A New Algorithm for Management of Corneal Astigmatism Using Toric Intraocular Lenses

Background and Objectives: To assess refractive and visual outcomes following phacoemulsification using a novel algorithm for toric intraocular lens (IOL) surgery. Setting: Private practice, Spain. Design: Prospective observational study. Materials and Methods: The algorithm was designed to control the topographic position of the principal meridians (flat and steep) after cataract surgery in eyes without associated corneal pathology or previous corneal surgery. It is well known that a toric IOL must be positioned along the steep meridian. Therefore, it is crucial to predict both the postoperative position of the steep meridian and its magnitude. Data from patients who were planned for refractive lens exchange or cataract surgery using the Pešić-Barraquer algorithm and implantation of a toric IOL in eyes with different degrees of astigmatism were used to assess the effect of residual astigmatism on 6-month postoperative monocular uncorrected and corrected distance logMAR visual acuity values (UDVA and CDVA). Vector analysis was performed with J0 and J45 evaluations, and centroid errors in postoperative refractive astigmatism prediction error were calculated in the spectacle plane using the “Astigmatism Double-Angle Plot Tool”. Results: Three hundred and six eyes of 250 patients with a mean age of 69.0 years ± 8.6 were enrolled in the study. The mean preoperative corneal astigmatism measured with Pentacam was 1.43 D ± 0.83 (SD). One hundred and eighty-four eyes (60.13%) had “against-the-rule” (ATR) astigmatism, 67 (21.90%) had “with-the-rule” (WTR) astigmatism, and 55 (17.97%) eyes had “oblique” corneal (OBL) astigmatism preoperatively. The mean absolute astigmatic prediction error in residual astigmatism was 0.31 D ± 0.28. Eyes with preoperative ATR corneal astigmatism had lower mean absolute errors compared to the eyes with WTR astigmatism (0.29 D ± 0.26 and 0.34 D ± 0.31, respectively). Centroid error in predicted residual astigmatism was 0.08 D ± 0.41 @4°. All eyes achieved residual refractive astigmatism within the 1.00 D range, and 55.23% had no residual astigmatism in the spectacle plane. Mean postoperative refractive astigmatism at the spectacle plane was 0.24 D ± 0.29. There were no postoperative complications. Additional statistical analysis of 310 eyes confirmed that when the main incision is not placed on one of the three meridians (flat, steep, or 45-degree bisector), the axis of astigmatism induced by the incision is significantly altered. Exploratory subgroup analyses demonstrated comparable prediction accuracy across incision positions, preoperative astigmatism types, and surgeons, further supporting the robustness of the proposed algorithm. Conclusions: In addition to enabling more accurate prediction of postoperative refractive residual astigmatism in patients undergoing toric IOL implantation, our newly proposed algorithm provides surgical pearls to facilitate preoperative and intraoperative management of corneal astigmatism, highlighting the importance of precise incision placement for optimal refractive outcomes.