↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Surgical repair of orbital fat prolapse by conjunctival fixation to the sclera

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
7 Mendeley
Title
Surgical repair of orbital fat prolapse by conjunctival fixation to the sclera
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, September 2015
DOI 10.2147/opth.s91598
Pubmed ID
Authors

Natsuko Nakamura, Kunihiko Akiyama, Chika Shigeyasu, Masakazu Yamada

Abstract

The aim of the study described here was to report the outcomes of surgery for orbital fat prolapse by conjunctival fixation to the sclera. Twenty-three consecutive eyes of 19 patients with orbital fat prolapse were retrospectively reviewed. All cases were treated with the same simple procedure without resection through conjunctival incision: fixation of conjunctiva to the sclera with interrupted sutures of 10-0 nylon in two rows located approximately 12-14 mm posterior to the limbus. These sutures formed an embankment to keep the prolapsed fat posteriorly. Postoperative results were determined by slit-lamp examination and recurrence of prolapse was defined as the presence of orbital fat anterior to the embankment. During the mean follow-up period of 19 months (range: 1-59 months), one case experienced recurrence which required further surgery. None of the other cases experienced recurrence, and there were no intraoperative or postoperative complications. Conjunctival fixation to the sclera was a simple and effective surgical technique for orbital fat prolapse, with less invasion compared to the conventional method that requires conjunctival incision.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 7 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 2 29%
Other 2 29%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 14%
Professor 1 14%
Student > Bachelor 1 14%
Other 0 0%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 100%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 30 September 2017.
All research outputs
#16,720,137
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#1,551
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,821
of 276,785 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#38
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 276,785 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 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 52% of its contemporaries.