| Title |
Comparison of cumulative dissipated energy between the Infiniti and Centurion phacoemulsification systems
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Ophthalmology, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/opth.s88225 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ming Chen, Erik Anderson, Geoffrey Hill, John J Chen, Thomas Patrianakos |
| Abstract |
To compare cumulative dissipated energy between two phacoemulsification machines. An ambulatory surgical center, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. Retrospective chart review. A total of 2,077 consecutive cases of cataract extraction by phacoemulsification performed by five surgeons from November 2012 to November 2014 were included in the study; 1,021 consecutive cases were performed using the Infiniti Vision System, followed by 1,056 consecutive cases performed using the Centurion Vision System. The Centurion phacoemulsification system required less energy to remove a cataractous lens with an adjusted average energy reduction of 38% (5.09 percent-seconds) (P<0.001) across all surgeons in comparison to the Infiniti phacoemulsification system. The reduction in cumulative dissipated energy was statistically significant for each surgeon, with a range of 29%-45% (2.25-12.54 percent-seconds) (P=0.005-<0.001). Cumulative dissipated energy for both the Infiniti and Centurion systems varied directly with patient age, increasing an average of 2.38 percent-seconds/10 years. The Centurion phacoemulsification system required less energy to remove a cataractous lens in comparison to the Infiniti phacoemulsification system. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 35 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 9 | 26% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 7 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 66% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 3% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 9 | 26% |
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 24 July 2015.
All research outputs
#22,759,452
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#3,207
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,501
of 277,613 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#86
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 277,613 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.