Toric implantable collamer lens for moderate to high myopic astigmatism: 3-year follow-up

Background To evaluate the 3-year clinical outcomes after toric implantable collamer lens (ICL) implantation for the management of moderate to high myopic astigmatism. Methods Thirty-four eyes of 20 patients who underwent toric ICL implantation were reviewed. All eyes completed 3-year follow-up. Uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected (CDVA) distance LogMAR visual acuities, refraction, endothelial cell density (ECD), and surgical complications were evaluated. Vectorial analysis of astigmatic correction was also done. Results A significant improvement in UDVA, CDVA, manifest spherical and cylindrical refraction was observed at 1 week and remained stable after 3 years. Twenty-six eyes (76.5 %) gained lines of CDVA, and two eyes (5.9 %) showed a loss of 1 line of CDVA. The spherical equivalent (SE) was within ±0.50 D of emmetropia in 18 eyes (52.9 %) and within ±1.00 D in 28 eyes (82.4 %). Differences between target-induced astigmatism (TIA) and surgically-induced astigmatism (SIA) were statistically significant (p < 0.01), and a trend to undercorrection of the refractive astigmatism was present after 3 years. The magnitude of flattening effect (FE) was found to be significantly lower than the magnitude of TIA (p < 0.01). The magnitude of the torque vector was always positive, with a value below 0.50 D in all cases. No vision-threatening complications were observed during the follow-up. Conclusion Toric ICL implantation is an effective and safe surgical option that provides a relatively predictable and stable refractive correction of myopic astigmatism. Further improvements are needed to minimize the degree of undercorrection.

Comparison of the predictability of refractive cylinder correction by laser in situ keratomileusis in eyes with low or high ocular residual astigmatism

Purpose: To compare the manifest refractive cylinder (MRC) predictability of myopic astigmatism laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) between eyes with low and high ocular residual astigmatism (ORA). Setting: London Vision Clinic, London, United Kingdom. Design: Retrospective case study. Methods: The ORA was considered the vector difference between the MRC and the corneal astigmatism. The index of success (IoS), difference vector ÷ MRC, was analyzed for different groups as follows: stage 1, low ORA (ORA ÷ MRC <1), high ORA (ORA ÷ MRC ≥1); stage 2, low ORA group reduced to match the high ORA group for MRC; stage 3, grouped by ORA magnitude with low ORA (<0.50 diopters [D]), mid ORA (0.50 to 1.24 D), and high ORA (≥1.25 D); stage 4, high ORA group subdivided into low (<0.75 D) and high (≥0.75 D) corneal astigmatism. Results: For stage 1, the mean preoperative MRC and mean IoS were −1.32 D ± 0.65 (SD) (range −0.55 to −3.77 D) and 0.27, respectively, for low ORA and −0.79 ± 0.20 D (range −0.56 to −2.05 D) and 0.37, respectively, for high ORA. For stage 2, the mean IoS increased to 0.32 for low ORA. For stage 3, the mean IoS was 0.28, 0.29, and 0.31 for low ORA, mid ORA, and high ORA, respectively. For stage 4, the mean IoS was 0.20 for high ORA/low corneal astigmatism and 0.35 for high ORA/high corneal astigmatism. Conclusions: The MRC predictability was slightly worse in eyes with high ORA when grouped by the ORA ÷ MRC. Matching for the MRC and grouping by ORA magnitude resulted in similar predictability; however, eyes with high ORA and high corneal astigmatism were less predictable.

Influence of the Difference Between Corneal and Refractive Astigmatism on LASIK Outcomes Using Solid-State Technology

Purpose: To evaluate the influence of the difference between preoperative corneal and refractive astigmatism [ocular residual astigmatism (ORA)] on outcomes obtained after laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) surgery for correction of myopic astigmatism using the solid-state laser technology. Methods: One hundred one consecutive eyes with myopia or myopic astigmatism of 55 patients undergoing LASIK surgery using the Pulzar Z1 solid-state laser (CustomVis Laser Pty Ltd, currently CV Laser) were included. Visual and refractive changes at 6 months postoperatively and changes in ORA and anterior corneal astigmatism and posterior corneal astigmatism (PCA) were analyzed. Results: Postoperatively, uncorrected distance visual acuity improved significantly (P < 0.01). Likewise, refractive cylinder magnitude and spherical equivalent were reduced significantly (P < 0.01). In contrast, no significant changes were observed in ORA magnitude (P = 0.81) and anterior corneal astigmatism (P = 0.12). The mean overall efficacy and safety indices were 0.96 and 1.01, respectively. These indices were not correlated with preoperative ORA (r = −0.15, P = 0.15). Furthermore, a significant correlation was found between ORA (r = 0.81, P < 0.01) and PCA postoperatively, but not preoperatively (r = 0.12, P = 0.25). Likewise, a significant correlation of ORA with manifest refraction was only found postoperatively (r = −0.38, P < 0.01). Conclusions: The magnitude of ORA does not seem to be a predictive factor of efficacy and safety of myopic LASIK using a solid-state laser platform. The higher relevance of PCA after surgery in some cases may explain the presence of unexpected astigmatic residual refractive errors.