Comparison of the predictability of refractive cylinder correction by laser in situ keratomileusis in eyes with low or high ocular residual astigmatism

Purpose: To compare the manifest refractive cylinder (MRC) predictability of myopic astigmatism laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) between eyes with low and high ocular residual astigmatism (ORA). Setting: London Vision Clinic, London, United Kingdom. Design: Retrospective case study. Methods: The ORA was considered the vector difference between the MRC and the corneal astigmatism. The index of success (IoS), difference vector ÷ MRC, was analyzed for different groups as follows: stage 1, low ORA (ORA ÷ MRC <1), high ORA (ORA ÷ MRC ≥1); stage 2, low ORA group reduced to match the high ORA group for MRC; stage 3, grouped by ORA magnitude with low ORA (<0.50 diopters [D]), mid ORA (0.50 to 1.24 D), and high ORA (≥1.25 D); stage 4, high ORA group subdivided into low (<0.75 D) and high (≥0.75 D) corneal astigmatism. Results: For stage 1, the mean preoperative MRC and mean IoS were −1.32 D ± 0.65 (SD) (range −0.55 to −3.77 D) and 0.27, respectively, for low ORA and −0.79 ± 0.20 D (range −0.56 to −2.05 D) and 0.37, respectively, for high ORA. For stage 2, the mean IoS increased to 0.32 for low ORA. For stage 3, the mean IoS was 0.28, 0.29, and 0.31 for low ORA, mid ORA, and high ORA, respectively. For stage 4, the mean IoS was 0.20 for high ORA/low corneal astigmatism and 0.35 for high ORA/high corneal astigmatism. Conclusions: The MRC predictability was slightly worse in eyes with high ORA when grouped by the ORA ÷ MRC. Matching for the MRC and grouping by ORA magnitude resulted in similar predictability; however, eyes with high ORA and high corneal astigmatism were less predictable.

The Impact of BIM on the Distribution of Cost and Return on Investment in UK Construction Projects

It has been widely documented that when Building Information Modelling (BIM) is used, there is a shift in effort to the design phase. Little investigation into the impact of this shift in effort has been done and how it impacts on costs. It can be difficult to justify the increased expenditure on BIM in a market that is heavily driven by costs. There are currently studies attempting to quantify the return on investment (ROI) for BIM for which these returns can be seen to balance out the shift in efforts and costs to the design phase. The studies however quantify the ROI based on the individual stakeholder’s investment without consideration for the impact that the use of BIM from their project partners may have on their own profitability. In this study, a questionnaire investigated opinions and experience of construction professionals, representing clients, consultants, designers and contractors, to determine fluctuations in costs by their magnitude and when they occur. These factors were examined more closely by interviewing senior members representing each of the stakeholder categories and comparing their experience in using BIM within environments where their project partners were also using BIM and when they were not. This determined the differences in how the use and the investment in BIM impacts on others and how costs are redistributed. This redistribution is not just through time but also between stakeholders and categories of costs. Some of these cost fluctuations and how the cost of BIM is currently financed are also highlighted in several case studies. The results show that the current distribution of costs set for traditional 2D delivery is hindering the potential success of BIM. There is also evidence that stakeholders who don’t use BIM may benefit financially from the BIM use of others and that collaborative BIM is significantly different to the use of ‘lonely’ BIM in terms of benefits and profitability.