| Title |
Clinical results of Trabectome surgery for open-angle glaucoma
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Ophthalmology, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/opth.s83958 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Takanori Mizoguchi, Shiro Nishigaki, Tomoki Sato, Harumi Wakiyama, Nobuchika Ogino |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this study was to determine outcomes when using Trabectome surgery and to evaluate factors associated with its effects in primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) and exfoliation glaucoma (EXG). This was a prospective, non-randomized, observational, comparative cohort study in which Trabectome surgery was used alone in patients with POAG or EXG. Trabectome surgery was considered to have failed when at least one of the following three criteria was fulfilled: intraocular pressure (IOP) ≥21 mmHg and a <20% reduction below the baseline IOP on two consecutive follow-up visits 3 months or more after surgery; need for additional glaucoma surgery; and an increase in number of medications compared with baseline. The subjects were 32 males (34 eyes) and 46 females (48 eyes). POAG was observed in 43 eyes and EXG in 39 eyes. IOP after Trabectome surgery decreased significantly from 22.3±6.8 mmHg at baseline to 14.0±3.9 mmHg (23.0% reduction) at month 24 in all cases (P<0.0000). The success rate at 2 years was 51.2% for all cases (POAG, 50.9%; EXG, 49.2%). There was no significant difference in success rate between POAG and EXG (P=0.91). Preoperative IOP (P=0.033) and number of medications (P=0.041) were significant factors for surgical success/failure in multivariate logistic regression. No serious complications were observed. Trabectome surgery achieved favorable IOP control and was equally effective in patients with POAG and those with EXG. Its effects were influenced by preoperative IOP and number of preoperative medications. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 67% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 18 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 3 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 11% |
| Researcher | 2 | 11% |
| Other | 2 | 11% |
| Unknown | 4 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 44% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 5 | 28% |
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 07 November 2015.
All research outputs
#15,305,492
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#1,155
of 3,687 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#140,671
of 287,342 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#26
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 287,342 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 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 64% of its contemporaries.