| Title |
Clinical outcomes using standard phacoemulsification and femtosecond laser-assisted surgery with toric intraocular lenses
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Ophthalmology, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/opth.s102083 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Arnaldo Espaillat, Obniel Pérez, Richard Potvin |
| Abstract |
To compare the 1-month and 1-year results of toric intraocular lens (IOL) implantation with standard (manual) phacoemulsification vs femtosecond laser-assisted surgery. Refractive data, visual acuity data, and ocular aberration measured with a wavefront aberrometer were collected for two groups of patients from one site. The first group had standard phacoemulsification, while the second group had femtosecond laser-assisted surgery, and both groups were implanted with toric IOLs, either monofocal or multifocal. Differences in visual acuity, refractive outcomes, and higher order aberrations - total, corneal, and internal - were evaluated at 1 month and 1 year postoperatively. Toric IOLs were implanted in 62 eyes using standard phacoemulsification and 53 eyes using femtosecond laser-assisted surgery. Uncorrected visual acuity and best-spectacle-corrected visual acuity at 1 month and 1 year were not statistically significantly different between the groups (P>0.05) nor was the mean cylinder or mean spherical equivalent refraction (P>0.12). Total ocular higher order aberrations were significantly different between the groups (P<0.05), but absolute differences appeared to be the same. Internal vertical coma was significantly lower in the femto group at 1 year (P=0.03). Differences in aberrations did not correlate with corrected or uncorrected visual acuity. Patients who underwent uncomplicated lens surgery with toric IOLs in both the groups had comparable refractive outcomes in terms of visual acuity and residual refraction at 1 year. The femto group had significantly lower internal vertical coma at 1 year. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Dominican Republic | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 24 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 8 | 32% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 12% |
| Researcher | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 16% |
| Unknown | 2 | 8% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 84% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 2 | 8% |
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 20 April 2016.
All research outputs
#15,168,964
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#1,158
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,411
of 312,595 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#22
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 312,595 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.