Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Toric IOL positioning with a no-touch head-up display axis alignment

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To compare a new no-touch alignment technique for toric intraocular lenses (IOL) with the conventional technique that uses a manual pendulum.

Methods

In this retrospective case–control study, patients who underwent toric IOL implantation using two different alignment techniques (digital Callisto® system vs. manual-pendulum-based marking) were compared in a vector analysis using the Alpins method and an analysis of variance regarding corrected and uncorrected visual acuity and the deviation of the achieved IOL axis from the targeted axis.

Results

Sixty-one eyes were included into analysis. Thirty-six of these surgeries were performed via the Callisto® system and 25 eyes via pendulum-based corneal markings. Median IOL axis misalignment was 3° in both groups. Median uncorrected distance visual acuity was 0.097 logMAR versus 0.200. Median best-corrected visual acuity was 0.000 logMAR versus 0.097. All these data were below the range of statistical significance (p > 0.05). Vector analysis showed no significant difference for TIA [median of 3.14 diopters (D) vs. 2.73 D], SIA (median of 3.82 D vs. 3.79 D), DV (1.18 D vs. 1.08 D), and CI (1.23 vs. 1.29). Median angle of error was 1.96° versus − 0.44° (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

We found no significant difference in the refractive results, the IOL positioning, and the best-corrected and uncorrected distance visual acuity between the two compared methods. Nevertheless, the Callisto® IOL alignment system delivers a standardized and easy-to-use technology. In particular, less-experienced surgeons might benefit from this marking technique.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hoffmann PC, Hütz WW (2010) Analysis of biometry and prevalence data for corneal astigmatism in 23,239 eyes. J Cataract Refract Surg 36:1479–1485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Alió JL, Soria F, Abbouda A, Peña-García P (2015) Laser in situ keratomileusis for −6.00 to −18.00 diopters of myopia and up to −5.00 diopters of astigmatism: 15-year follow-up. J Cataract Refract Surg 41:33–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Hirnschall N, Gangwani V, Crnej A, Koshy J, Maurino V, Findl O (2014) Correction of moderate corneal astigmatism during cataract surgery: toric intraocular lens versus peripheral corneal relaxing incisions. J Cataract Refract Surg 40:354–361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kessel L, Andresen J, Tendal B, Erngaard D, Flesner P, Hjortdal J (2016) Toric intraocular lenses in the correction of astigmatism during cataract surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ophthalmology 123:275–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Dick HB, Krummenauer F, Tröber L (2006) Ausgleich des kornealen Astigmatismus mit torischer Intraokularlinse: ergebnisse der Multicenterstudie. Klin Monatsblätter Für Augenheilkd 223:593–608

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Shah S, Peris-Martinez C, Reinhard T, Vinciguerra P (2015) Visual outcomes after cataract surgery: multifocal versus monofocal intraocular lenses. J Refract Surg 31:658–666

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Visser N, Berendschot TTJM, Bauer NJC, Jurich J, Kersting O, Nuijts RMMA (2011) Accuracy of toric intraocular lens implantation in cataract and refractive surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 37:1394–1402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kwartz J, Edwards K (2010) Evaluation of the long-term rotational stability of single-piece, acrylic intraocular lenses. Br J Ophthalmol 94:1003–1006

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Weinand F, Jung A, Stein A, Pfützner A, Becker R, Pavlovic S (2007) Rotational stability of a single-piece hydrophobic acrylic intraocular lens: new method for high-precision rotation control. J Cataract Refract Surg 33:800–803

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Visser N, Bauer NJC, Nuijts RMMA (2013) Toric intraocular lenses: historical overview, patient selection, IOL calculation, surgical techniques, clinical outcomes, and complications. J Cataract Refract Surg 39:624–637

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Popp N, Hirnschall N, Maedel S, Findl O (2012) Evaluation of 4 corneal astigmatic marking methods. J Cataract Refract Surg 38:2094–2099

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Woo YJ, Lee H, Kim HS, Kim EK, Seo KY, Kim T (2015) Comparison of 3 marking techniques in preoperative assessment of toric intraocular lenses using a wavefront aberrometer. J Cataract Refract Surg 41:1232–1240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Alpins N (2001) Astigmatism analysis by the Alpins method. J Cataract Refract Surg 27:31–49

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Alpins NA (1993) A new method of analyzing vectors for changes in astigmatism. J Cataract Refract Surg 19:524–533

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. R Core Team (2019) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. https://www.R-project.org

  16. Hasegawa Y, Okamoto F, Nakano S, Hiraoka T, Oshika T (2013) Effect of preoperative corneal astigmatism orientation on results with a toric intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 39:1846–1851

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Holland E, Lane S, Horn JD, Ernest P, Arleo R, Miller KM (2010) The AcrySof Toric intraocular lens in subjects with cataracts and corneal astigmatism: a randomized, subject-masked, parallel-group, 1-year study. Ophthalmology 117:2104–2111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Elhofi AH, Helaly HA (2015) Comparison between digital and manual marking for toric intraocular lenses. Medicine (Baltimore) 94:e1618. https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000001618

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Villegas EA, Alcón E, Artal P (2014) Minimum amount of astigmatism that should be corrected. J Cataract Refract Surg 40:13–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Alió JL, Piñero DP, Tomás J, Alesón A (2011) Vector analysis of astigmatic changes after cataract surgery with toric intraocular lens implantation. J Cataract Refract Surg 37:1038–1049

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Koch DD, Jenkins RB, Weikert MP, Yeu E, Wang L (2013) Correcting astigmatism with toric intraocular lenses: effect of posterior corneal astigmatism. J Cataract Refract Surg 39:1803–1809

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Savini G, Næser K (2015) An analysis of the factors influencing the residual refractive astigmatism after cataract surgery with toric intraocular lenses. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 56:827–835

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Visser N, Nuijts RMMA, de Vries NE, Bauer NJC (2011) Visual outcomes and patient satisfaction after cataract surgery with toric multifocal intraocular lens implantation. J Cataract Refract Surg 37:2034–2042

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding was received for this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Eye Center, Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Killianstrasse 5, 79106, Freiburg, Germany

    J. Luebke, D. Boehringer, P. Maier & T. Reinhard

  2. Augencentrum Rosenheim, Rosenheim, Germany

    P. Eberwein

Authors
  1. J. Luebke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. D. Boehringer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. P. Maier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. T. Reinhard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. P. Eberwein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Luebke.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the local ethics committee of the University of Freiburg (vote no. 432/16) and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was not needed due to the retrospective nature of the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Luebke, J., Boehringer, D., Maier, P. et al. Toric IOL positioning with a no-touch head-up display axis alignment. Int Ophthalmol 40, 617–626 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-019-01222-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-019-01222-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation