Comparison of Efficacies in Treating Astigmatism between Toric Intraocular Lens Implantation and Limbal Relaxing Incision.
10.3341/jkos.2017.58.11.1225
- Author:
Yooyeon PARK
1
;
Man Soo KIM
;
Eun Chul KIM
Author Information
1. Department of Ophthalmology, Bucheon St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Bucheon, Korea. eunchol@hanmail.net
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Corneal astigmatism;
Limbal relaxing incision;
Tecnis ZCT toric intraocular lens;
Toric intraocular lens implantation
- MeSH:
Astigmatism*;
Humans;
Lens Implantation, Intraocular*;
Lenses, Intraocular*;
Medical Records;
Retrospective Studies;
Visual Acuity
- From:Journal of the Korean Ophthalmological Society
2017;58(11):1225-1233
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness of toric intraocular lens (IOL) implantation and monofocal IOL implantation with a limbal relaxing incision (LRI) for correcting astigmatism in the Korean population. METHODS: The medical records of 79 patients (100 eyes) with corneal astigmatism over 1.25 diopters (D) who underwent toric IOL implantation (toric group; 54 eyes), monofocal IOL implantation with a concurrent LRI (LRI group; 24 eyes), or monofocal IOL implantation without correcting astigmatism (control group; 22 eyes), were retrospectively reviewed. For subgroup analyses, the three groups were subdivided according to preoperative astigmatic severity under 2.5 D. Visual, refractive, and keratometric outcomes were compared 2 and 6 months postoperatively. RESULTS: The uncorrected distance visual acuity was at least 20/25 (0.1 logMAR) in 64.8%, 41.7%, and 27.3% of the toric, LRI, and control group eyes, respectively at 2 months after surgery. The toric group had the greatest refractive cylindrical error change (toric group, −2.48 ± 1.84 D to −0.98 ± 0.92 D; LRI group, −2.02 ± 1.03 D to −1.65 ± 0.86 D; control group, −1.69 ± 0.88 D to −1.49 ± 0.60 D; p < 0.001) and the LRI group showed the greatest mean corneal cylindrical error change (toric group, 2.40 ± 1.33 D to 2.23 ± 1.42 D; LRI group, 1.86 ± 0.44 D to 1.29 ± 0.55 D; control group, 1.60 ± 0.39 D to 1.35 ± 0.60 D; p = 0.025). The 85 eyes with moderate corneal astigmatism (between 1.25 D and 2.5 D) were under evaluation. The toric group showed the highest mean refractive cylindrical change (0.97 ± 0.66 D; p < 0.001), followed by the LRI group (0.53 ± 0.87 D; p = 0.046). CONCLUSIONS: Both surgical techniques significantly reduced astigmatism and had comparable visual outcomes. Toric IOL implantation was more reliable for correcting astigmatism than monofocal IOL implantation with a concurrent LRI regardless of the preoperative astigmatic severity. Both procedures were effective in reducing astigmatism in eyes with moderate corneal astigmatism.
