Toric IOL outcomes
Comparative study seeks highest prediction accuracy


Cheryl Guttman Krader
Published: Sunday, March 1, 2020
Toric IOL prediction accuracy varies significantly depending on the tool used to measure corneal astigmatism, reported Qayim Kaba at the 37th Congress of the ESCRS in Paris, France.
He presented results from a prospective cohort study that showed the corneal astigmatism prediction error differed whether the keratometry data used for toric IOL calculations was acquired with the OPD (Nidek), Pentacam (Oculus) or IOLMaster (Carl Zeiss Meditec). Overall, Pentacam topography resulted in the least corneal astigmatism prediction error.
“Keratometry values from these three modalities may be used for toric IOL calculations to determine the most suitable lens for correcting astigmatism, but to our knowledge, no study has compared the accuracy of their predictions,” said Mr Kaba, a medical student in the United Kingdom, presenting the research conducted at Uptown Eye Specialists, Canada.
The investigation included 42 eyes of 26 patients that had reliable topography measurements and no ocular comorbidities. Postoperative residual astigmatism was determined using vector analysis. Comparisons between modalities were based on the centroid astigmatism prediction error and with eyes categorised by type of astigmatism. Astigmatism was with-the-rule (WTR) in 13 eyes, against-the-rule (ATR) in 23 eyes and oblique in six eyes.
Postoperative three-month results showed the centroid error of prediction error in WTR eyes was greatest using keratometry data from the IOLMaster (0.23D@150°) and not significantly different comparing the Pentacam (0.12D@128°) and OPD (0.11D@60°). In the eyes with ATR astigmatism, the centroid error of prediction error was lowest for the Pentacam (0.04D@169°) and not significantly different between the IOLMaster and OPD (0.08D@54° and 0.09D@34°, respectively). In the cohort with oblique astigmatism, the centroid error of prediction error was identical using the Pentacam and OPD keratometry values (0.02D @148°) and significantly greater using the IOLMaster (0.13D@142°).
An axis-to-axis comparison was also done, and the analyses showed no statistically significant difference for actual and predicted axis comparison between the IOLMaster, Pentacam and OPD.
Topics for future research
Mr Kaba noted that the prediction accuracy using the optical biometer for measuring the cornea might be improved using the newer IOLMaster 700, which differs from the IOLMaster in that it incorporates the posterior cornea to calculate total keratometry. He also noted that the current APACRS toric IOL calculator allows surgeons to input keratometry data from different modalities which can generate a value for use in the power calculation.
“It would be interesting to see if these methods result in higher prediction accuracy for toric lenses,” he said.
Qayim Kaba: qayimkaba@gmail.com
Tags: toric IOLs
Latest Articles
Beyond the Numbers
Empowering patient participation fosters continuous innovation in cataract surgery.
Thinking Beyond the Surgery Room
Practice management workshop focuses on financial operations and AI business applications.
Aid Cuts Threaten Global Eye Care Progress
USAID closure leads retreat in development assistance.
Supplement: ESCRS Clinical Trends Series: Presbyopia
Nutrition and the Eye: A Recipe for Success
A look at the evidence for tasty ways of lowering risks and improving ocular health.
New Award to Encourage Research into Sustainable Practices
Sharing a Vision for the Future
ESCRS leaders update Trieste conference on ESCRS initiatives.
Extending Depth of Satisfaction
The ESCRS Eye Journal Club discuss a new study reviewing the causes and management of dissatisfaction after implantation of an EDOF IOL.
Conventional Versus Laser-Assisted Cataract Surgery
Evidence favours conventional technique in most cases.
AI Scribing and Telephone Management
Automating note-taking and call centres could boost practice efficiency.