↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

A comparison of three different corneal marking methods used to determine cyclotorsion in the horizontal meridian

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Ophthalmology, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
Title
A comparison of three different corneal marking methods used to determine cyclotorsion in the horizontal meridian
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, February 2017
DOI 10.2147/opth.s124580
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hung-Yuan Lin, Yi-Ting Fang, Ya-Jung Chuang, Justin N. Karlin, Hsin-Yang Chen, Szu-Yuan Lin, Pi-Jung Lin, Ming Chen

Abstract

During toric intraocular lens (IOL) implantation, surgeons must take particular care to ensure that inaccurate preoperative measurement and intraoperative misalignment do not cause unexpected postoperative residual astigmatism. This retrospective, comparative case series study aimed to analyze the rotational deviation, or cyclotorsion, of three corneal marking methods: VERION digital marker (VDM; reference), horizontal slit beam marking (HSBM), and subjective direct visual marking (SDVM) on the table (using a bevel knife tip). Subjects included 81 eyes of 61 patients (mean age: 65.70±13.14 years; range: 32-91 years) undergoing scheduled cataract surgery. A preoperative reference image was taken of each eye. Subsequently, a slit lamp with the light beam turned to the horizontal meridian was used to align the seated patient's head, and two reference marks were placed at the 3- and 9-o'clock positions of the corneal limbus using a 27-gauge needle and marking pen (HSBM). Upon transfer to the surgical table, the VDM was used to display a real-time dial scale on the patient's eye, with the entrance of the temporal clear corneal incision (CCI) at 0° (horizontal meridian). Simultaneously, a bevel knife tip was used to create a marker based on the surgeon's visual determination of the temporal 0° point (SDVM). We used the VDM to quantitatively evaluate the accuracy of axis alignment via deviation from the horizontal reference meridian. Compared with the reference meridian, the SDVM (-3.46°±7.32°, range: -18° to 13°) exhibited greater average relative cyclotorsion versus the HSBM (0.41°±4.92°, range: -10° to 10°). Furthermore, the mean average misalignment was significantly less in the HSBM group versus the SDVM group (t=4.179, P<0.001). The VDM is likely a reliable marking method, similar to the HSBM. In contrast, the SDVM is not entirely reliable. The VDM usage may prevent inaccurate preoperative manual marking during toric IOL implantation.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 6 26%
Researcher 3 13%
Student > Master 3 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 4%
Lecturer 1 4%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 7 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 61%
Engineering 2 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Unknown 6 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 07 July 2017.
All research outputs
#1,678,516
of 11,437,561 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#74
of 1,456 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,868
of 259,840 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#2
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,437,561 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,456 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 259,840 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.