LAUSR

Purpose To compare a new no-touch alignment technique for toric intraocular lenses (IOL) with the conventional technique that uses a manual pendulum. Methods In this retrospective case–control study, patients who underwent toric IOL implantation using two different alignment techniques (digital Callisto ® system vs. manual-pendulum-based marking) were compared in a vector analysis using the Alpins method and an analysis of variance regarding corrected and uncorrected visual acuity and the deviation of the achieved IOL axis from the targeted axis. Results Sixty-one eyes were included into analysis. Thirty-six of these surgeries were performed via the Callisto ® system and 25 eyes via pendulum-based corneal markings. Median IOL axis misalignment was 3° in both groups. Median uncorrected distance visual acuity was 0.097 logMAR versus 0.200. Median best-corrected visual acuity was 0.000 logMAR versus 0.097. All these data were below the range of statistical significance ( p  > 0.05). Vector analysis showed no significant difference for TIA [median of 3.14 diopters (D) vs. 2.73 D], SIA (median of 3.82 D vs. 3.79 D), DV (1.18 D vs. 1.08 D), and CI (1.23 vs. 1.29). Median angle of error was 1.96° versus − 0.44° ( p  > 0.05). Conclusions We found no significant difference in the refractive results, the IOL positioning, and the best-corrected and uncorrected distance visual acuity between the two compared methods. Nevertheless, the Callisto ® IOL alignment system delivers a standardized and easy-to-use technology. In particular, less-experienced surgeons might benefit from this marking technique.