↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Novel approach for phacoemulsification during combined phacovitrectomy

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
6 Mendeley
Title
Novel approach for phacoemulsification during combined phacovitrectomy
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, December 2015
DOI 10.2147/opth.s92127
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wael Ahmed Ewais, Ashraf Abdel Maqsoud Nossair, Lamia Samy Ali

Abstract

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of surgeon's superior sitting position during temporal clear corneal incision (TCCI) phacoemulsification, with a 90° working angle, during combined phacovitrectomy. Prospective interventional case series were performed on 65 eyes of 63 patients. TCCI phacoemulsification was done in all cases (whether right or left eyes), while the surgeon was sitting superiorly to the operating table. Shift in sitting position, keratometric astigmatism, surgically induced astigmatism, posterior capsule integrity, and intraocular lens centration. Phacoemulsification was performed completely in all cases (100%). Shift in position to temporal sitting position happened in two cases (3%). The keratometric astigmatism showed mean changes of 1.09 D (0.25-3.75 D) to 0.84 D (0.00-3.25 D) at 1 month, which remained stable at 6 months; 0.84 D (0.16-3.21 D). The surgically induced astigmatism was 0.25 DC (-0.50 to 1.0 DC) at 1 month, which stayed stable at 6 months; 0.25 D (-0.63 D to 0.98 D). Posterior capsular rupture occurred in one case (the second case) (1.5%). The intraocular lens was centered in all cases (100%). Superior sitting TCCI phacoemulsification, with a wide working angle, during combined phacovitrectomy proved safe and easy, without the burden of changing and disrupting the operative setting. The anatomical and optical outcomes were acceptable.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 6 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 6 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 2 33%
Other 1 17%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 17%
Student > Master 1 17%
Unknown 1 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 67%
Unknown 2 33%
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 18 December 2015.
All research outputs
#16,048,318
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#1,344
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#215,776
of 395,418 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#42
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 395,418 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 70 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.