Posters

Comparison of rotational stability of a one-piece hydrophilic IOL implanted with and without a surgical guidance system

Poster Details

First Author: R. Gerl GERMANY

Co Author(s):    M. Müller   M. Gerl   D. Breyer   H. Kaymak   G. Auffarth   F. Kretz     

Abstract Details

Purpose:

To compare the efficacy of toric IOL placement comparing an intraoperative surgical guidance system (Callisto, Carl Zeiss Meditech, Germany) to a pendal marker (Geuder, Germany) while implanting a one-piece, hydrophilic, C-Loop IOL (Minifelx, Mediphacos, Brasil).

Setting:

EyeClinic Ahaus-Raesfeld-Rheine, Dr. Gerl & Colleges, Ahaus, Germany

Methods:

In a prospective study half of the patients were marked in upright position fixating a fixation target with the pendal marker. The other half had a reference image taken with the IOL Master 700 (Carl Zeiss Meditech, Germany). During surgery the marked patients were implanted using the marked axis, while the second group wer implanted using the Callisto system for correct toric IOL placement. One day and one month postoperative the intended axis was re-evaluated on the slit lamp.

Results:

10% of the manually made markings had a poor visibility in the operating theatre. Postoperative rotation on day one and after one month did not show any statistical significant difference between the 2 groups. The MInifelx toric showed great rotational stability in both groups.

Conclusions:

Surgical guidance systems offer a more secure surgery, especially in the field of toric IOLs for our patients. In our study, the automated eye recognition has worked in most cases. Modern toric C-Loop IOLs show a good rotational stability with a stable post-operative Outcome in manual and surgical guidance marking.

Financial Disclosure:

One or more of the authors receives consulting fees, retainer, or contract payments from a company producing, developing or supplying the product or procedure presented, One or more of the authors travel has been funded, fully or partially, by a competing company, One or more of the authors travel has been funded, fully or partially, by a company producing, developing or supplying the product or procedure presented, One or more of the authors research is funded, fully or partially, by a competing company, One or more of the authors research is funded, fully or partially, by a company producing, developing or supplying the product or procedure presented, One or more of the authors receives consulting fees, retainer, or contract payments from a competing company