↓ Skip to main content

Choroid vascular occlusion and ischemic optic neuropathy after facial calcium hydroxyapatite injection- a case report

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Surgery, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Choroid vascular occlusion and ischemic optic neuropathy after facial calcium hydroxyapatite injection- a case report
Published in
BMC Surgery, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12893-015-0007-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chien-Chih Chou, Hsin-Han Chen, Yi-Yu Tsai, You-Ling Li, Hui-Ju Lin

Abstract

We reported a case of sudden monocular vision loss after calcium hydroxyapatite (CaHA) injection into the nasal tip and dorsum with detailed retina images. A healthy, 35-year-old woman received CaHA filler injection for nose augmentation. Ten minutes after the procedure, she developed nausea, vomiting, headache, ptosis, and left periorbital pain. After 30 minutes, she complained of progressively blurring vision in the left eye. The best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in her left eye was 30 cm ahead of hand motion. Left exotropia was noted in primary gaze. Limitations in adduction, supraduction, and infraduction of the left eye were also observed. Slit lamp examination of the left eye revealed a pink conjunctiva, a clear cornea, a mild anterior chamber reaction, a sluggish papillary light reflex, and a semi-dilated pupil. A positive relative afferent pupillary defect was observed in the left eye. Fundus examination revealed optic disc edema and some linear whitish opacity over the superior and temporal sites in the left eye, suggesting multiple CaHA emboli in the choroid vessels. Although the majority of adverse reactions are mild and transient, surgeons should be alert about extremely rare serious adverse events such as visual loss.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 3%
Unknown 31 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 6 19%
Student > Master 5 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 16%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Other 2 6%
Other 7 22%
Unknown 4 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 50%
Sports and Recreations 3 9%
Neuroscience 2 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 7 22%

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 08 March 2015.
All research outputs
#3,433,543
of 4,849,872 outputs
Outputs from BMC Surgery
#144
of 245 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,566
of 145,707 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Surgery
#11
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,849,872 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 245 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.9. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 145,707 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.