| Title |
Pneumatic retinopexy: patient selection and specific factors
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Ophthalmology, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.2147/opth.s137607 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Stephen Stewart, Wing Chan |
| Abstract |
Pneumatic retinopexy is a minimally invasive, non-incisional procedure for repairing retinal detachment. This procedure is associated with reduced morbidity, reduced cost and faster postoperative recovery compared to pars plana vitrectomy and scleral buckling. Superior visual acuity outcomes have also been reported. Intraoperative complications are primarily related to the intraocular pressure rise caused by gas injection, or the misdirection of the gas. There is a low rate of postoperative complications. Anatomic success rates of over 90% can be achieved when strict selection criteria are applied. However, a number of studies have revealed good outcomes in cases with expanded clinical indications. Pneumatic retinopexy is currently underutilized. With appropriate patient selection, a high success rate can be achieved, and therefore, this procedure has an important role in the armamentarium of the vitreoretinal surgeon. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 48 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 19% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Researcher | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 6% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Unknown | 21 | 44% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 29% |
| Engineering | 3 | 6% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 22 | 46% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 01 February 2024.
All research outputs
#3,711,927
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#322
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,421
of 344,853 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#6
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% 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 90% 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 344,853 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.