当前位置: X-MOL 学术J Cataract Refract Surg › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Comparison of toric intraocular lens alignment error with different toric markers.
Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery ( IF 2.6 ) Pub Date : 2019-11-01 , DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2019.06.013
Lior Lipsky 1 , Graham Barrett 2
Affiliation  

PURPOSE To compare the error in intraocular lens (IOL) toric alignment of 2 toric markers. SETTING Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Perth, Western Australia, Australia. DESIGN Retrospective case series. METHODS Two consecutive groups of patients had cataract surgery with implantation of an AcrySof SN6A toric IOL (versions T2-T8) by the same surgeon at 2 public hospitals. The only difference in the toric alignment method between the groups was the toric maker used (Group 1: Barrett dual axis toric marker; Group 2: Mendez gauge). A mobile phone application (toriCAM) was used in both groups to determine the reference meridian. The primary outcome measure was the error in toric IOL alignment in degrees at 1 month. The secondary outcome measure was the percentage of eyes achieving a manifest refraction astigmatism within ±0.50 diopter (D) at 1 month. RESULTS Seventy-two eyes of 56 patients were included (Group 1: 36 eyes of 35 patients; Group 2: 36 eyes of 25 patients). The mean absolute toric alignment error (intended versus achieved axis of alignment) was 4.0 degrees ± 2.9 (SD) in Group 1 and 8.4 ± 6.5 degrees in Group 2 (P = .0015). Twenty-nine eyes (80.6%) in Group 1 and 21 eyes (53.8%) in Group 2 achieved a manifest refractive astigmatism of 0.50 D or less (P < .05). CONCLUSION Toric IOL alignment using the mobile phone application was more accurate with the Barrett dual axis toric marker than with the commonly used Mendez gauge, with a significantly higher percentage of eyes achieving a manifest refraction astigmatism within ±0.50 D.

中文翻译:

不同复曲面标记物的复曲面人工晶状体对准误差的比较。

目的比较两种复曲面标记物在人工晶状体(IOL)复曲面对准中的误差。地点澳大利亚西澳大利亚州珀斯的查尔斯·盖尔德纳爵士医院。设计回顾案系列。方法连续两组患者由同一位外科医生在2家公立医院进行了白内障手术,并植入了AcrySof SN6A复曲面IOL(版本T2-T8)。两组之间的复曲面对齐方式唯一不同是使用的复曲面制作器(第1组:Barrett双轴复曲面标记器;第2组:Mendez量规)。两组均使用手机应用程序(toriCAM)确定参考子午线。主要结局指标是1个月时复曲面IOL对准度的误差(以度为单位)。次要结果指标是在1个月时出现屈光散光的眼睛百分比在±0.50屈光度(D)之内。结果纳入56例患者的72眼(第1组:35例患者的36眼;第2组:25例患者的36眼)。第一组的平均绝对复曲面对准误差(预期值与实现的对准轴)为4.0度±2.9(SD),第二组为8.4±6.5度(P = 0.0015)。第1组的29眼(80.6%)和第2组的21眼(53.8%)实现了0.50 D或更低的明显屈光散光(P <.05)。结论使用Barrett双轴复曲面标记仪进行移动电话应用的复曲面IOL对准要比常用的Mendez量规更准确,并且在±0.50 D以内的明显屈光散光的眼睛比例要高得多。第一组的平均绝对复曲面对准误差(预期值与实现的对准轴)为4.0度±2.9(SD),第二组为8.4±6.5度(P = 0.0015)。第1组的29眼(80.6%)和第2组的21眼(53.8%)实现了0.50 D或更低的明显屈光散光(P <.05)。结论使用Barrett双轴复曲面标记仪进行移动电话应用的复曲面IOL对准要比常用的Mendez量规更准确,并且在±0.50 D以内的明显屈光散光的眼睛比例要高得多。第一组的平均绝对复曲面对准误差(预期值与实现的对准轴)为4.0度±2.9(SD),第二组为8.4±6.5度(P = 0.0015)。第1组的29眼(80.6%)和第2组的21眼(53.8%)实现了0.50 D或更低的明显屈光散光(P <.05)。结论使用Barrett双轴复曲面标记仪进行移动电话应用的复曲面IOL对准要比常用的Mendez量规更准确,并且在±0.50 D以内的明显屈光散光的眼睛比例要高得多。.05)。结论使用Barrett双轴复曲面标记仪进行移动电话应用的复曲面IOL对准要比常用的Mendez量规更准确,并且在±0.50 D以内的明显屈光散光的眼睛比例要高得多。.05)。结论使用Barrett双轴复曲面标记仪进行移动电话应用的复曲面IOL对准要比常用的Mendez量规更准确,并且在±0.50 D以内的明显屈光散光的眼睛比例要高得多。
更新日期:2019-11-06
down
wechat
bug