Refractive changes after descemet stripping endothelial keratoplasty: a simplified mathematical model.

PURPOSE: To develop a mathematical model that can predict refractive changes after Descemet stripping endothelial keratoplasty (DSEK). METHODS: A mathematical formula based on the Gullstrand eye model was generated to estimate the change in refractive power of the eye after DSEK. This model was applied to four DSEK cases retrospectively, to compare measured and predicted refractive changes after DSEK. RESULTS: The refractive change after DSEK is determined by calculating the difference in the power of the eye before and after DSEK surgery. The power of the eye post-DSEK surgery can be calculated with modified Gullstrand eye model equations that incorporate the change in the posterior radius of curvature and change in the distance between the principal planes of the cornea and lens after DSEK. Analysis of this model suggests that the ratio of central to peripheral graft thickness (CP ratio) and central thickness can have significant effect on refractive change where smaller CP ratios and larger graft thicknesses result in larger hyperopic shifts. This model was applied to four patients, and the average predicted hyperopic shift in the overall power of the eye was calculated to be 0.83 D. This change reflected in a mean of 93% (range, 75%-110%) of patients' measured refractive shifts. CONCLUSIONS: This simplified DSEK mathematical model can be used as a first step for estimating the hyperopic shift after DSEK. Further studies are necessary to refine the validity of this model.

Energy recovery in individuals with knee osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: Pathological gaits have been shown to limit transfer between potential (PE) and kinetic (KE) energy during walking, which can increase locomotor costs. The purpose of this study was to examine whether energy exchange would be limited in people with knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: Ground reaction forces during walking were collected from 93 subjects with symptomatic knee OA (self-selected and fast speeds) and 13 healthy controls (self-selected speed) and used to calculate their center of mass (COM) movements, PE and KE relationships, and energy recovery during a stride. Correlations and linear regressions examined the impact of energy fluctuation phase and amplitude, walking velocity, body mass, self-reported pain, and radiographic severity on recovery. Paired t-tests were run to compare energy recovery between cohorts. RESULTS: Symptomatic knee OA subjects displayed lower energetic recovery during self-selected walking speeds than healthy controls (P = 0.0018). PE and KE phase relationships explained the majority (66%) of variance in recovery. Recovery had a complex relationship with velocity and its change across speeds was significantly influenced by the self-selected walking speed of each subject. Neither radiographic OA scores nor subject self-reported measures demonstrated any relationship with energy recovery. CONCLUSIONS: Knee OA reduces effective exchange of PE and KE, potentially increasing the muscular work required to control movements of the COM. Gait retraining may return subjects to more normal patterns of energy exchange and allow them to reduce fatigue.