| Title |
Valved versus nonvalved cannula small-gauge pars plana vitrectomy for repair of retinal detachments with Grade C proliferative vitreoretinopathy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Ophthalmology, May 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/opth.s104901 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Patrick Oellers, Sandra Stinnett, Paul Hahn |
| Abstract |
Valved cannulas are a recent addition to small-gauge pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) and provide stable intraocular fluidics. The goal of this study was to compare outcomes and postoperative complication rates of valved vs nonvalved cannula small-gauge PPV for repair of retinal detachments (RDs) complicated by Grade C proliferative vitreoretinopathy (PVR). A retrospective chart review of 364 consecutive eyes with either valved or nonvalved cannula PPV for RD repair was performed. The primary outcomes were single surgery and final anatomic success and change in best-corrected visual acuity for repair of RDs complicated by Grade C PVR. We identified 36 eyes in the valved group and 31 eyes in the nonvalved group with Grade C PVR RD. The single surgery success was 83% vs 77% (P=0.555) and the final anatomic success was 94% vs 87% (P=0.404) in the valved vs nonvalved eyes, respectively. The mean final visual acuity gain was -0.36 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR; approximate Early Treatment Diabetes Retinopathy Study [ETDRS] score =17 letters) in valved eyes vs -0.33 logMAR (approximate ETDRS score =16 letters) in nonvalved eyes (P=0.81). Postoperative complication rates including postoperative day 1 hypotony, hypertony, and anterior chamber fibrin formation; postoperative retention of intraocular or subretinal perfluorocarbon liquid; and subsequent epiretinal membrane peel were not statistically different between groups. Valved cannula PPV yields equivalent visual acuity and anatomic outcomes without increased postoperative complication rates compared to traditional nonvalved cannula PPV for Grade C PVR-associated RD repair. |
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 5 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 5 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 1 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 20% |
| Engineering | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
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 31 May 2016.
All research outputs
#20,655,488
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#2,605
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#232,134
of 311,866 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#59
of 80 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 311,866 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 80 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.