| Title |
Scleral buckling for primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment using noncontact wide-angle viewing system with a cannula-based 25 G chandelier endoilluminator
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Ophthalmology, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/opth.s91339 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hisanori Imai, Mizuki Tagami, Atsushi Azumi |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study is to report the result of scleral buckling (SB) using a combination of a noncontact wide-angle viewing system and a cannula-based 25 G chandelier endoilluminator. Retrospective analyses of the medical records of 79 eyes of 79 patients with primary uncomplicated rhegmatogenous retinal detachments who had underwent SB using a combination of a noncontact wide-angle viewing system and a chandelier endoilluminator were performed. There were 50 men and 29 women. The mean ± standard deviation age was 43.7±16.0 years. Their preoperative best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was 0.31±0.65 logMAR units. The final BCVA was 0.10±0.31 logMAR units, which was significantly better than the preoperative BCVA (P<0.01). The initial and final anatomical success rates were 92.4% and 100%, respectively. Backward logistic multiple regression analysis revealed no relationship between explanatory variables and the primary anatomic success (P=0.104). SB using a combination of a noncontact wide-angle viewing system and a chandelier endoilluminator is a modified new technique and may be a valid option for the management of rhegmatogenous retinal detachments. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
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 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 13 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 15% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 15% |
| Researcher | 2 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 23% |
| Unknown | 1 | 8% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 62% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 8% |
| Psychology | 1 | 8% |
| Engineering | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 2 | 15% |
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 13 November 2015.
All research outputs
#16,737,737
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#1,552
of 3,715 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#167,142
of 294,905 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#50
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 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 3,715 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 294,905 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 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.