Comparison of using Galilei Dual Scheimpflug Analyzer G4 and Barrett formula in predicting low cylinder preoperatively for cataract surgeries.

PURPOSE: To compare corneal astigmatism estimation from Barrett toric calculator, with measurement from Galilei Dual Scheimpflug Analyzer G4 in low corneal cylinder patients.

METHODS

Preoperative corneal astigmatism was measured using Auto Kerato-Refractometer (AutoKM), IOL Master, and Galilei G4 (combined Placido-dual Scheimpflug analyzer) and was processed by Barrett toric calculator with measurements obtained from Auto Kerato-Refractometer and from IOL Master. A total of 42 eyes undergoing cataract surgery with nontoric intraocular lens implantation were included. Corneal astigmatism was calculated based on manifest refractive astigmatism with implications of surgically induced astigmatism. Errors in predicted residual astigmatism were calculated by the difference between postoperative manifest cylindrical refractive error and preoperative corneal cylinder using vector analysis.

RESULTS

Centroid error in predicted residual astigmatism was with-the-rule 0.36 D for AutoKM and 0.48 D for IOL Master, was lower at 0.24 D for the Barrett-IOL Master, and was lowest at 0.21 D for the Barrett-AutoKM (p < .001). The Galilei G4 demonstrated the highest centroid error for SimK (0.53 D) and lower for total corneal power (0.49 D). The Barrett toric calculator obtained the lowest median absolute error in predicted residual astigmatism for AutoKM (0.43 D) and IOL Master (0.54 D). The Barrett-IOL Master demonstrated that 61% and 76% of eyes were within 0.50 and 0.75 D of the predicted residual astigmatism, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The Barrett-IOL Master had more accurate prediction of residual astigmatism for low astigmatism eyes before cataract surgery compared to Galilei Dual Scheimpflug Analyzer G4 in this study.