MARATTO

article · BMC Ophthalmology

Correction of pre-existing astigmatism with phacoemulsification using toric intraocular lens versus spherical intraocular lens and wave front guided surface ablation

20225 citationsOpen accessKafr el-Sheikh University

Abstract

Abstract Background This study aimed to evaluate toric intraocular lens to correct of pre-existing astigmatism at the time of phacoemulsification compared to using of spherical intraocular lens followed by wavefront guided surface ablation. Results The patients were classified into three groups: Group A with 20 eyes of 19 patients having phacoemulsification with spherical intraocular lens only as a control group, group B with 20 eyes of 14 patients had phacoemulsification with toric intraocular lens and group C with 20 eyes of 16 patients had phacoemulsification with spherical intraocular lens and wavefront guided PRK three months later. Comparison pre-operative data for all groups showed no statistically significant difference regarding UCVA, BCVA, MRSE, and refractive astigmatism ( P >0.05). Post operatively, there was a statistically significant difference for UCVA, BCVA, MRSE, and refractive astigmatism for group A compared to group B ( P <0.05) and group A compared to group C but there was no statistically significant difference for group B compared to C regarding all these parameters ( P >0.05). Conclusion In this study, we found similar effects for both techniques in astigmatism corrected groups while both differed from the control group that was not corrected. Correcting preexisting astigmatism during cataract surgery should be in mind in every case to improve visual outcomes. Longer period of follow up are required to evaluate stability of these techniques and possibility of regression.

Research topics

  • Intraocular Surgery and Lenses
  • Ophthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
  • Corneal surgery and disorders

Read the original research

This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.

DOI: 10.1186/s12886-022-02347-5

Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.

Discussion

Discuss this research

Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.

No discussion yet. Open the first thread.