Comparison of surgically induced astigmatism after phacoemulsification trough 3.2, 2.2 and 1.8 clear corneal incision. Luis Izquierdo Jr MD. PhD. Maria Alejandra Henriquez MD. Amapola Rey Sanchez MD. The authors have no financial interest in the subject matter of this e-poster
Purpose To compare surgically induced astigmatism (SIA) after phacoemulsification trough clear cornea of 1.8 mm, 2.2 mm and 2.8 mm.
Methods This prospective, randomized and comparative study included 72 eyes of 72 patients that were divided into 3 groups according the size of the clear cornea incision (3.2 mm, 2.8 mm and 2.2 mm). The intraocular lens (IOLs) implanted were Tecnis (ZA9003, AMO),Tecnis ( ZCBOO, AMO) and IQ (SN60WF de Alcon). Pre and postoperative (1 months) uncorrected and bestcorrected visual acuity (UCVA, BCVA), spherical equivalent (SE) and topography was recorded and compared. The SIA was calculated with a software, the statistically analysis was performed by Mann Whitney test.
RESULTS There were statistically significant difference between the 3.2 and 2.8 mm group (p = 0.002) and the 3.2 versus the 2.2 mm group (p = 0.001). The postoperative UCVA in the 3.2, 2.8 and 2.2 mm group were 0.10, 0.20, 0.30 logMAR respectively. The postoperative SE for the 3.2, 2.8 and 2.2 mm were , -0.26, y respectively (p > 0.05 for all the comparison groups).
Diopters Incision size
Uncorrected visual acuity comparing the 3 groups There were statistically significant difference between the 3 groups (p= 0.003) LogMar Preoperative UCVA (LogMAR) Postoperative UCVA (LogMAR)
Induced astigmatism comparing the 3 groups SIA:1.09 SIA:0.77 SIA:0.39
CONCLUSIONS The cataract surgery trough 2.2 mm clear cornea incision showed the best visual improvement and the smallest SIA.
REFERENCES Wang J, Zhang EK, Fan WY, Ma JX, Zhao PF. The effect of micro-incision and small-incision coaxial phaco- emulsification on corneal astigmatism. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol Sep;37(7): Hayashi K, Yoshida M, Hayashi H. Corneal shape changes after 2.0-mm or 3.0-mm clear corneal versus scleral tunnel incision cataract surgery. Ophthalmology Jul;117(7): Epub 2010 Apr 3. Wilczynski M et al. Comparison of surgically induced astigmatism after coaxial phacoemulsification through 1.8 mm microincision and bimanual phacoemulsification through 1.7 mm microincision. J Cataract Refract Surg Sep;35(9): Capella MJ, Barraquer E. Comparative study of coaxial microincision cataract surgery and standard phacoemulsification. Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol Aug;85(8): Epub 2010 Nov 5. Spanis Kocabora MS et al. Surgical outcome of coaxial phacoemulsification with torsional ultrasound after a 2.4 mm versus 3.2 mm clear corneal temporal incision. Bull Soc Belge Ophtalmol. 2010;(315): Lee KM, Kwon HG, Joo CK. Microcoaxial cataract surgery outcomes: comparison of 1.8 mm system and 2.2 mm system. J Cataract Refract Surg May;35(5): Masket S, Wang L, Belani S. Induced astigmatism with 2.2- and 3.0-mm coaxial phacoemulsification incisions. J Refract Surg Jan;25(1):21-4. Hayashi K, Yoshida M, Hayashi H. Postoperative corneal shape changes: microincision versus small-incision coaxial cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg Feb;35(2): Tejedor J, Pérez-Rodríguez JA. Astigmatic change induced by 2.8-mm corneal incisions for cataract surgery. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Mar;50(3): Epub 2008 Nov 14. Morcillo-Laiz R, et al. Surgically induced astigmatism after biaxial phacoemulsification compared to coaxial phacoemulsification. Eye Apr;23(4):835-9.
Luis Izquierdo Jr. Opthalmology Residency, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Brasil. Fellow in Cornea. UC Davis. CA. USA Master in Ophthalmology. USMP. Lima Peru. PhD in Medicine. USMP Lima Peru. Professor of Oftalmology of Universidad de San Marco. Lima Peru. Medical Director of OFTALMOSALUD Institute of eyes. Lima- Peru.