Dissemin is shutting down on January 1st, 2025

Published in

MDPI, Life, 10(13), p. 2009, 2023

DOI: 10.3390/life13102009

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Accuracy of Astigmatism Calculation with the Barrett, Panacea, and enVista Toric Calculators

This paper is made freely available by the publisher.
This paper is made freely available by the publisher.

Full text: Download

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Postprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Published version: archiving allowed
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate residual refractive astigmatism using the Panacea and enVista toric calculators, compared to the gold-standard Barrett toric calculator. Design: A retrospective and comparative study was conducted in one center. Methods: We reviewed the medical records of all patients with a diagnosis of senile cataracts and regular corneal astigmatism, without previous corneal or intraocular surgery, who underwent phacoemulsification with implantation of a toric intraocular lens, who had pre- and postoperative corneal topography, biometry, and refraction measurements. Results: The frequency of preoperative astigmatism according to the axis was 70 (84%) eyes showing with-the-rule (WTR) astigmatism, 9 (14%) eyes with against-the-rule (ATR) astigmatism, and 1 (2%) eye with oblique astigmatism. Regarding astigmatism prediction errors, there were statistically significant differences between the enVista and Panacea calculators (median of 0.39, 0.18, and 0.52 for Barrett, enVista, and Panacea, respectively). The residual astigmatism prediction error centroid was similar for the Barrett and enVista toric calculators, and both were lower compared to the Panacea calculator (x-component p < 0.001). Conclusions: The enVista toric calculator incorporating the Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) toric calculator provides similar results to the gold-standard Barrett calculator.