Accuracy of Toric Intraocular Lens Axis Alignment Using Manual Slit Lamp Method and CALLISTO Eye Image-Guided System

Setiyobudi Riyanto, Dwi Cahyani Ratna Sari, T. Gondhowiardjo, Suhardjo ., M. B. Sasongko
{"title":"Accuracy of Toric Intraocular Lens Axis Alignment Using Manual Slit Lamp Method and CALLISTO Eye Image-Guided System","authors":"Setiyobudi Riyanto, Dwi Cahyani Ratna Sari, T. Gondhowiardjo, Suhardjo ., M. B. Sasongko","doi":"10.9734/or/2022/v16i130227","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aims: Image-guided systems are the gold standard for determining toric intraocular lens (IOL) axis alignment. However, their high cost prevents widespread use of these systems. As an alternative, a simpler and affordable method could be performed manually using a slit-lamp biomicroscope. This study aims to compare the accuracy of manual toric IOL axis marking using a slit-lamp compared to the CALLISTO eye image-guided system. \nStudy Design: Prospective comparative \nMethods: In this prospective study, toric IOL axis alignment of 42 eyes with cataract and coexisting corneal astigmatism were evaluated using manual slitlamp method and CALLISTO eye image-guided method. Preoperative and postoperative uncorrected visual acuity, best corrected visual acuity, amount of spherical and astigmatic refractive errors, and postoperative IOL axis alignment were evaluated. Intraclass correlation of the manual method was calculated and the difference of IOL axis alignment to the image-guided method was compared. \nResults: Toric IOL implantation reduced the amount of astigmatic refractive error from -1.63 ± 0.65 D to -0.50 ± 0.19 D in the image-guided group and from -1.93 ± -0.90 D to -0.87 ± 0.26 D in the manual slitlamp group. As many as 90.5% of eyes in the image-guided group and 81.0% of eyes in the manual slitlamp group reached the target induced astigmatism (p=0.38). Manual axis marking showed intraclass correlation of 99.3%. However, when the manual method was compared to the image-guided method a mean difference in axis alignment of 10.98o (95% confidence interval: 9.32o - 12.63o) was observed. \nConclusions: Alignment of toric IOL axis using the manual method demonstrated a consistent result; yet producing a considerable difference to the result of the image-guided method.","PeriodicalId":287685,"journal":{"name":"Ophthalmology Research: An International Journal","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ophthalmology Research: An International Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.9734/or/2022/v16i130227","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims: Image-guided systems are the gold standard for determining toric intraocular lens (IOL) axis alignment. However, their high cost prevents widespread use of these systems. As an alternative, a simpler and affordable method could be performed manually using a slit-lamp biomicroscope. This study aims to compare the accuracy of manual toric IOL axis marking using a slit-lamp compared to the CALLISTO eye image-guided system. Study Design: Prospective comparative Methods: In this prospective study, toric IOL axis alignment of 42 eyes with cataract and coexisting corneal astigmatism were evaluated using manual slitlamp method and CALLISTO eye image-guided method. Preoperative and postoperative uncorrected visual acuity, best corrected visual acuity, amount of spherical and astigmatic refractive errors, and postoperative IOL axis alignment were evaluated. Intraclass correlation of the manual method was calculated and the difference of IOL axis alignment to the image-guided method was compared. Results: Toric IOL implantation reduced the amount of astigmatic refractive error from -1.63 ± 0.65 D to -0.50 ± 0.19 D in the image-guided group and from -1.93 ± -0.90 D to -0.87 ± 0.26 D in the manual slitlamp group. As many as 90.5% of eyes in the image-guided group and 81.0% of eyes in the manual slitlamp group reached the target induced astigmatism (p=0.38). Manual axis marking showed intraclass correlation of 99.3%. However, when the manual method was compared to the image-guided method a mean difference in axis alignment of 10.98o (95% confidence interval: 9.32o - 12.63o) was observed. Conclusions: Alignment of toric IOL axis using the manual method demonstrated a consistent result; yet producing a considerable difference to the result of the image-guided method.
人工裂隙灯法和CALLISTO眼像引导系统对环形人工晶状体轴对准精度的研究
目的:图像引导系统是确定环形人工晶状体(IOL)轴对准的金标准。然而,它们的高成本阻碍了这些系统的广泛使用。作为一种替代方法,一种更简单和负担得起的方法可以使用裂隙灯生物显微镜手动执行。本研究的目的是比较使用裂隙灯和CALLISTO眼睛图像引导系统进行人工人工晶状体轴标记的准确性。研究设计:前瞻性比较方法:本前瞻性研究采用手工裂隙灯法和calisto眼图像引导法对42例白内障合并角膜散光患者的环形人工晶状体轴向进行评价。评估术前、术后未矫正视力、最佳矫正视力、球面屈光不正和散光屈光不正数量及术后人工晶状体轴对中情况。计算人工方法的类内相关性,比较人工方法与图像引导方法在人工晶状体轴对准方面的差异。结果:人工晶状体植入术使人工晶状体的散光屈光差由-1.63±0.65 D降至-0.50±0.19 D,手工裂隙灯植入术使人工晶状体的散光屈光差由-1.93±-0.90 D降至-0.87±0.26 D。图像引导组和手动裂隙灯组分别有90.5%和81.0%的眼达到目标诱导散光(p=0.38)。手工标记轴的类内相关性为99.3%。然而,当人工方法与图像引导方法进行比较时,观察到的轴对齐平均差异为10.98°(95%置信区间:9.32°- 12.63°)。结论:人工人工晶状体轴对准效果一致;然而,与图像引导方法的结果相比,产生了相当大的差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信