↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Comparison of corneal biomechanics after myopic small-incision lenticule extraction compared to LASIK: an ex vivo study

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Ophthalmology, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
Title
Comparison of corneal biomechanics after myopic small-incision lenticule extraction compared to LASIK: an ex vivo study
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, January 2018
DOI 10.2147/opth.s153509
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anastasios John Kanellopoulos

Abstract

To investigate ex vivo potentially different corneal biomechanical properties after small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) versus LASIK for myopic correction. Thirty human donor corneas were subjected to either myopic SMILE or femtosecond laser-assisted LASIK. Donor corneas were assigned to six investigative groups: Group A, -3.00 D (diopters) SMILE; Group B, -8.00 D SMILE; Group C, -3.00 D LASIK; and Group D, -8.00 D LASIK. Additionally, two control groups were formed: Group E, SMILE and Group F, LASIK. All groups consisted of five corneas, randomly allocated. The corneas in the control groups were subjected to the corresponding femtosecond-laser lamellar cuts but not to tissue removal. Evaluation of biomechanical tensile strength was conducted by biaxial force application. Primary outcome measures were stress at 10% and 15% strain, and Young's modulus at 10% and 15% strain. In SMILE, the average relative difference (Δ) of the four outcome measures was -34.46% for -3.00 D correction versus control Group E and -49.34% for -8.00 D correction versus control Group E. In LASIK, average Δ was -24.88% for -3.00 D correction versus control, and -52.73% for -8.00 D correction versus control. All these differences were statistically significant; SMILE compared to LASIK for the same myopic correction appears to result in more biomechanical reduction for -3.00 D corrections by -26%, while a nonstatistically significant difference was noted in -8.00 D corrections. Both SMILE and LASIK procedures do substantially alter corneal biomechanical properties, and the degree of tensile strength reduction is statistically significantly correlated to the extent of myopic correction. Additionally, SMILE procedure seems to result in more tensile strength reduction in lower myopic corrections compared to LASIK, and similar tensile strength reduction to LASIK in higher myopic corrections when compared to LASIK.

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 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 24%
Researcher 4 16%
Other 3 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 4%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 8 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 5 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Arts and Humanities 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 12 48%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 August 2022.
All research outputs
#2,486,587
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#169
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,660
of 449,550 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#2
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,714 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 449,550 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 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 93% of its contemporaries.