| Title |
Clinical trial comparing autogenous fascia lata sling and Gore-Tex suspension in bilateral congenital ptosis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Ophthalmology, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/opth.s95383 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mahmoud Ahmed Elsamkary, Maged Maher Salib Roshdy |
| Abstract |
To study the effect of autogenous fascia lata sling (AFLS) versus Gore-Tex suspension (GTS) regarding the functional and aesthetic outcomes in patients with bilateral congenital ptosis. A prospective comparative randomized single-center study enrolled 110 patients with bilateral congenital ptosis. One group (n=55) underwent AFLS and the second group (n=55) underwent GTS. Exclusion criteria were good levator function, absent Bell's phenomenon, and abnormal ocular motility. Follow-up period was 2 years. Functional outcome was measured from digital photos by analysis of upper eyelid margin position relative to the superior limbus and classified as very good (<3 mm), good (3-5 mm), poor (>5 mm), and recurrent. Aesthetic outcome was assessed in terms of lid contour, symmetry of eyelid height, and lid crease presence. Complications were also reported. Failure rate (recurrence and complications) was less in AFLS (P=0.035). Symmetrical lid height and good contour were more frequently attained by AFLS (P=0.007 and 0.047, respectively). However, the frequency of very good, good, poor, recurrence, lagopthalmos, ectropion, infection, and formed lid crease individually showed no statistically significant difference (P=0.252, 0.482, 1, 0.489, 0.438, 1, 0.618, and 0.506, respectively). AFLS is a better choice in surgery for patients with bilateral congenital ptosis because it has fewer complications and a lesser recurrence rate than GTS. |
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 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 21 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 14% |
| Researcher | 2 | 10% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 14% |
| Unknown | 8 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 52% |
| Psychology | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 9 | 43% |
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 08 March 2016.
All research outputs
#20,656,161
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#2,605
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#231,194
of 312,604 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#46
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 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 3,712 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 312,604 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.