| Title |
Sutureless intrascleral intraocular lens fixation with lamellar dissection of scleral tunnel
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Ophthalmology, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/opth.s101515 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Takahiro Kawaji, Tomoki Sato, Hidenobu Tanihara |
| Abstract |
To report the results of sutureless scleral fixation of a posterior chamber intraocular lens (IOL) by using our developed simple technique. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 48 eyes of 47 patients who underwent sutureless intrascleral IOL fixation by using our modified technique. A 25-gauge microvitreoretinal knife was used to perform sclerotomies and create limbus-parallel scleral tunnels with lamellar dissection in which the haptics were fixed. The IOLs were fixed and centered well. The mean follow-up period was 26.7 months. Postoperative complications included smooth vitreous hemorrhage in four eyes (8.3%), cystoid macular edema in two eyes (4.2%), and iris capture of the IOL in two eyes (4.2%). No other complications, such as breakage of the IOL, spontaneous IOL dislocation, or retinal detachment, were detected during the follow-up period. The lamellar dissection of the limbus-parallel scleral tunnel can simplify the forceps-assisted introduction of the haptics into the scleral tunnel, and this technique seemed to be safe. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 28 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 14% |
| Other | 3 | 11% |
| Researcher | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 11% |
| Other | 4 | 14% |
| Unknown | 8 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 64% |
| Unknown | 10 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 02 March 2021.
All research outputs
#7,777,586
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#676
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,226
of 399,675 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#17
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,712 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 399,675 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 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 68% of its contemporaries.