↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Femtosecond laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis multifocal ablation profile using a mini-monovision approach for presbyopic patients with hyperopia

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Ophthalmology, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
Title
Femtosecond laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis multifocal ablation profile using a mini-monovision approach for presbyopic patients with hyperopia
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, July 2016
DOI 10.2147/opth.s102008
Pubmed ID
Authors

Iraklis Vastardis, Brigitte Pajic-Eggspühler, Jörg Müller, Zeljka Cvejic, Bojan Pajic

Abstract

To report the visual outcomes of the femtosecond laser-assisted multifocal aspheric corneal ablation profile using a mini-monovision approach and to evaluate if corneal multifocality was effective, and to report the relative benefits of this approach. Bilateral femtosecond laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis using a multifocal aspheric corneal ablation profile was performed on 19 hyperopic patients (38 eyes). They were divided into two groups based on eye dominance: dominant eye (DE) group targeting emmetropia and the nondominant eye (NDE) group targeting -0.5 D slight myopia. The uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA), uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA), and retreatment rates were reported from baseline to 6 months. The UNVA, UIVA, and UDVA improved significantly in both groups (Kruskal-Wallis test, DE and NDE: P<0.00001, P<0.000005, and P=0.00001, respectively). Corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) baseline was better in both groups in comparison to UDVA at 6 months (Wilcoxon test, DE: P<0.001, 95% confidence interval (CI) of the median 0.0-0.0 LogMAR and 0.1000-0.1218 LogMAR and NDE: P=0.010, 95% CI of the median 0.0-0.0 LogMAR and 0.00-0.10 LogMAR). There was a significant loss of lines between CDVA baseline and UDVA at 6 months in both groups (DE group: 68% of eyes lost one line or more; NDE group: 58% of eyes lost one line or more). The corrected near visual acuity baseline compared to UNVA at 6 months was not statistically important (Wilcoxon test, DE: P=0.8125, 95% CI of the median 0.0-0.0 LogMAR and 0.0-0.0 LogMAR and NDE: P=0.82, 95% CI of the median 0.0-0.0 LogMAR and 0.0-0.0 LogMAR). The comparison among the UDVA, UIVA, and UNVA between the two groups at baseline and during all follow-ups was not statistically important. Two cases from the DE group were retreated (6%). Use of this multifocal aspheric corneal ablation profile in patients with hyperopic presbyopia significantly improved UDVA, UIVA, and UNVA. This improvement was due to created multifocality of the cornea. The mini-monovision seems not to affect UDVA, UIVA, and UNVA between the two groups. The retreatment rates at the 6-month evaluation were significantly less in our study when compared with other studies. This method seems to improve UDVA, UIVA, and UNVA but could result in a significant statistical difference between CDVA baseline and UDVA at 6 months that leads to loss of lines in distance vision. Despite promising results, this is a preliminary evaluation of this new profile, and a larger number of eyes are needed to verify visual outcomes, retreatment rates, and safety.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 3 19%
Other 2 13%
Professor 2 13%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 6%
Lecturer 1 6%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 5 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 13%
Computer Science 1 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Psychology 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 3 19%
Attention Score in Context

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 15 July 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
#283,532
of 367,263 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#57
of 83 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 367,263 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.