↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Results of endocapsular phacofracture debulking of hard cataracts

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Ophthalmology, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
11 Mendeley
Title
Results of endocapsular phacofracture debulking of hard cataracts
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, July 2015
DOI 10.2147/opth.s85939
Pubmed ID
Authors

James A Davison

Abstract

To present a phacoemulsification technique for hard cataracts and compare postoperative results using two different ultrasonic tip motions during quadrant removal. A phacoemulsification technique which employs in situ fracture and endocapsular debulking for hard cataracts is presented. The prospective study included 56 consecutive cases of hard cataract (LOCS III NC [Lens Opacification Classification System III, nuclear color], average 4.26), which were operated using the Infiniti machine and the Partial Kelman tip. Longitudinal tip movement was used for sculpting for all cases which were randomized to receive longitudinal or torsional/interjected longitudinal (Intelligent Phaco [IP]) strategies for quadrant removal. Measurements included cumulative dissipated energy (CDE), 3 months postoperative surgically induced astigmatism (SIA), and corneal endothelial cell density (ECD) losses. No complications were recorded in any of the cases. Respective overall and longitudinal vs IP means were as follows: CDE, 51.6±15.6 and 55.7±15.5 vs 48.6±15.1; SIA, 0.36±0.2 D and 0.4±0.2 D vs 0.3±0.2 D; and mean ECD loss, 4.1%±10.8% and 5.9%±13.4% vs 2.7%±7.8%. The differences between longitudinal and IP were not significant for any of the three categories. The endocapsular phacofracture debulking technique is safe and effective for phacoemulsification of hard cataracts using longitudinal or torsional IP strategies for quadrant removal with the Infiniti machine and Partial Kelman tip.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 2 18%
Student > Bachelor 2 18%
Student > Postgraduate 2 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 9%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 9%
Other 2 18%
Unknown 1 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 45%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 9%
Computer Science 1 9%
Unknown 1 9%
Attention Score in Context

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 14 July 2015.
All research outputs
#17,438,425
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#1,780
of 3,687 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#165,889
of 277,879 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#39
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,687 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 277,879 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 86 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.