Comparative evaluation of intraoperative aberrometry and Barrett's toric calculator in toric intraocular lens implantation.

Purpose: Barrett toric calculator (BTC) is known for its accuracy in toric IOL (tIOL) calculation over standard calculators; however, there is no study in literature to compare it with real-time intraoperative aberrometry (IA). The aim was to compare the accuracy of BTC and IA in predicting refractive outcomes in tIOL implantation. Methods: This was an institution-based prospective, observational study. Patients undergoing routine phacoemulsification with tIOL implantation were enrolled. Biometry was obtained from Lenstar-LS 900 and IOL power calculated using online BTC; however, IOL was implanted as per IA (Optiwave Refractive Analysis, ORA, Alcon) recommendation. Postoperative refractive astigmatism (RA) and spherical equivalent (SE) were recorded at one month, and respective prediction errors (PEs) were calculated using predicted refractive outcomes for both methods. The primary outcome measure was a comparison between mean PE with IA and BTC, and secondary outcome measures were uncorrected distance visual acuity (UCDVA), postoperative RA, and SE at one month. SPSS Version-21 was used; P < 0.05 considered significant. Results: Thirty eyes of 29 patients were included. Mean arithmetic and mean absolute PEs for RA were comparable between BTC (-0.70 ± 0.35D; 0.70 ± 0.34D) and IA (0.77 ± 0.32D; 0.80 ± 0.39D) (P = 0.09 and 0.09, respectively). Mean arithmetic PE for residual SE was significantly lower for BTC (-0.14 ± 0.32D) than IA (0.001 ± 0.33D) (-0.14 ± 0.32D; P = 0.002); however, there was no difference between respective mean absolute PEs (0.27 ± 0.21 D; 0.27 ± 0.18; P = 0.80). At one-month, mean UCDVA, RA, and SE were 0.09 ± 0.10D, -0.57 ± 0.26D, and -0.18 ± 0.27D, respectively. Conclusion: Both IA and BTC give reliable and comparable refractive results for tIOL implantation.

Comparison of Barrett Toric Calculations Using Measured and Predicted Posterior Corneal Astigmatism in Cataract Surgery Patients.

Aim: To compare residual astigmatism prediction errors across Barrett toric calculations using predicted posterior corneal astigmatism (PCA) and PCA measured using the IOL Master 700 with total keratometry (IOLM). Methods: A retrospective cohort study was undertaken on patients with corneal astigmatism and no other ocular comorbidities that underwent uneventful refractive femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery with toric IOL implantation between May 2019 and November 2019. Toric calculations were performed using the Barrett toric calculator and the following values: predicted PCA with anterior corneal measurements from Pentacam, IOLM standard keratometry (SK), OPD scan, and median measurements from these devices; predicted PCA with IOLM total keratometry (TK); and measured PCA with IOLM SK or IOLM TK. Residual astigmatism prediction error was calculated for each device and method of calculation at postoperative month 1 and 3 using the astigmatism double angle plot tool. Results: A total of 24 eyes, 10 with-the-rule (WTR), 10 against-the-rule (ATR) and 4 oblique astigmatism, from 24 patients were included in this study. PCA ranged from 0.00 to 0.67 D with a mean of 0.24 ± 0.15 D in all eyes. PCA was significantly greater in WTR eyes (0.32 D) compared to ATR eyes (0.16 D; p < 0.05). In ATR eyes, calculations made using IOLM SK and measured PCA had significantly lower total corneal astigmatism and toric IOL cylinder power compared to calculations made using Pentacam and IOLM TK (p < 0.05). No significant difference in mean absolute or centroid residual astigmatism prediction error was observed across devices or calculation methods. The percentage of eyes with absolute astigmatism prediction errors ≤0.5 D was not significantly different across groups. Conclusion: Barrett toric calculations using predicted PCA and PCA measured using IOLM produced comparable residual astigmatism prediction errors. The incorporation of median measurements did not significantly impact calculation accuracy.