Evaluation of 4 corneal astigmatic marking methods

Abstract

No author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.

First clinical results on the feasibility, quality and reproducibility of aberrometry-based intraoperative refraction during cataract surgery

“…The extent of our observed cyclotorsion showed very high deviations, which were approximately twice as high as in another aberrometry study 16. We recommend, therefore, that IWA is not relied on as the sole source for surgical decisions on astigmatic corrections but is, instead, always supplemented by conventional marking methods 17. It would be helpful if future devices had an inbuilt method to compensate for cyclotorsion, for example, with reference to anatomical structures of the iris or limbal vessels, rotating the WF map accordingly.…”

Evaluation of Rotation and Visual Outcomes After Implantation of Monofocal and Multifocal Toric Intraocular Lenses

“…However, none of these methods consider the possibility of cyclotorsion in monocular viewing conditions as described in previous studies. 9,10 On the other hand, if the marks are made binocularly, the convergence produced when the patient views a near object is not corrected.…”

Surgical management of astigmatism with toric intraocular lenses

“…The most commonly described is a 3-step procedure: 1) preoperatively marking the eye at the horizontal meridian, which can be done using a coaxial thin slit beam of the slit-lamp turned to the 3-and 9-o'clock position, a bubble marker, a pendular marker, or a tonometer marker, (2) intraoperatively aligning to these marks a secondary device with angular graduations, such as the Mendez gauge, and (3) then marking the limbus or the cornea at the desired angle of alignment using a surgical marking pen or a needle (49,52) . A previous study evaluating the accuracy of the 3-step procedure using a bubble marker in the first step found a mean error in axis marking of 2.4 o ± 0.8 o , and a total error in toric IOL alignment of 4.9 o ± 2.1 o .…”

“…A previous study evaluating the accuracy of the 3-step procedure using a bubble marker in the first step found a mean error in axis marking of 2.4 o ± 0.8 o , and a total error in toric IOL alignment of 4.9 o ± 2.1 o . Even though the slit-lamp marker and the pendular marker seem to be more accurate than the bubble marker and the tonometer marker (52) , the eye marking procedure is a potential source of error for toric IOL alignment, and should be done carefully, independently of the instruments used.…”