25256624
Int J Ophthalmol. 2018 Apr 18;11(4):612-615
pubmed: 29675379
J Cataract Refract Surg. 1994 Sep;20(5):523-6
pubmed: 7996408
Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2014 Jul;25(4):291-7
pubmed: 24865171