Prognostic factors for visual outcome after surgical repair of limbal corneal laceration at a tertiary eye care center in South India

Purpose: To determine the factors affecting the visual outcome after surgical repair of limbal corneal lacerations at a tertiary eye care center in South India. Methods: A retrospective analysis of patients diagnosed with limbal tears between 2011 and 2021 was conducted. Demographic information such...
Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Prerana A Shetty [verfasserIn] Ramya Natarajan [verfasserIn] Sushank A Bhalerao [verfasserIn] Sowjanya Vuyyuru [verfasserIn] Uma Yogesh Thigale [verfasserIn] Divya Tara [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2023

Schlagwörter:	limbal tear open globe injury postoperative visual acuity prognostic factors

Übergeordnetes Werk:	In: Indian Journal of Ophthalmology - Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2005, 71(2023), 9, Seite 3198-3202
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:71 ; year:2023 ; number:9 ; pages:3198-3202

Links:	Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Journal toc Journal toc

DOI / URN:	10.4103/IJO.IJO_156_23

Katalog-ID:	DOAJ099573873

Internformat


LEADER	01000naa a22002652 4500
001	DOAJ099573873
003	DE-627
005	20240414041902.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	240414s2023 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.4103/IJO.IJO_156_23 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)DOAJ099573873
035			\|a (DE-599)DOAJ27885b2eb28c4977bad6d5daa846ef25
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
050		0	\|a RE1-994
100	0		\|a Prerana A Shetty \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Prognostic factors for visual outcome after surgical repair of limbal corneal laceration at a tertiary eye care center in South India
264		1	\|c 2023
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a Purpose: To determine the factors affecting the visual outcome after surgical repair of limbal corneal lacerations at a tertiary eye care center in South India. Methods: A retrospective analysis of patients diagnosed with limbal tears between 2011 and 2021 was conducted. Demographic information such as age, gender, cause of injury, and size of the laceration was recorded. Comprehensive ocular examination was performed, including gentle B scan evaluation whenever not contraindicated for detailed posterior segment evaluation. Only those cases with a minimum follow-up of one year were included. Postoperative best-corrected visual acuity, intraocular pressure (IOP), cornea clarity, and integrity of the wound at last follow-up were noted. Results: Out of the 20 patients, 15 (75%) were males and 5 (25%) were females. The mean age was 42.6 ± 22.4 years. All 20 patients had a penetrating injury, with four (20%) injured by a stick, two (10%) by an iron rod, three (15%) due to road traffic accident (RTA), three (15%) by glass, and eight (40%) with other nonspecific objects [two (10%) with needle, two (10%) with elastic rope, two (10%) with bangle, and two (10%) with metal]. The average time between the injury and the surgery was 48 hours (2 days). Four (20%) patients underwent a second surgery within a week of repair. After limbal tear repair, at final follow-up at 3 years, 7 (35%) had VA worse than 20/800, 3 (15%) had VA between 20/100 and 20/800, and 10 (50%) achieved VA better than 20/80. Conclusion: Preoperative visual acuity (VA), mode of injury, and size of wound affect the final visual outcome after surgical repair of limbal corneal laceration. Preoperative VA and mode of injury were statistically significant even in the multivariate analysis.
650		4	\|a limbal tear
650		4	\|a open globe injury
650		4	\|a postoperative visual acuity
650		4	\|a prognostic factors
653		0	\|a Ophthalmology
700	0		\|a Ramya Natarajan \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Sushank A Bhalerao \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Sowjanya Vuyyuru \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Uma Yogesh Thigale \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Divya Tara \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i In \|t Indian Journal of Ophthalmology \|d Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2005 \|g 71(2023), 9, Seite 3198-3202 \|w (DE-627)485243563 \|w (DE-600)2185999-1 \|x 19983689 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:71 \|g year:2023 \|g number:9 \|g pages:3198-3202
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.4103/IJO.IJO_156_23 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doaj.org/article/27885b2eb28c4977bad6d5daa846ef25 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u http://www.ijo.in/article.asp?issn=0301-4738;year=2023;volume=71;issue=9;spage=3198;epage=3202;aulast=Shetty \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/0301-4738 \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/1998-3689 \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_DOAJ
912			\|a GBV_ILN_11
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_702
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2001
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2003
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2005
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2006
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2008
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2009
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2010
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2011
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2015
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2020
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2021
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2025
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2031
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2038
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2044
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2048
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2050
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2055
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2056
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2057
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2061
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2111
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2113
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2153
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2190
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 71 \|j 2023 \|e 9 \|h 3198-3202

