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.

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 METHOD...