ArticleOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2026
Residual Astigmatism With Toric Versus Light-Adjustable Intraocular Lenses: A Power-Vector Model of the Effect of Alignment Uncertainty.
Article in Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo identify when postoperative cylinder adjustment with a light-adjustable lens (LAL) is expected to reduce residual astigmatism more than a toric intraocular lens (IOL), whose effect depends on axis placement and rotational stability.
methodsPower-vector analysis was used to derive a closed-form expected squared residual cylinder for a non-toric IOL, toric IOL and LAL. The toric model included a cylinder-dependent axis-error term and a cylinder-independent RMS floor; the LAL model included a cylinder-independent floor up to a platform-specific deliverable ceiling. Parameters were informed by published biometric, toric-alignment and LAL data. Closed forms were checked by Monte Carlo simulation, with sensitivity analyses across residual floors and axis-error distributions.
resultsThe toric RMS residual comprised a floor plus a misalignment term that increased with corneal cylinder and combined axis-error variance. The LAL residual remained near its floor within its deliverable range. With floors of 0.30 and 0.29 D for toric and LAL, respectively, the LAL advantage was essentially the toric misalignment penalty. At 2.00 D of cylinder, RMS reduction was 0.17, 0.77 and 1.06 D at alignment standard deviations of 5°, 15° and 20°, respectively. Below about 2 D on a stable platform, the gain was generally smaller than 0.50 D; with high cylinder and high combined alignment uncertainty, it could exceed a 0.50-D cylinder step. The comparison was robust across plausible floors and the non-Gaussian error distributions tested. Above the LAL ceiling, LAL monotherapy leaves residual astigmatism from a cylinder beyond the deliverable range.
conclusionPostoperative adjustability has the most astigmatic value when cylinder and alignment uncertainty are both high. For routine eyes, lens choice is more likely to be governed by cost, treatment burden and target refraction than by residual cylinder accuracy alone.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42606693What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.