| Title |
Risk factors for corneal endothelial cell loss by cataract surgery in eyes with pseudoexfoliation syndrome
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Ophthalmology, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/opth.s106661 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yumi Hasegawa, Ryohei Nejima, Yosai Mori, Toshihiro Sakisaka, Keiichiro Minami, Kazunori Miyata, Tetsuro Oshika |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to investigate the factors associated with decreases in corneal endothelial cell density (ECD) resulting from cataract surgery in eyes with pseudoexfoliation syndrome (PEX). The clinical records of 78 eyes of 78 patients with PEX who had undergone cataract surgery were reviewed. ECD was measured preoperatively and at 3 months postoperatively with specular microscopy. Multiple regression analysis was used to assess the factors that were significantly related to the rate of ECD loss. Explanatory variables included age, preoperative ECD, pupil diameter, cataract grade, concomitance of glaucoma or diabetes mellitus, preoperative anterior chamber depth, surgery time, total time and power of ultrasound, performance of intraoperative pupillary enlargement manipulation, and postoperative aqueous flare intensity at 1 week and 1 month. ECD before and after surgery was 2,464±337 cells/mm(2) and 2,400±347 cells/mm(2), respectively, with an ECD loss rate of 2.6%±5.1% (mean ± SD). Multiple regression analysis revealed that ECD loss was significantly associated with the cataract grade (P=0.019) and preoperative anterior chamber depth (P=0.023). With modern small incision cataract surgery, the ECD loss varied with surgical invasions due to severe cataract and shallow anterior chamber, and the presence of PEX was least affected. |
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 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 18 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 3 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 17% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 11% |
| Researcher | 2 | 11% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 4 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 56% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 6% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 5 | 28% |
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 31 August 2016.
All research outputs
#20,657,128
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#2,605
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#299,485
of 381,029 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#53
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 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 3,714 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 381,029 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.