| Title |
Residual stromal bed thickness correlates with regression of myopia after LASIK
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Ophthalmology, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/opth.s116498 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kosuke Ogasawara, Tsuyoshi Onodera |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the correlation between residual stromal bed thickness (hereinafter bed thickness) and regression of myopia after LASIK, taking into consideration the long-term outcomes. A total of 177 patients (309 eyes) and 41 patients (70 eyes) were retrospectively reviewed at 5 and 10 years after surgery, respectively. These patients were also continuously examined throughout the study. All patients underwent laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) for myopia in our clinic and scored at least 1.0 (0 logMAR) uncorrected distance visual acuity (UCVA) 1 month after surgery. Bonferroni-Dunn method and Student's t-test were used for statistical analyses. Cases with a refractive value (spherical equivalent) of less than -6.0 D (Group A) were compared to those with -6.1 D or higher (Group B). There was a statistically significant decrease in Group B UCVA of 0.04 logMAR and 0.12 logMAR at 5 and 10 years after surgery, respectively. With regard to the relationship between regression of myopia and bed thickness in the long-term, there was a significantly higher frequency of regression of myopia in cases with less than 350 μm bed thickness compared to those with 350 μm and more, in a surgical volume of more than -6.1 D (Group B). The present study indicates that bed thickness correlates with regression of myopia after LASIK and enough bed thickness is important to maintain good UCVA in the long-term. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 26 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 19% |
| Other | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 12% |
| Researcher | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 12% |
| Unknown | 7 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 38% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 23% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Engineering | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 8 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 20 October 2016.
All research outputs
#16,046,765
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#1,344
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#196,840
of 332,569 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#29
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its peers.
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 332,569 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.