Baseline J0 data showed an average WTR keratometric astigmatism of 0.85 D and an average ATR internal astigmatism of 0.31 D (
Table 1), resulting in WTR refractive astigmatism (J0 +0.54 D). J0 measurements of keratometric and internal astigmatism (
Table 4) were positively correlated, indicating a decrease in ATR internal astigmatism with increasing level of ATR keratometric astigmatism. However, correlations were weak, and the relation explained little variability (
r2 values < 0.05). Regression analyses predicting baseline refractive astigmatism from keratometric astigmatism provided further evidence of the independence of magnitude of WTR keratometric astigmatism and ATR internal astigmatism (
Table 5). The constant and slope in these regressions represent the influence of internal astigmatism. For WTR astigmatism (J0), regression constants were significantly less than 0, reflecting a fixed component of internal compensation. Regression slopes tended to be close to 1 (not significantly different from 1 for subjects with significant WTR astigmatism,
Table 5), indicating that magnitude of ATR internal astigmatism was not dependent upon magnitude of WTR keratometric astigmatism. In the present study, the constant for subjects with clinically significant WTR astigmatism (subjects with refractive J0 ≥ 0.50, equivalent to 1.00 D WTR astigmatism in clinical notation) is approximately −0.25 D of J0 (equivalent to 0.50 D ATR astigmatism in clinical notation). These results are consistent with modifications of Javal's rule specifying that the relation between keratometric astigmatism and refractive astigmatism is best described as magnitude of keratometric astigmatism minus an ATR constant of 0.50 D.
10 The ATR internal astigmatism constant appeared to “compensate” for WTR keratometric astigmatism in the present study, resulting in lower levels of WTR refractive astigmatism. However, because the magnitude of internal astigmatism is not negatively correlated with the magnitude of keratometric astigmatism, the data suggest a consistent ATR contribution from internal astigmatism—a passive compensation that can be attributed to the fact that our sample consists primarily of children with high WTR keratometric astigmatism. This regression constant is less than in a previous report on preschoolers from this population that indicated a constant of approximately 0.75 D ATR internal astigmatism.
9
Shankar and Bobier
19 obtained results similar to our cross-sectional findings in their sample of Canadian preschool children: They reported a predominance of WTR astigmatism (69% in children with ≥1.00 D) that was primarily keratometric in origin, a positive mean J0 for keratometric astigmatism (WTR), and a negative mean J0 for internal astigmatism (ATR). They also observed that the magnitude of ATR internal astigmatism did not increase with the magnitude of WTR keratometric astigmatism. The regression results for our sample were similar to results reported in a recent study of 1004 Singaporean schoolchildren 7 to 13 years old
16:
However, regression slopes differed from results reported by Huynh et al.
21 for a sample of 12-year-old Australian children, in which slopes were 0.65 for J0 and 0.40 for J45. The findings of Huynh et al.
21 also differed from our results in that those authors found that the contribution of internal astigmatism was related to the magnitude of keratometric astigmatism. The differences in findings across studies may be due to the fact that the present study and the studies by Shankar and Bobier
19 and Tong et al.
16 included populations in which astigmatism was predominantly WTR, compared to the population studied by Huynh et al.,
21 in which axis was WTR in just 40% of children with astigmatism ≥ 1.00 D.