| Title |
Long-term evaluation of eyes with central corneal thickness <400 µm following laser in situ keratomileusis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Ophthalmology, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/opth.s100690 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mohammad Reza Djodeyre, Jaime Beltran, Julio Ortega-Usobiaga, Felix Gonzalez-Lopez, Ana Isabel Ruiz-Rizaldos, Julio Baviera |
| Abstract |
To study long-term refractive and visual outcomes of laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) in eyes with a postoperative thin central cornea. In this retrospective observational case series, we studied 282 myopic eyes with a normal preoperative topographic pattern and postoperative thin corneas (<400 μm) that had at least 3 years of follow-up after LASIK in three private clinics. The main outcome measures were safety, efficacy, predictability, percent tissue altered, and complications. The mean postoperative central corneal thickness was 392.05 μm (range: 363.00-399.00 μm). After a mean follow-up of 6.89±2.35 years (standard deviation), the safety index was 1.17, the efficacy index was 0.94, and predictability (±1.00 diopter [D]) was 73.49. The mean residual stromal bed thickness was 317.34±13.75 μm (range: 275-356 μm), the mean flap thickness was 74.76±13.57 μm (range: 55-124 μm), and the mean percent tissue altered was 37.12%±3.62% (range: 27.25%-49.26%). No major complications were recorded. LASIK with a resultant central cornea thickness <400 μm seems to be effective, safe, and predictable provided that preoperative topography is normal and the residual stromal bed thickness is >275 μm. |
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 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 | 3 | 15% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 10% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 10% |
| Other | 4 | 20% |
| Unknown | 5 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 50% |
| Engineering | 2 | 10% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 1 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 6 | 30% |
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 29 March 2016.
All research outputs
#20,657,128
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#2,605
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#231,193
of 312,601 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#46
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 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 312,601 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.