Correcting astigmatism at the time of cataract surgery: Toric IOLs and corneal relaxing incisions planned with an image-guidance system and intraoperative aberrometer versus manual planning and surgery.

PURPOSE: To compare the outcomes of the combination of an image-guided system and intraoperative aberrometer with the surgeon's standard of care in correcting astigmatism using toric intraocular lenses (IOLs) or corneal incisions.

SETTING

Single site in United States.

DESIGN

Prospective case series.

METHODS

Contralateral eyes of patients having uncomplicated bilateral cataract surgery and astigmatism correction were randomly assigned to Group A or Group B. Group A received the surgeon's preferred standard of care. Group B had preoperative planning using an image-guidance system (VERION), intraoperative aberrometry (ORA System with VerifEye+), and femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery. The primary endpoint was the residual refractive astigmatism at 3 months.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight eyes were treated with toric IOLs and 40 eyes with corneal astigmatic incisions. On average, toric IOLs resulted in almost 0.25 diopter (D) less cylinder than corneal astigmatic incisions (P < .01), with no difference between groups (P = .41). There was no statistically significant difference in the mean spherical equivalent refraction by group (P = .51). At 3 months, the IOL in 4 eyes (11%) (2 in Group A and Group B each) was more than 10 degrees of absolute orientation from the intended orientation. The mean keratometry was 0.16 D higher with the image-guided system compared with optical biometry (Lenstar). The vector difference between the 2 measurements was 0.5 D or lower in all eyes.

CONCLUSIONS

The combined use of an image-guided system and intraoperative aberrometer did not significantly improve outcomes compared with the surgeon's standard of care. Based on keratometry, there was good agreement in corneal astigmatism measurements between the image-guided system and the optical biometer.