Indexfelder

author_variant	p a s pas r n rn s a b sab s v sv u y t uyt d t dt
matchkey_str	article:19983689:2023----::rgotcatrfriulucmatrugclearfiblonalcrtoaaet
hierarchy_sort_str	2023
callnumber-subject-code	RE
publishDate	2023
allfields	10.4103/IJO.IJO_156_23 doi (DE-627)DOAJ099573873 (DE-599)DOAJ27885b2eb28c4977bad6d5daa846ef25 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RE1-994 Prerana A Shetty verfasserin aut Prognostic factors for visual outcome after surgical repair of limbal corneal laceration at a tertiary eye care center in South India 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Purpose: To determine the factors affecting the visual outcome after surgical repair of limbal corneal lacerations at a tertiary eye care center in South India. Methods: A retrospective analysis of patients diagnosed with limbal tears between 2011 and 2021 was conducted. Demographic information such as age, gender, cause of injury, and size of the laceration was recorded. Comprehensive ocular examination was performed, including gentle B scan evaluation whenever not contraindicated for detailed posterior segment evaluation. Only those cases with a minimum follow-up of one year were included. Postoperative best-corrected visual acuity, intraocular pressure (IOP), cornea clarity, and integrity of the wound at last follow-up were noted. Results: Out of the 20 patients, 15 (75%) were males and 5 (25%) were females. The mean age was 42.6 ± 22.4 years. All 20 patients had a penetrating injury, with four (20%) injured by a stick, two (10%) by an iron rod, three (15%) due to road traffic accident (RTA), three (15%) by glass, and eight (40%) with other nonspecific objects [two (10%) with needle, two (10%) with elastic rope, two (10%) with bangle, and two (10%) with metal]. The average time between the injury and the surgery was 48 hours (2 days). Four (20%) patients underwent a second surgery within a week of repair. After limbal tear repair, at final follow-up at 3 years, 7 (35%) had VA worse than 20/800, 3 (15%) had VA between 20/100 and 20/800, and 10 (50%) achieved VA better than 20/80. Conclusion: Preoperative visual acuity (VA), mode of injury, and size of wound affect the final visual outcome after surgical repair of limbal corneal laceration. Preoperative VA and mode of injury were statistically significant even in the multivariate analysis. limbal tear open globe injury postoperative visual acuity prognostic factors Ophthalmology Ramya Natarajan verfasserin aut Sushank A Bhalerao verfasserin aut Sowjanya Vuyyuru verfasserin aut Uma Yogesh Thigale verfasserin aut Divya Tara verfasserin aut In Indian Journal of Ophthalmology Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2005 71(2023), 9, Seite 3198-3202 (DE-627)485243563 (DE-600)2185999-1 19983689 nnns volume:71 year:2023 number:9 pages:3198-3202 https://doi.org/10.4103/IJO.IJO_156_23 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/27885b2eb28c4977bad6d5daa846ef25 kostenfrei http://www.ijo.in/article.asp?issn=0301-4738;year=2023;volume=71;issue=9;spage=3198;epage=3202;aulast=Shetty kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/0301-4738 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1998-3689 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 71 2023 9 3198-3202
spelling	10.4103/IJO.IJO_156_23 doi (DE-627)DOAJ099573873 (DE-599)DOAJ27885b2eb28c4977bad6d5daa846ef25 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RE1-994 Prerana A Shetty verfasserin aut Prognostic factors for visual outcome after surgical repair of limbal corneal laceration at a tertiary eye care center in South India 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Purpose: To determine the factors affecting the visual outcome after surgical repair of limbal corneal lacerations at a tertiary eye care center in South India. Methods: A retrospective analysis of patients diagnosed with limbal tears between 2011 and 2021 was conducted. Demographic information such as age, gender, cause of injury, and size of the laceration was recorded. Comprehensive ocular examination was performed, including gentle B scan evaluation whenever not contraindicated for detailed posterior segment evaluation. Only those cases with a minimum follow-up of one year were included. Postoperative best-corrected visual acuity, intraocular pressure (IOP), cornea clarity, and integrity of the wound at last follow-up were noted. Results: Out of the 20 patients, 15 (75%) were males and 5 (25%) were females. The mean age was 42.6 ± 22.4 years. All 20 patients had a penetrating injury, with four (20%) injured by a stick, two (10%) by an iron rod, three (15%) due to road traffic accident (RTA), three (15%) by glass, and eight (40%) with other nonspecific objects [two (10%) with needle, two (10%) with elastic rope, two (10%) with bangle, and two (10%) with metal]. The average time between the injury and the surgery was 48 hours (2 days). Four (20%) patients underwent a second surgery within a week of