| Title |
Unexpected and permanent central visual loss after removal of intraocular silicone oil
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Ophthalmology, September 2014
|
| DOI | 10.2147/opth.s67760 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Antonio Toso, Ezio Cappello, Simonetta Morselli |
| Abstract |
Here we report a case of unexplained sudden visual loss after removal of silicone oil for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment repair. A patient with visual loss in one eye after removal of silicone oil was investigated with best-corrected Snellen visual acuity assessment, fundus biomicroscopy, optical coherence tomography, color fundus photograph, fluorescein angiography, electrophysiologic examination, automated perimetry, and visual evoked potentials. Best-corrected Snellen visual acuity was 20/30 while the silicone oil was in place. Visual acuity dropped dramatically to 20/200 after silicone oil removal. No other complications associated with oil removal were noted. The retina remained attached. Visual evoked potentials revealed decreased amplitude due to a damaged optic nerve, while the earliest central visual field defects disappeared unexpectedly almost 2 years after the last surgical procedure. No other abnormalities were demonstrated. Vision loss is a possible complication of silicone oil and removal. This case was distinguished by the permanent decrease of visual acuity despite the unexplained and quite complete recovery of the foveal threshold with no other relevant visual field defects. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 21 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 4 | 19% |
| Researcher | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 10% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 6 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 67% |
| Unknown | 7 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 19 April 2022.
All research outputs
#8,535,472
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#820
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,109
of 248,671 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#12
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 73% 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 248,671 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.