| Title |
A case of orbital sebaceous gland carcinoma developing in an anophthalmic socket 65 years after enucleation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Ophthalmology, September 2013
|
| DOI | 10.2147/opth.s44639 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Motoko Shibata, Yoshihiko Usui, Shunichiro Ueda, Hajime Matsumura, Toshitaka Nagao, Hiroshi Goto |
| Abstract |
Although conjunctival squamous cell carcinoma is known to develop as a result of chronic irritation from wearing an ocular prosthesis, orbital sebaceous gland carcinoma arising in an anophthalmic pocket is extremely rare. We report a 68-year-old female who developed a sebaceous gland carcinoma 65 years after her right eye was enucleated (at the age of three years) due to congenital glaucoma. The patient had noticed increasing discharge and swelling of her right eyelid. Incisional biopsies of an underlying orbital mass revealed poorly differentiated sebaceous gland carcinoma. The sebaceous gland carcinoma in this case could have been caused by chronic irritation as a result of long-standing use of a poorly fitted ocular prosthesis. The current case of a malignant tumor occurring 65 years after enucleation emphasizes the importance of long-term clinical surveillance to monitor for tumor formation. Careful examination of the anophthalmic socket should be part of the physical examination. |
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 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 7 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 29% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 29% |
| Researcher | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 2 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 29% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 4 | 57% |
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 15 September 2013.
All research outputs
#20,655,488
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#2,605
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,166
of 212,462 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#55
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 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 212,462 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 83 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.