| Title |
The impact of a preloaded intraocular lens delivery system on operating room efficiency in routine cataract surgery
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Ophthalmology, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/opth.s107726 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jason J Jones, Jeffrey Chu, Jacob Graham, Serge Zaluski, Guillermo Rocha |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to evaluate the operational impact of using preloaded intraocular lens (IOL) delivery systems compared with manually loaded IOL delivery processes during routine cataract surgeries. Time and motion data, staff and surgery schedules, and cost accounting reports were collected across three sites located in the US, France, and Canada. Time and motion data were collected for manually loaded IOL processes and preloaded IOL delivery systems over four surgery days. Staff and surgery schedules and cost accounting reports were collected during the 2 months prior and after introduction of the preloaded IOL delivery system. The study included a total of 154 routine cataract surgeries across all three sites. Of these, 77 surgeries were performed using a preloaded IOL delivery system, and the remaining 77 surgeries were performed using a manual IOL delivery process. Across all three sites, use of the preloaded IOL delivery system significantly decreased mean total case time by 6.2%-12.0% (P<0.001 for data from Canada and the US and P<0.05 for data from France). Use of the preloaded delivery system also decreased surgeon lens time, surgeon delays, and eliminated lens touches during IOL preparation. Compared to a manual IOL delivery process, use of a preloaded IOL delivery system for cataract surgery reduced total case time, total surgeon lens time, surgeon delays, and eliminated IOL touches. The time savings provided by the preloaded IOL delivery system provide an opportunity for sites to improve routine cataract surgery throughput without impacting surgeon or staff capacity. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Finland | 1 | 20% |
| Canada | 1 | 20% |
| Spain | 1 | 20% |
| Russia | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 12 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 42% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 2 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 3 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 58% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 3 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 July 2016.
All research outputs
#7,355,930
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#632
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#110,692
of 353,659 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#20
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,712 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 353,659 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.