Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Jun;43(6):781-788.
doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2017.03.041.

Image-guided system versus manual marking for toric intraocular lens alignment in cataract surgery

Affiliations

Image-guided system versus manual marking for toric intraocular lens alignment in cataract surgery

Valentijn S C Webers et al. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2017 Jun.

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the accuracy of toric intraocular lens (IOL) alignment using the Verion Image-Guided System versus a conventional manual ink-marking procedure.

Setting: University Eye Clinic Maastricht, Maastricht, the Netherlands.

Design: Prospective randomized clinical trial.

Methods: Eyes with regular corneal astigmatism of at least 1.25 diopters (D) that required cataract surgery and toric IOL implantation (Acrysof SN6AT3-T9) were randomly assigned to the image-guided group or the manual-marking group. The primary outcome was the alignment of the toric IOL based on preoperative images and images taken immediately after surgery. Secondary outcome measures were residual astigmatism, uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), and complications.

Results: The study enrolled 36 eyes (24 patients). The mean toric IOL misalignment was significantly less in the image-guided group than in the manual group 1 hour (1.3 degrees ± 1.6 [SD] versus 2.8 ± 1.8 degrees; P = .02) and 3 months (1.7 ± 1.5 degrees versus 3.1 ± 2.1 degrees; P < .05) postoperatively. The mean residual refractive cylinder was -0.36 ± 0.32 D and -0.47 ± 0.28 D in the image-guided group and manual group, respectively (P > .05). The mean UDVA was 0.03 ± 0.10 logarithm of minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) and 0.04 ± 0.09 logMAR, respectively (both P > .05). No intraoperative complications occurred during any surgery.

Conclusion: The IOL misalignment was significantly less with digital marking than with manual marking; this did not result in a better UDVA or lower residual refractive astigmatism.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types