English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Purpose  To calculate actual corneal astigmatism using the total corneal refractive astigmatism for the 4-mm apex zone of the Pentacam (TCRP4astig) and keratometric astigmatism (Kastig) before and after photorefractive keratectomy or laser  in situ  keratomileusis    Methods  Uncomplicated 56 eyes after more than 6 months from the surgery were recruited by chart review. Various corneal astigmatisms were measured using the Pentacam and autokeratometer before and after surgery. Three eyes were excluded and 53 eyes of 38 subjects with with-the-rule astigmatism (WTR) were finally included. The astigmatisms were investigated using polar value analysis. When TCRP4astig was set as an actual astigmatism, the efficacy of arithmetic or coefficient adjustment of Kastig was evaluated using bivariate analysis.    Results  The difference between the simulated keratometer astigmatism of the Pentacam (SimKastig) and Kastig was strongly correlated with the difference between TCRP4astig and Kastig. TCRP4astig was different from Kastig in magnitude rather than meridian before and after surgery; the preoperative difference was due to the posterior cornea only; however, the postoperative difference was observed in both anterior and posterior parts. For arithmetic adjustment, 0.28 D and 0.27 D were subtracted from the preoperative and postoperative magnitudes of Kastig, respectively. For coefficient adjustment, the preoperative and postoperative magnitudes of Kastig were multiplied by 0.80 and 0.66, respectively. By arithmetic or coefficient adjustment, the difference between TCRP4astig and adjusted Kastig would be less than 0.75 D in magnitude for 95% of cases.    Conclusions  Kastig was successfully adjusted to TCPR4astig before and after myopic keratorefractive surgery in cases of WTR. For use of TCRP4astig directly, SimKastig and Kastig should be matched.

Calculations of actual corneal astigmatism using total corneal refractive power before and after myopic keratorefractive surgery