↓ Skip to main content

Endoscopic Dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR): a comparative study between powered and non-powered technique

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Otolaryngology -- Head & Neck Surgery, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 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
Endoscopic Dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR): a comparative study between powered and non-powered technique
Published in
Journal of Otolaryngology -- Head & Neck Surgery, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40463-015-0109-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Islam Herzallah, Bassam Alzuraiqi, Naif Bawazeer, Osama Marglani, Ameen Alherabi, Sherif K. Mohamed, Khalid Al-Qahtani, Talal Al-Khatib, Abdullah Alghamdi

Abstract

Dacrocystorhinostomy (DCR) is an operation used to treat nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Essentially there are two approaches: external and endoscopic. Several modalities are used in endoscopic DCR; all aiming to improve success rate, reduce complications, and shorten operative time. Both kerrison punch and drill are widely used in endoscopic DCR with non-conclusive knowledge about differences in operative details as well as on the outcome. The aim of this study is to compare between powered (drill) and non-powered (kerrison punch) DCR to clarify the superiority of one over the other. A retrospective chart review of 59 patients who underwent endoscopic DCR procedure at our institution from June 2013 until July 2014 (34 kerrison punch and 32 powered drill). Operative details, surgical outcome and complications were compared between both groups. A total of 66 endoscopic DCRs were performed on 59 patients. Procedure success rate among kerrison punch group was 87.88 % vs. 90.9 % in powered drill group (p = 0.827), while complications for both groups were statistical not significant (p = 0.91). The mean operating time among kerrison punch group was significantly lower than in powered drill group (75 min vs. 125 min, p = 0.0001). Kerrison punch showed significant reduction in operating time when compared to powered drill for endoscopic DCR. No statistically significant difference was found between both groups regarding procedures' success rate and complication.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 6 24%
Researcher 4 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 8%
Student > Master 2 8%
Other 5 20%
Unknown 4 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 76%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Unknown 5 20%

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 24 December 2015.
All research outputs
#3,325,487
of 6,836,868 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Otolaryngology -- Head & Neck Surgery
#53
of 171 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#150,751
of 295,690 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Otolaryngology -- Head & Neck Surgery
#5
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 6,836,868 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 171 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.7. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 295,690 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.