Comparison Of The Rotational Stability And Clinical Effect Of Three Marking Methods For Ticl Implantation In The Treatment Of Myopic Astigmatism

This is a comparison study of the rotational stability and clinical effect of three marking methods for TICL implantation.

Hongshan Aier Eye Hospital, Wuhan, China.

117 patients (180 eyes) were prospectively investigated and divided into 3 groups: 75 eyes in group A (manually marked horizontal axial position), 55 eyes in group B (manually marked intended axial position) and 50 eyes in group C (CALLISTO eye surgical navigation system marked intended axial position). The axial position of TICL in 1 month after operation, UCVA, BCVA , residual astigmatism, SE, vault, validity index, safety index were compared between 3 different groups.

Statistically significant differences between 3 groups were observed in axial rotation between the three groups at 2 hours after operation (A: 2.02 ± 2.38, B: 2.51 ± 2.94, C: 1.22 ± 1.20, P=0.018) and 1 month after operation (A: 3.68 ± 3.44, B: 3.38 ± 3.47, C: 1.78 ± 1.58, P=0.002), and in residual astigmatism between group A and group B (A vs B: -0.39 ± 0.29 vs -0.29 ± 0.28, P=0.044). There was also a trend of difference in residual astigmatism after operation. No statistic difference was observed in clinical outcomes of 3 groups.

The navigation marking method for TICL astigmatism axis position is more accurate and has better rotation stability than the manual marking method. The navigation marking method or manually marked intended axis position method was more effective in the rotational stability and clinical effect for TICL implantation.