repair. After limbal tear repair, at final follow-up at 3 years, 7 (35%) had VA worse than 20/800, 3 (15%) had VA between 20/100 and 20/800, and 10 (50%) achieved VA better than 20/80. Conclusion: Preoperative visual acuity (VA), mode of injury, and size of wound affect the final visual outcome after surgical repair of limbal corneal laceration. Preoperative VA and mode of injury were statistically significant even in the multivariate analysis. limbal tear open globe injury postoperative visual acuity prognostic factors Ophthalmology Ramya Natarajan verfasserin aut Sushank A Bhalerao verfasserin aut Sowjanya Vuyyuru verfasserin aut Uma Yogesh Thigale verfasserin aut Divya Tara verfasserin aut In Indian Journal of Ophthalmology Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2005 71(2023), 9, Seite 3198-3202 (DE-627)485243563 (DE-600)2185999-1 19983689 nnns volume:71 year:2023 number:9 pages:3198-3202 https://doi.org/10.4103/IJO.IJO_156_23 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/27885b2eb28c4977bad6d5daa846ef25 kostenfrei http://www.ijo.in/article.asp?issn=0301-4738;year=2023;volume=71;issue=9;spage=3198;epage=3202;aulast=Shetty kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/0301-4738 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1998-3689 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 71 2023 9 3198-3202
allfields_unstemmed	10.4103/IJO.IJO_156_23 doi (DE-627)DOAJ099573873 (DE-599)DOAJ27885b2eb28c4977bad6d5daa846ef25 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RE1-994 Prerana A Shetty verfasserin aut Prognostic factors for visual outcome after surgical repair of limbal corneal laceration at a tertiary eye care center in South India 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Purpose: To determine the factors affecting the visual outcome after surgical repair of limbal corneal lacerations at a tertiary eye care center in South India. Methods: A retrospective analysis of patients diagnosed with limbal tears between 2011 and 2021 was conducted. Demographic information such as age, gender, cause of injury, and size of the laceration was recorded. Comprehensive ocular examination was performed, including gentle B scan evaluation whenever not contraindicated for detailed posterior segment evaluation. Only those cases with a minimum follow-up of one year were included. Postoperative best-corrected visual acuity, intraocular pressure (IOP), cornea clarity, and integrity of the wound at last follow-up were noted. Results: Out of the 20 patients, 15 (75%) were males and 5 (25%) were females. The mean age was 42.6 ± 22.4 years. All 20 patients had a penetrating injury, with four (20%) injured by a stick, two (10%) by an iron rod, three (15%) due to road traffic accident (RTA), three (15%) by glass, and eight (40%) with other nonspecific objects [two (10%) with needle, two (10%) with elastic rope, two (10%) with bangle, and two (10%) with metal]. The average time between the injury and the surgery was 48 hours (2 days). Four (20%) patients underwent a second surgery within a week of repair. After limbal tear repair, at final follow-up at 3 years, 7 (35%) had VA worse than 20/800, 3 (15%) had VA between 20/100 and 20/800, and 10 (50%) achieved VA better than 20/80. Conclusion: Preoperative visual acuity (VA), mode of injury, and size of wound affect the final visual outcome after surgical repair of limbal corneal laceration. Preoperative VA and mode of injury were statistically significant even in the multivariate analysis. limbal tear open globe injury postoperative visual acuity prognostic factors Ophthalmology Ramya Natarajan verfasserin aut Sushank A Bhalerao verfasserin aut Sowjanya Vuyyuru verfasserin aut Uma Yogesh Thigale verfasserin aut Divya Tara verfasserin aut In Indian Journal of Ophthalmology Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2005 71(2023), 9, Seite 3198-3202 (DE-627)485243563 (DE-600)2185999-1 19983689 nnns volume:71 year:2023 number:9 pages:3198-3202 https://doi.org/10.4103/IJO.IJO_156_23 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/27885b2eb28c4977bad6d5daa846ef25 kostenfrei http://www.ijo.in/article.asp?issn=0301-4738;year=2023;volume=71;issue=9;spage=3198;epage=3202;aulast=Shetty kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/0301-4738 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1998-3689 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 71 2023 9 3198-3202
allfieldsGer	10.4103/IJO.IJO_156_23 doi (DE-627)DOAJ099573873 (DE-599)DOAJ27885b2eb28c4977bad6d5daa846ef25 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RE1-994 Prerana A Shetty verfasserin aut Prognostic factors for visual outcome after surgical repair of limbal corneal laceration at a tertiary eye care center in South India 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Purpose: To determine the factors affecting the visual outcome after surgical repair of limbal corneal lacerations at a tertiary eye care center in South India. Methods: A retrospective analysis of patients diagnosed with limbal tears between 2011 and 2021 was conducted. Demographic information such as age, gender, cause of injury, and size of the laceration was recorded. Comprehensive ocular examination was performed, including gentle B scan evaluation whenever not contraindicated for detailed posterior segment evaluation. Only those cases with a minimum follow-up of one year were included. Postoperative best-corrected visual acuity, intraocular pressure (IOP), cornea clarity, and integrity of the wound at last follow-up were noted. Results: Out of the 20 patients, 15 (75%) were males and 5 (25%) were females. The mean age was 42.6 ± 22.4 years. All 20 patients had a penetrating injury, with four (20%) injured by a stick, two (10%) by an iron rod, three (15%) due to road traffic accident (RTA), three (15%) by glass, and eight (40%) with other nonspecific objects [two (10%) with needle, two (10%) with elastic rope, two (10%) with bangle, and two (10%) with metal]. The average time between the injury and the surgery was 48 hours (2 days). Four (20%) patients underwent a second surgery within a week of repair. After limbal tear repair, at final follow-up at 3 years, 7 (35%) had VA worse than 20/800, 3 (15%) had VA between 20/100 and 20/800, and 10 (50%) achieved VA better than 20/80. Conclusion: Preoperative visual acuity (VA), mode of injury, and size of wound affect the final visual outcome after surgical repair of limbal corneal laceration. Preoperative VA and mode of injury were statistically significant even in the multivariate analysis. limbal tear open globe injury postoperative visual acuity prognostic factors Ophthalmology Ramya Natarajan verfasserin aut Sushank A Bhalerao verfasserin aut Sowjanya Vuyyuru verfasserin aut Uma Yogesh Thigale verfasserin aut Divya Tara verfasserin aut In Indian Journal of Ophthalmology Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2005 71(2023), 9, Seite 3198-3202 (DE-627)485243563 (DE-600)2185999-1 19983689 nnns volume:71 year:2023 number:9 pages:3198-3202 https://doi.org/10.4103/IJO.IJO_156_23 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/27885b2eb28c4977bad6d5daa846ef25 kostenfrei http://www.ijo.in/article.asp?issn=0301-4738;year=2023;volume=71;issue=9;spage=3198;epage=3202;aulast=Shetty kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/0301-4738 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1998-3689 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 71 2023 9 3198-3202
allfieldsSound	10.4103/IJO.IJO_156_23 doi (DE-627)DOAJ099573873 (DE-599)DOAJ27885b2eb28c4977bad6d5daa846ef25 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RE1-994 Prerana A Shetty verfasserin aut Prognostic factors for visual outcome after surgical repair of limbal corneal laceration at a tertiary eye care center in South India 2023 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Purpose: To determine the factors affecting the visual outcome after surgical repair of limbal corneal lacerations at a tertiary eye care center in South India. Methods: A retrospective analysis of patients diagnosed with limbal tears between 2011 and 2021 was conducted. Demographic information such as age, gender, cause of injury, and size of the laceration was recorded. Comprehensive ocular examination was performed, including gentle B scan evaluation whenever not contraindicated for detailed posterior segment evaluation. Only those cases with a minimum follow-up of one year were included. Postoperative best-corrected visual acuity, intraocular pressure (IOP), cornea clarity, and integrity of the wound at last follow-up were noted. Results: Out of the 20 patients, 15 (75%) were males and 5 (25%) were females. The mean age was 42.6 ± 22.4 years. All 20 patients had a penetrating injury, with four (20%) injured by a stick, two (10%) by an iron rod, three (15%) due to road traffic accident (RTA), three (15%) by glass, and eight (40%) with other nonspecific objects [two (10%) with needle, two (10%) with elastic rope, two (10%) with bangle, and two (10%) with metal]. The average time between the injury and the surgery was 48 hours (2 days). Four (20%) patients underwent a second surgery within a week of repair. After limbal tear repair, at final follow-up at 3 years, 7 (35%) had VA worse than 20/800, 3 (15%) had VA between 20/100 and 20/800, and 10 (50%) achieved VA better than 20/80. Conclusion: Preoperative visual acuity (VA), mode of injury, and size of wound affect the final visual outcome after surgical repair of limbal corneal laceration. Preoperative VA and mode of injury were statistically significant even in the multivariate analysis. limbal tear open globe injury postoperative visual acuity prognostic factors Ophthalmology Ramya Natarajan verfasserin aut Sushank A Bhalerao verfasserin aut Sowjanya Vuyyuru verfasserin aut Uma Yogesh Thigale verfasserin aut Divya Tara verfasserin aut In Indian Journal of Ophthalmology Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2005 71(2023), 9, Seite 3198-3202 (DE-627)485243563 (DE-600)2185999-1 19983689 nnns volume:71 year:2023 number:9 pages:3198-3202 https://doi.org/10.4103/IJO.IJO_156_23 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/27885b2eb28c4977bad6d5daa846ef25 kostenfrei http://www.ijo.in/article.asp?issn=0301-4738;year=2023;volume=71;issue=9;spage=3198;epage=3202;aulast=Shetty kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/0301-4738 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1998-3689 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 71 2023 9 3198-3202
