a patient-satisfaction killer: residual...

50 CATARACT & REFRACTIVE SURGERY TODAY EUROPE | JUNE 2016

COV

ER F

OCU

S

A PATIENT-SATISFACTION KILLER:

RESIDUAL ASTIGMATISMThis case highlights the importance of considering posterior corneal astigmatism in toric IOL calculation.

BY PABLO LASO, MD; FERNANDO SANTANDER, MD, FEBO; DANIEL ELIES, MD;

MERCÉ MORRAL, MD, PhD; AND JOSE L. GÜELL, MD, PhD

Getting to Know the PatientA 60-year-old man with myopic astigmatism attended a

consultation for refractive cataract surgery. He expressed the desire to be free of glasses for all distances.

The patient’s preoperative refraction and visual acuity are presented in Table 1 and keratometric values (IOLMaster; Carl Zeiss Meditec) in Table 2. Preoperative anterior corneal topography is shown in Figure 1.

The patient was counseled in depth about the advantages and disadvantages of the planned refractive cataract surgery procedure. We told him we wanted to aim to achieve micro-monovision, with targets of emmetropia in his domi-nant right eye and -1.00 D in his left.

We tested this strategy in the patient with spectacles and contact lens trials, both of which were well tolerated, so he assented to the surgery with a good disposition.

TABLE 2. PREOPERATIVE KERATOMETRIC DATAParameter OD OS

K1 (flat) 41.77 X 3º 41.62 X 173º

K2 (steep) 44.23 X 93º 45.30 X 83º

Cylinder (D) -2.46 X 3º -3.68 X 173º

Abbreviations: K = keratometry

TABLE 1. PREOPERATIVE REFRACTION AND VISUAL ACUITYParameter OD OS

Sphere (D) -1.50 -1.50

Cylinder (D) X Axis -2.00 X 180º -3.25 X 170º

Distance UCVA (decimal) 0.05 0.05

Distance BCVA (decimal) 1.0 1.0

Figure 1. Preoperative anterior corneal topography of the right (A) and left (B) eyes.

A B

JUNE 2016 | CATARACT & REFRACTIVE SURGERY TODAY EUROPE 51

COV

ER FOCU

S

For many years, it has been recognized that there may be a difference between refractive astigmatism and anterior corneal astigmatism. Historically, this difference was mainly blamed on lenticular astigmatism, which it has not been possible to measure with

conventional methods. Recently, thanks to new corneal measur-ing devices, several studies have shown that posterior corneal astigmatism can significantly influence total corneal astigmatism, and, therefore, measurement of posterior corneal astigmatism can help to improve the accuracy of toric IOL power selection in certain cases. The patient described in Getting to Know the Patient is one such case.

Calculations for the toric IOL (Lentis Tplus; Oculentis) to be implanted in this patient were performed using keratometry readings obtained with the IOLMaster. The IOL implanted in the patient’s right eye was a model LS-313 with spherical equivalent of 15.50 D and cylinder of 3.00 D. With this lens, predicted residual astigmatism was 0.01 X 93º. The lens for the patient’s left eye was again a model LS-313 with 15.50 D spherical equivalent and cylinder of 4.50 D. Predicted residual astigmatism for this eye was 0.06 X 84º.

Both surgeries and the immediate postoperative periods were completed with normal results and no complications. The IOLs appeared to be perfectly aligned on mydriasis. During follow-up, however, the patient expressed discontent with his visual acuity without correction, especially for distance vision (Table 3).

The patient underwent femtosecond LASIK in his right eye to achieve emmetropia and meet the initially proposed objec-tive of spectacle independence at all distances. During the post-LASIK follow-up, the patient affirmed that he now per-forms most of his activities of daily life without any spectacle correction. Refraction and visual acuities 1 month after LASIK are shown in Table 4.

FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO A REFRACTIVE SURPRISE

The development of toric IOLs has improved refrac-tive results in cataract surgery for patients with signifi-cant astigmatism.1 However, residual astigmatism after implantation of toric IOLs is not always predictable,2 and unsatisfactory UCVA can be a postoperative out-come. Several factors may contribute to an astigmatic refractive surprise, including imprecise corneal measure-ments, miscalculation of the toric IOL power, error in the preoperative marking of the cornea, misalignment of the IOL, and the effect of the incision.3-6 In the case presented here, one factor that might have reduced residual astigmatism was adjustment of the IOL toricity based on the patient’s posterior corneal astigmatism.

The surfaces of the anterior and posterior cornea each contribute to the total corneal astigmatism. Studies have indicated that posterior corneal astigmatism contributes significantly to total corneal astigmatism7 and that its effect may vary from -0.26 to -0.78 D.7-14

Posterior corneal astigmatism in most patients is relatively stable, and almost 80% is vertical, or with-the-rule.7 This may contribute toward overcorrection of with-the-rule and undercorrection of against-the-rule astigmatisms, if posterior corneal astigmatism is not taken into account.

In our case presented here, we saw a significant differ-ence in refractive and keratometric astigmatisms, which could have meant a greater influence of posterior corneal astigmatism on the total astigmatism. After observing this refractive surprise, we performed topography with the Cassini (i-Optics) to measure the astigmatism of the pos-terior corneal face (Figure 2). This confirmed our suspicion that the patient had a greater degree of posterior astigma-tism than is usual.

TABLE 3. POSTOPERATIVE REFRACTION AND VISUAL ACUITYParameter OD OS

Sphere (D) 0.50 -0.75




TABLE 4. POST-LASIK REFRACTION AND VISUAL ACUITYParameter OD OS

Sphere (D) 0.25 -0.75




Figure 2. Keratometric data of the patient’s right (A) and

left (B) eyes.

A

BDANIEL ELIES, MD JOSE L. GÜELL, MD, PhD

52 CATARACT & REFRACTIVE SURGERY TODAY EUROPE | JUNE 2016

COV

ER F

OCU

S

A study of error in residual astigmatism prediction after implantation of toric IOLs did not find a significant differ-ence whether the calculation of toricity was done based on total corneal power (as determined by ray-tracing Scheimpflug topography) or with the values of anterior automated keratometry.14 However, particularly in our case, it is evident that the overcorrection of astigmatism could have been reduced if the calculation had been done using the astigmatic value provided by the Cassini topographer.

Since the Baylor nomogram was published by Koch et al,7 multiple formulas have been proposed to reduce resid-ual astigmatism after implantation of toric IOLs, and there is currently a lack of clear consensus on the best formula to use. It has recently been proposed that lower residual astig-matism can be achieved by using vector analysis, which is performed by integrating the posterior corneal astigmatism as measured by Scheimpflug camera with the anterior cor-neal astigmatism as measured by low-coherence optical reflectometry.15

LESSONS LEARNEDSurgeons may be able to minimize residual astigmatism after

implantation of toric IOLs by taking posterior corneal astig-matism into consideration, especially in eyes in which there is a remarkable difference between the refractive astigmatism and the keratometric astigmatism. Had we done so in the case

presented here, a retreatment procedure may likely have been avoidable. n

1. Agresta B, Knorz MC, Donatti C, Jackson D. Visual acuity improvements after implantation of toric intraocular lenses in cataract patients with astigmatism: a systematic review. BMC Ophthalmol. 2012;12:41. 2. Alpins N, Ong JKY, Stamatelatos G. Refractive surprise after toric intraocular lens implantation: graph analysis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2014;40:283-294.3. Hirnschall N, Hoffmann PC, Draschl P, Maedel S, Findl O. Evaluation of factors influencing the remaining astigmatism after toric intraocular lens implantation. J Refract Surg. 2014;30:394-400.4. Browne AW, Osher RH. Optimizing precision in toric lens selection by combining keratometry techniques. J Refract Surg. 2014;30:67-72.5. Hill W, Potvin R. Monte Carlo simulation of expected outcomes with AcrySof toric intraocular lens. BMC Ophthalmol. 2008;8:22. 6. Huang J, Pesudovs K, Wen D, Chen S, Wright T, Wang X, Li Y, Wang Q. Comparison of anterior segment measurements with rotating Scheimpflug photography and partial coherence reflectometry. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011;37:341-348.7. Koch DD, Ali SF, Weikert MP, et al. Contribution of posterior corneal astigmatism to total corneal astigmatism. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2012;38:2080-2087. 8. Royston JM, Dunne CMM, Barnes DA. Measurement of posterior corneal surface toricity. Optom Vis Sci. 1990;67:757-763.9. Dunne MCM, Royston JM, Barnes DA. Posterior corneal surface toricity and total corneal astigmatism. Optom Vis Sci. 1991;68:708-710. 10. Ho J-D, Tsai C-Y, Liou S-W. Accuracy of corneal astigmatism estimation by neglecting the posterior corneal surface measurement. Am J Ophthalmol. 2009;147:788-795.11. Dubbelman M, Sicam VA, van der Heijde GL. The shape of the anterior and posterior surface of the aging human cornea. Vision Res. 2006;46:993-1001.12. Prisant O, Hoang-Xuan T, Proano C, Hernandez E, Awwad ST, Azar DT. Vector summation of anterior and posterior corneal topographical astigmatism. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002;28:1636-1643.13. Modis L Jr, Langenbucher A, Seitz B. Evaluation of normal corneas using the scanning-slit topography/pachymetry system. Cornea. 2004;23:689-694.14. Zhang L, Sy ME, Mai H, Yu F, Hamilton DR. Effect of posterior corneal astigmatism on refractive outcomes after toric intraocular lens implantation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2015;41(1):84-89.15. Reitblat O, Levy A, Kleinmann G, Abulafia A, Assia EI. Effect of posterior corneal astigmatism on power calculation and alignment of toric intraocular lenses: Comparison of methodologies. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2016;42(2):217-225.

Daniel Elies, MDn Cornea and Refractive Surgery Specialist, Instituto de Microcirugia

Ocular, Barcelona, Spainn Associate Professor of Ophthalmology, ESASO University, Lugano,

Italyn [email protected] Financial interest: None acknowledged

Jose L. Güell, MD, PhDn Director, Cornea and Refractive Surgery Unit, Instituto de

Microcirugía Ocular, Barcelona, Spainn Associate Professor of Ophthalmology, Universitat Autonoma de

Barcelona, Spainn [email protected] Financial disclosure: Consultant (Ophtec, Alcon, Carl Zeiss

Meditec, Thea Laboratories, Orca Surgical), Partial owner (Calhoun Vision, Visiometrics)

Pablo Laso, MDn Fellow, Cornea and Refractive Surgery Unit, Instituto de

Microcirugía Ocular, Barcelona, Spainn [email protected] Financial interest: None acknowledged

Mercé Morral, MD, PhDn Cornea and Refractive Surgery Specialist, Instituto de Microcirugia

Ocular, Barcelona, Spainn [email protected] Financial interest: None acknowledged

Fernando Santander, MD, FEBOn Fellow, Cornea and Refractive Surgery Unit, Instituto de

Microcirugia Ocular, Barcelona, Spain n [email protected] Financial interest: None acknowledged

CASE RECAPWHO60-year-old man with myopic astigmatism and a desire for spectacle independence at all distances after cataract surgery

WHATRefractive cataract surgery using a micro-monovision strategy (targets: emmetropia in the dominant right eye and -1.00 D in the left) and implantation of a toric IOL left the patient with a residual refractive error that affected his distance vision

HOWLASIK retreatment in the patient’s right eye resolved the residual refractive error; however, if posterior corneal astigmatism had been measured preoperatively and accounted for in the toric IOL power calculation, the need for enhancement may have been avoided

a patient-satisfaction killer: residual...

Documents