| Title |
Comparing consistency of clear corneal incisions using a traditional diamond keratome and a newly designed diamond keratome
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Ophthalmology, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/opth.s87508 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Russell J Swan, Julia M Byrd, Daniel I Bettis, Randall J Olson |
| Abstract |
To compare the consistency of incision architecture utilizing a traditional diamond keratome and a newly designed diamond keratome. We used a traditional diamond keratome and newly designed diamond keratome to create clear corneal incisions in human cadaveric donor eyes. Three surgeons with varying levels of experience made 30 incisions with each keratome; and the wound architecture was measured including incision lengths, epithelial and endothelial widths, and the central epithelial incision's deviation from a straight line entrance. The mean absolute difference in right and left incision lengths (traditional: 0.182 ± 0.158 mm and new 0.088±0.077 mm [P<0.003]), mean absolute difference in epithelial and endothelial incision width (traditional: 0.181±0.144 mm and new 0.080±0.092 mm [P<0.002]), endothelial incision central deviation from a straight line (traditional: 0.128±0.242 mm and new -0.046±0.124 mm [P<0.001]) were all significantly more consistent with the newly designed diamond keratome than with the traditional diamond keratome. The newly designed diamond keratome creates a more consistent clear corneal incision than a traditional diamond keratome across a variety of surgical skill levels and does not require advanced levels of training to achieve this consistency. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 3 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 1 | 33% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 12 January 2023.
All research outputs
#7,778,510
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#676
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,893
of 277,613 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#12
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,712 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 277,613 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 69% of its contemporaries.
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 done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.