| Title |
Posterior capsular complication rates with femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery: a consecutive comparative cohort and literature review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Ophthalmology, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.2147/opth.s173089 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lewis Levitz, Joseph Reich, Chris Hodge |
| Abstract |
The aim of the study was to determine whether femtosecond-assisted laser cataract surgery (FLACS) reduces the posterior capsular complication (PCC) rate compared to manual cataract surgery when performed by an experienced surgeon. We reviewed 2,021 consecutive FLACS procedures between 1 June 2012 and 30 August 2017. All cases of posterior capsular rupture (PCR) with or without vitreous prolapse or zonular dialysis (ZD) that prevented an in-the-bag placement of the intraocular lens were included. Risk factors were noted and outcomes documented. Six eyes of 2,021 (0.3%) who underwent FLACS had either a PCR or ZD. One eye (0.25%) of 403 eyes that had manual cataract surgery had a PCR. There was no significant difference in outcomes. Risk factors included advanced age, dense nuclei, pseudoexfoliation and small pupil. Only a single case in the FLACS series may have been directly attributed to the FLACS procedure. This study provides evidence that there is no significant difference in the PCC rate between FLACS and manual cataract surgery in the hand of an experienced surgeon who performs >350 cases annually. This low rate of complications may be achieved by less experienced surgeons adopting FLACS. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 20 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 25% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 15% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Librarian | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 15% |
| Unknown | 3 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 55% |
| Philosophy | 1 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 5% |
| Psychology | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 4 | 20% |
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 14 March 2019.
All research outputs
#20,663,600
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#2,605
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#268,908
of 345,739 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#44
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,714 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 345,739 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.