| Title |
Safety and efficacy of phacoemulsification and intraocular lens implantation through a small pupil using minimal iris manipulation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Interventions in Aging, May 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/cia.s97254 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dimitris Papaconstantinou, George Kalantzis, Dimitris Brouzas, Anastasios Kontaxakis, Chryssanthi Koutsandrea, Andreas Diagourtas, Ilias Georgalas |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to compare the results of phacoemulsification through a small pupil using minimal iris manipulation versus phacoemulsification through a well-dilated pupil. This prospective randomized control (comparative) study comprised 78 patients (group I) with a maximally dilated pupil size of ≤4.00 mm and 45 patients (group II) with dilated pupil size of ≥7.00 mm. In group I patients, only viscodilation and minimal push-and-pull iris stretching with two collar-button iris-retractor hooks were utilized without iris manipulation. Phacoemulsification was performed by two senior surgeons and the technique used consisted of either stop and chop or quick chop, infusion/aspiration of lens cortex, capsular bag refill with ocular viscoelastic devices, and implantation of an acrylic foldable intraocular lens. Patients were examined on the first day and 1 month postoperatively. Forty-six eyes of group I patients had pseudoexfoliation syndrome, eleven eyes had previous glaucoma surgery, 14 eyes had angle-closure or open-angle glaucoma, and seven eyes had posterior synechiae with iritis. In group I patients, the mean pupil size measured under an operating microscope was 3.2 mm preoperatively, 4.3 mm after viscoelastic and mechanical pupil dilation, and 4.1 mm at the end of a surgical procedure. Rupture of the zonular fibers occurred in six patients of group I and the intraocular lens was implanted in the sulcus. Small iris-sphincter rupture and small hemorrhages occurred in four eyes during pupillary manipulation, but they were not evident at the end of the surgery. In group II patients, no intraoperative complications occurred. Signs of significant corneal edema and iritis were observed more frequently in group I eyes (26 eyes and 20 eyes, respectively) on the first postoperative day in comparison with group II eyes (ten eyes and six eyes, respectively). Intraocular pressure was <20 mmHg in all eyes of both groups. One month postoperatively, the pupil was round and reactive to light, the anterior chamber was quiet, and the cornea was clear in all eyes. The best-corrected visual acuity on Snellen chart was 20/40 (Monoyer's scale) or better in both groups. Phacoemulsification through a small pupil using minimal iris manipulation can be safe and exhibits the same results as those obtained with phacoemulsification through normal pupils. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 31 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 13% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 13 | 42% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 19% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 13% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 6% |
| Psychology | 1 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 15 | 48% |
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 18 May 2016.
All research outputs
#19,944,994
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#1,407
of 1,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#217,274
of 311,864 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#35
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,968 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 311,864 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.