| Title |
Early experiences of planning stereotactic radiosurgery using 3D printed models of eyes with uveal melanomas
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Ophthalmology, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/opth.s123640 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alena Furdová, Miron Sramka, Andrej Thurzo, Adriana Furdová |
| Abstract |
The objective of this study was to determine the use of 3D printed model of an eye with intraocular tumor for linear accelerator-based stereotactic radiosurgery. The software for segmentation (3D Slicer) created virtual 3D model of eye globe with tumorous mass based on tissue density from computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging data. A virtual model was then processed in the slicing software (Simplify3D(®)) and printed on 3D printer using fused deposition modeling technology. The material that was used for printing was polylactic acid. In 2015, stereotactic planning scheme was optimized with the help of 3D printed model of the patient's eye with intraocular tumor. In the period 2001-2015, a group of 150 patients with uveal melanoma (139 choroidal melanoma and 11 ciliary body melanoma) were treated. The median tumor volume was 0.5 cm(3) (0.2-1.6 cm(3)). The radiation dose was 35.0 Gy by 99% of dose volume histogram. The 3D printed model of eye with tumor was helpful in planning the process to achieve the optimal scheme for irradiation which requires high accuracy of defining the targeted tumor mass and critical structures. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 50% |
| United States | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 43 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 18% |
| Researcher | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 11% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 9 | 20% |
| Unknown | 8 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 34% |
| Engineering | 4 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 5% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 2 | 5% |
| Design | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Unknown | 14 | 32% |
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 05 December 2017.
All research outputs
#15,173,117
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#1,158
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#225,228
of 421,709 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#19
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 421,709 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.