| Title |
The outcomes and prognostic factors of vitrectomy in chronic diabetic traction macular detachment
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Ophthalmology, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/opth.s98555 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Muneera A Abunajma, Hassan Al-Dhibi, Emad B Abboud, Yahya Al Zahrani, Essam Alharthi, Abdullah Alkharashi, Nicola G Ghazi |
| Abstract |
To investigate the outcomes of pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) for chronic diabetic traction macular detachment (CTMD). Ninety-six eyes that underwent PPV for CTMD of at least 6 months duration were retrospectively analyzed. Retinal reattachment rate, final vision, and prognostic factors for poor visual outcome were the main outcome measures. All eyes had long-standing TMD (median 12, range: 6-70 months). The median postoperative follow-up was 15 (range: 3-65) months. Eighty-seven eyes (90.6%) had their retina and macula reattached after one PPV. At final examination, 84 eyes (87.5%) had stable vision or at least one line improvement, and three had no light perception. Seventeen (17.7%) and 41 (43%) eyes had preoperative visual acuity of ≥20/200 and ≥5/200 as compared to 40 (41.6%; P=0.0005) and 64 (66.7%; P=0.0014) eyes at final follow-up, respectively. Age >50 years (Odds ratio [OR] =5.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] =1.53-22.19, P=0.01), preoperative vision <20/400 (OR =7.012, 95% CI =1.82-26.93, P=0.005), and ischemic macula (OR =14.13, 95% CI =3.61-55.33, P<0.001) were significantly associated with final vision <20/400. PPV for CTMD may be beneficial particularly in patients who are relatively younger and have good baseline vision and no macular ischemia. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 14 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 7% |
| Professor | 1 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 14% |
| Unknown | 5 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 50% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 14% |
| Psychology | 1 | 7% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 3 | 21% |
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 August 2016.
All research outputs
#20,653,708
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#2,605
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#299,484
of 381,020 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#53
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 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 381,020 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 86 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.