About OJO | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Author Instructions | Reviewer Guidelines | Online submissionLogin 
Oman Journal of Ophthalmology Oman Journal of Ophthalmology
  Editorial Board | Subscribe | Advertise | Contact
https://www.omanophthalmicsociety.org/ Users Online: 240  Wide layoutNarrow layoutFull screen layout Home Print this page  Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 10  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 96-99

Evaluation of a new electronic preoperative reference marker for toric intraocular lens implantation by two different methods of analysis: Adobe Photoshop versus iTrace

Department of Catract and IOL Services, Shroff Eye Centre, New Delhi, India

Correspondence Address:
Javed Hussain Farooqui
C-44, Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi - 110 017
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/ojo.OJO_163_2013

Rights and Permissions

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to compare two different methods of analysis of preoperative reference marking for toric intraocular lens (IOL) after marking with an electronic marker. SETTING/VENUE: Cataract and IOL Implantation Service, Shroff Eye Centre, New Delhi, India. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifty-two eyes of thirty patients planned for toric IOL implantation were included in the study. All patients had preoperative marking performed with an electronic preoperative two-step toric IOL reference marker (ASICO AE-2929). Reference marks were placed at 3-and 9-o'clock positions. Marks were analyzed with two systems. First, slit-lamp photographs taken and analyzed using Adobe Photoshop (version 7.0). Second, Tracey iTrace Visual Function Analyzer (version 5.1.1) was used for capturing corneal topograph examination and position of marks noted. Amount of alignment error was calculated. RESULTS: Mean absolute rotation error was 2.38 ± 1.78° by Photoshop and 2.87 ± 2.03° by iTrace which was not statistically significant (P = 0.215). Nearly 72.7% of eyes by Photoshop and 61.4% by iTrace had rotation error ≤3° (P = 0.359); and 90.9% of eyes by Photoshop and 81.8% by iTrace had rotation error ≤5° (P = 0.344). No significant difference in absolute amount of rotation between eyes when analyzed by either method. CONCLUSIONS: Difference in reference mark positions when analyzed by two systems suggests the presence of varying cyclotorsion at different points of time. Both analysis methods showed an approximately 3° of alignment error, which could contribute to 10% loss of astigmatic correction of toric IOL. This can be further compounded by intra-operative marking errors and final placement of IOL in the bag.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded117    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal