RESUMO
Purpose: To evaluate whether the toric intra?ocular lens (IOL) power calculation based on total corneal astigmatism (TCA) in eyes with high posterior corneal astigmatism (PCA) could result in a systematic over?correction or under?correction after operation. Methods: The present study included a mono?centric retrospective study design. The data were collected from 62 consecutive eyes during uncomplicated cataract surgery by a single surgeon with a measured PCA of 0.50 diopters (D) or higher. Toric IOL calculations were made using TCA measurements. The eyes were grouped as either “with?the?rule” (WTR) or “against?the?rule” (ATR) on the basis of the steep anterior corneal meridian. The post?operative refractive astigmatic prediction error was analyzed 1 month post?operatively using the vector analysis by the Alpins method and double?angle plots method. Results: The correction indexes were 1.14 ± 0.29 in the ATR eyes and 1.25 ± 0.18 for the WTR eyes, indicating a tendency toward over?correction. The mean over?correction was 0.22 ± 0.52D in the ATR group and 0.65 ± 0.60D in the WTR group. The magnitude of error (ME) values were significantly different from the ideal value of zero in both groups (ATR: P = 0.03; WTR: P = 0.00). No significant difference in mean absolute error (MAE) in predicted residual astigmatism was found between ATR and WTR groups (0.61 ± 0.42 D versus 0.64 ± 0.39 D; P = 0.54). The ATR group yielded better results, with 48% <0.50D prediction error in the main analysis. Conclusions: The results suggested that in cases of high PCA, the toric IOL calculation, which was performed using TCA, may cause a potential over?correction in the ATR and WTR eyes. For ATR eyes, over?correction led to slight disruption of post?operative visual quality because of the “with?the?rule” residual astigmatism after operation. Therefore, we suggested using TCA for toric IOL calculation in ATR eyes.
RESUMO
Purpose: To evaluate a method using measured values of total corneal refractive power (TCRP) for a manufacturer’s online calculator by comparing it with the Barrett toric calculator (BTC) and Kane toric calculator (KTC) combined with simulated keratometry values (SimK). Methods: This was a retrospective case series. Patient records were reviewed to identify the patients who had biometry with the IOL Master 700 and Pentacam recorded before toric IOL implantation and refractive follow?up data after implantation. The predicted error in residual astigmatism was calculated by vector analysis according to the calculation methods and the measurements used. Results: A total of 70 eyes of 56 patients were included. The mean absolute astigmatism prediction errors were 0.6 ± 0.32, 0.59 ± 0.35, and 0.61 ± 0.35 D for the ATCTCRP, BTCSimK, and KTCSimK calculators, respectively (P = 0.934), and the centroid of the prediction errors were 0.3 D @ 178°, 0.11 D @ 102°, and 0.09 D @ 147°, respectively (P = 0.23). In the with?the?rule subgroup, the centroid of the prediction error was 0.34 D @ 176° for ATCTCRP and was the highest among the three calculation methods (P = 0.046). Conclusion: The ATCTCRP, BTCSimK, and KTCSimK calculators had similar performance with regards to their astigmatism prediction accuracy. The ATCTCRP calculator combined with 4.0?mm apex/ ring readings of TCRP was slightly intended to result in against?the?rule residual astigmatism.
RESUMO
<p><b>OBJECTIVES</b>To compare the effects of losartan, enalapril and their combination in the prevention of left ventricular remodeling (LVRM) after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in the rat.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>AMI model was induced in female SD rats by ligating left coronary artery. Forty-eight hours after the procedure, 83 surviving rats were randomized into one of the following 4 groups : 1) AMI control group (n = 19), 2) losartan group (n = 22, 3 mg x kg(-1) x d(-1)), 3) enalapril group (n = 20, 1 mg x kg(-1) x d(-1)), 4) losartan-enalapril combinative group (n = 22, 3 and 1 mg x kg(-1) x d(-1) respectively). 5) Sham-operated group (n = 10) and 6) normal rats group (n = 10) were selected randomly to serve as non-infarction controls. Losartan and enalapril were delivered by direct gastric gavage. After 4 weeks of medical therapy, hemodynamic studies were performed in each group, then the rat hearts were fixed with 10% formalin and pathologic analysis on them was performed. Complete experimental data was obtained in 56 rats, comprising 1) AMI controls (n = 11), 2) losartan group (n = 10), 3) enalapril group (n = 10), 4) the combination of losartan and enalapril group (n = 11), 5) sham-operated group (n = 6) and 6) normal controls (n = 8).</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>There were no significant differences among the 4 AMI groups in MI size (41.7% to approximately 43.4%, all P > 0.05). Compared with sham group, the left ventricular (LV) end diastolic pressure (LVEDP), volume (LVV), long and short axis length (L and D), as well as LV absolute and relative weight (LVAW and LVRW) in AMI group were all significantly increased (P < 0.05 to approximately 0.001); whereas the maximum left ventricular pressure rising and dropping rates (+/- dp/dt) and their corrected values by LV systolic pressure (+/- dp/dt/LVSP) were significantly reduced (all P < 0.001), indicating LVRM occurred and LV systolic and diastolic function impaired after AMI. Compared with AMI group, LVEDP, LVV, LVAW and LVRW were all significantly decreased (P < 0.05 to approximately 0.001); while +/- dp/dt/LVSP were significantly enhanced in all 3 treatment groups (P < 0.05 to approximately 0.001) except -dp/dt/LVSP in losartan group (P > 0.05). There were no significant differences in the above indices among the 3 treatment groups (all P > 0.05).</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>Both losartan and enalapril can prevent from LVRM after AMI in the rat and improve LV function with equivalent effects. There seems no additive effect when the 2 drugs are used in combination.</p>