↓ Skip to main content

Case report: successful closure of a large macular hole secondary to uveitis using the inverted internal limiting membrane flap technique

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Ophthalmology, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 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
Case report: successful closure of a large macular hole secondary to uveitis using the inverted internal limiting membrane flap technique
Published in
BMC Ophthalmology, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12886-015-0072-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Masayuki Hirano, Yuki Morizane, Tetsuhiro Kawata, Shuhei Kimura, Mio Hosokawa, Yusuke Shiode, Shinichiro Doi, Mika Hosogi, Atsushi Fujiwara, Fumio Shiraga

Abstract

Macular holes (MHs) are one of the complications of posterior uveitis that can significantly disturb vision. Conventional MH surgery (vitrectomy, internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling, and gas tamponade) has been reported to show lower closure rates in patients with MHs secondary to uveitis than in patients with idiopathic MHs. Recently, the inverted ILM flap technique has been reported to be effective for treating refractory MHs. Here, we describe the application of this technique in a patient with a large MH secondary to uveitis, and its successful closure. An 80-year-old woman presented with a chronic, large MH secondary to uveitis. The minimum aperture diameter of the MH was 569 μm and extensive post-inflammatory chorioretinal atrophy was present, which included the juxtafoveal region. Vitrectomy with the inverted ILM flap technique assisted by low molecular weight hyaluronic acid was performed. Three days after surgery, the MH was closed successfully, without excessive gliosis. The inverted ILM flap technique may be the preferred surgical procedure for the treatment of large MHs secondary to uveitis.

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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 6 20%
Professor 5 17%
Student > Master 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Lecturer 2 7%
Other 6 20%
Unknown 6 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 63%
Philosophy 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Engineering 1 3%
Unknown 8 27%
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 25 July 2015.
All research outputs
#20,284,384
of 22,818,766 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ophthalmology
#2,080
of 2,343 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#219,914
of 263,272 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ophthalmology
#32
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,818,766 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,343 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 263,272 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.