↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Orbital exenteration in immunodeficiency virus-infected patients

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
9 Mendeley
Title
Orbital exenteration in immunodeficiency virus-infected patients
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, October 2016
DOI 10.2147/opth.s117691
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kagmeni Giles, Yannick Bilong, Nomo Arlette, Nanfack Chantal, Bella Assumpta Lucienne

Abstract

Orbital exenteration (OE) is a disfiguring procedure most commonly performed for locally advanced and potentially life-threatening periorbital malignancies. We retrospectively reviewed records of 11 consecutive HIV patients who underwent OE for invasive orbital malignancy at our institution from January 2005 to December 2015. Patient demographic and clinic data and histopathology of the tumor were analyzed. There were eight (72.72%) female and three (27.28%) male participants ranging in age from 31 to 52 years with an mean of 39.4 years. Nine patients had been known to be HIV-positive for at least 2 years, and HIV-positive status was revealed at presentation for two patients. The mean CD4 cell count was 154.4 cells/mm(3). Histopathological examination showed invasive orbital squamous cell carcinomas in nine patients (81.81%), achromic orbital melanoma in one patient (9.09%), and adenoid cystic carcinoma in one patient (9.09%). None of the patients underwent primary orbital reconstruction. The mean follow-up time was 3.4 months. Only one patient who underwent adjuvant radiotherapy was seen after 12 months. Oculo-orbital malignancies are very aggressive in HIV-positive individuals, especially in untreated patients. Routine screening for suspected ocular surface lesions and early surgical removal of all these lesions could help to avoid the need to perform the radical and disfiguring OE procedure.

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 33%
Student > Postgraduate 1 11%
Other 1 11%
Student > Master 1 11%
Unknown 3 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 56%
Unknown 4 44%
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 21 October 2016.
All research outputs
#20,656,820
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#2,605
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#257,465
of 332,577 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#48
of 72 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 3,712 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 332,577 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.