↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Central cortical cleanup and zonular deficiency

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
Title
Central cortical cleanup and zonular deficiency
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, October 2016
DOI 10.2147/opth.s116314
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ahmad M Mansour, Rafic S Antonios, Iqbal Ike K Ahmed

Abstract

Complete removal of the cortex has been advocated to prevent posterior capsular opacification but carries the risk of zonular dehiscence, hence there is a need for a safe maximal cortical cleanup technique in eyes with severe diffuse zonulopathy in subjects above age 90. We used bimanual central cortical cleaning by elevating central fibers and aspirating them toward the periphery. Peripheral cortical fibers were removed passively only when they became loose due to copious irrigation. A one-piece foldable implant was inserted without a capsular tension ring. Postoperative corticosteroid drops were used. This technique was safely performed in a dozen eyes with severe pseudo-exfoliation or brunescent cataract with weak zonules. Posterior capsular rupture, iritis, vitreous loss, and lens subluxation were not observed. Moderate capsular phimosis occurred but with maintained central vision. The dogma of "complete cortical cleanup" in severe zonulopathy needs to be revisited in favor of a clear visual axis with maximal preservation of the damaged zonules. This technique is ideal in patients above age 90 where posterior capsular opacification and late dislocation of intraocular lens-capsule bag complex are unlikely to occur until several years postoperatively.

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 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of 1 6%
Unknown 16 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 2 12%
Other 2 12%
Student > Bachelor 2 12%
Researcher 2 12%
Professor 2 12%
Other 4 24%
Unknown 3 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 65%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 6%
Engineering 1 6%
Unknown 4 24%
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 04 October 2016.
All research outputs
#19,942,887
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#2,475
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#244,256
of 332,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#44
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 332,555 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.