AIM： To compare the accuracy of two different methods of preoperative marking for toric intraocular lens（IOL） implantation, bubble marker versus pendulum marker, as a means of establishing the reference point for t...AIM： To compare the accuracy of two different methods of preoperative marking for toric intraocular lens（IOL） implantation, bubble marker versus pendulum marker, as a means of establishing the reference point for the final alignment of the toric IOL to achieve an outcome as close as possible to emmetropia.·METHODS： Toric IOLs were implanted in 180 eyes of110 patients. One group（55 patients） had preoperative marking of both eyes done with bubble marker（ASICO AE-2791TBL） and the other group（55 patients） with pendulum marker（Rumex 誖 3-193）. Reference marks were placed at 3-, 6-, and 9-o＇clock positions on the limbus. Slit-lamp photographs were analyzed using Adobe Photoshop（version 7.0）. Amount of alignment error（in degrees） induced in each group was measured.· RESULTS： Mean absolute rotation error in the preoperative marking in the horizontal axis was 2.42±1.71 in the bubble marker group and 2.83 ±2.31 in the pendulum marker group（P =0.501）. Sixty percent of the pendulum group and 70% of the bubble group had rotation error ≤3（P =0.589）, and 90% eyes of the pendulum group and 96.7% of the bubble group had rotation error ≤5（P =0.612）.·CONCLUSION： Both preoperative marking techniques result in approximately 3 of alignment error. Both marking techniques are simple, predictable, reproducible and easy to perform.展开更多
文摘AIM： To compare the accuracy of two different methods of preoperative marking for toric intraocular lens（IOL） implantation, bubble marker versus pendulum marker, as a means of establishing the reference point for the final alignment of the toric IOL to achieve an outcome as close as possible to emmetropia.·METHODS： Toric IOLs were implanted in 180 eyes of110 patients. One group（55 patients） had preoperative marking of both eyes done with bubble marker（ASICO AE-2791TBL） and the other group（55 patients） with pendulum marker（Rumex 誖 3-193）. Reference marks were placed at 3-, 6-, and 9-o＇clock positions on the limbus. Slit-lamp photographs were analyzed using Adobe Photoshop（version 7.0）. Amount of alignment error（in degrees） induced in each group was measured.· RESULTS： Mean absolute rotation error in the preoperative marking in the horizontal axis was 2.42±1.71 in the bubble marker group and 2.83 ±2.31 in the pendulum marker group（P =0.501）. Sixty percent of the pendulum group and 70% of the bubble group had rotation error ≤3（P =0.589）, and 90% eyes of the pendulum group and 96.7% of the bubble group had rotation error ≤5（P =0.612）.·CONCLUSION： Both preoperative marking techniques result in approximately 3 of alignment error. Both marking techniques are simple, predictable, reproducible and easy to perform.
