↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Etiologic analysis of 100 anatomically failed dacryocystorhinostomies

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Ophthalmology, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
Title
Etiologic analysis of 100 anatomically failed dacryocystorhinostomies
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, July 2016
DOI 10.2147/opth.s113733
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tarjani Vivek Dave, Faraz Ali Mohammed, Mohammad Javed Ali, Milind N Naik

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess the etiological factors contributing to the failure of a dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR). Retrospective review was performed in 100 consecutive patients who were diagnosed with anatomically failed DCR at presentation to a tertiary care hospital over a 5-year period from 2010 to 2015. Patient records were reviewed for demographic data, type of past surgery, preoperative endoscopic findings, previous use of adjuvants such as intubation and mitomycin C, and intraoperative notes during the re-revision. The potential etiological factors for failure were noted. Of the 100 patients with failed DCRs, the primary surgery was an external DCR in 73 and endoscopic DCR in 27 patients. Six patients in each group had multiple revisions. The mean ages at presentation in the external and endoscopic groups were 39.41 years and 37.19 years, respectively. All patients presented with epiphora. The most common causes of failure were inadequate osteotomy (69.8% in the external group and 85.1% in the endoscopic group, P=0.19) followed by inadequate or inappropriate sac marsupialization (60.2% in the external group and 77.7% in the endoscopic group, P=0.16) and cicatricial closure of the ostium (50.6% in the external group and 55.5% in the endoscopic group, P=0.83). The least common causes such as ostium granulomas and paradoxical middle turbinate (1.37%, n=1) were noted in the external group only. Inadequate osteotomy, incomplete sac marsupialization, and cicatricial closure of the ostium were the most common causes of failure and did not significantly differ in the external and endoscopic groups. Meticulous evaluation to identify causative factors for failure and addressing them are crucial for subsequent successful outcomes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 17%
Researcher 3 13%
Student > Postgraduate 2 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 9%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 4 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 65%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Unknown 7 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 July 2016.
All research outputs
#20,656,161
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#2,605
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#283,532
of 367,269 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#57
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,712 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 367,269 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.