| Title |
Investigation of postoperative intraocular pressure in cases of silicone oil removal using 25-gauge transconjunctival sutureless vitrectomy with oblique incisions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Ophthalmology, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/opth.s93376 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hirotsugu Takashina, Akira Watanabe, Hiroshi Tsuneoka |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this study was to investigate postoperative intraocular pressure (IOP) in cases of silicone oil (SO) removal when using 25-gauge transconjunctival sutureless vitrectomy (TSV) with oblique incisions. We enrolled ten consecutive eyes with SO removal (SO group) and eleven consecutive eyes with idiopathic epiretinal membrane (ERM) as the initial vitrectomy (ERM group) in cases using 25-gauge TSV with oblique incisions. Postoperative IOPs were compared between the two groups at each of the four examination periods. No significant differences were identified in any of the periods examined. The use of 25-gauge TSV with oblique incisions resulted in almost equivalent postoperative IOPs between cases with SO removal and idiopathic ERM as the initial operation. Self-sealing sclerotomy in 25-gauge TSV with oblique incisions may primarily involve the valve architecture, and be complemented by vitreous incarceration. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Professor | 2 | 29% |
| Researcher | 1 | 14% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 3 | 43% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 57% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 2 | 29% |
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 November 2015.
All research outputs
#15,740,207
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#1,277
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#147,347
of 286,876 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#31
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 63% 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 286,876 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 59% of its contemporaries.