language	English
source	In Indian Journal of Ophthalmology 71(2023), 9, Seite 3198-3202 volume:71 year:2023 number:9 pages:3198-3202
sourceStr	In Indian Journal of Ophthalmology 71(2023), 9, Seite 3198-3202 volume:71 year:2023 number:9 pages:3198-3202
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	limbal tear open globe injury postoperative visual acuity prognostic factors Ophthalmology
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	Indian Journal of Ophthalmology
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Prerana A Shetty @@aut@@ Ramya Natarajan @@aut@@ Sushank A Bhalerao @@aut@@ Sowjanya Vuyyuru @@aut@@ Uma Yogesh Thigale @@aut@@ Divya Tara @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2023-01-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	485243563
id	DOAJ099573873
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000naa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ099573873</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20240414041902.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">240414s2023 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.4103/IJO.IJO_156_23</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ099573873</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ27885b2eb28c4977bad6d5daa846ef25</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">RE1-994</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Prerana A Shetty</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Prognostic factors for visual outcome after surgical repair of limbal corneal laceration at a tertiary eye care center in South India</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2023</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Purpose: To determine the factors affecting the visual outcome after surgical repair of limbal corneal lacerations at a tertiary eye care center in South India. Methods: A retrospective analysis of patients diagnosed with limbal tears between 2011 and 2021 was conducted. Demographic information such as age, gender, cause of injury, and size of the laceration was recorded. Comprehensive ocular examination was performed, including gentle B scan evaluation whenever not contraindicated for detailed posterior segment evaluation. Only those cases with a minimum follow-up of one year were included. Postoperative best-corrected visual acuity, intraocular pressure (IOP), cornea clarity, and integrity of the wound at last follow-up were noted. Results: Out of the 20 patients, 15 (75%) were males and 5 (25%) were females. The mean age was 42.6 ± 22.4 years. All 20 patients had a penetrating injury, with four (20%) injured by a stick, two (10%) by an iron rod, three (15%) due to road traffic accident (RTA), three (15%) by glass, and eight (40%) with other nonspecific objects [two (10%) with needle, two (10%) with elastic rope, two (10%) with bangle, and two (10%) with metal]. The average time between the injury and the surgery was 48 hours (2 days). Four (20%) patients underwent a second surgery within a week of repair. After limbal tear repair, at final follow-up at 3 years, 7 (35%) had VA worse than 20/800, 3 (15%) had VA between 20/100 and 20/800, and 10 (50%) achieved VA better than 20/80. Conclusion: Preoperative visual acuity (VA), mode of injury, and size of wound affect the final visual outcome after surgical repair of limbal corneal laceration. Preoperative VA and mode of injury were statistically significant even in the multivariate analysis.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">limbal tear</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">open globe injury</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">postoperative visual acuity</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">prognostic factors</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Ophthalmology</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ramya Natarajan</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Sushank A Bhalerao</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Sowjanya Vuyyuru</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Uma Yogesh Thigale</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Divya Tara</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Indian Journal of Ophthalmology</subfield><subfield code="d">Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2005</subfield><subfield code="g">71(2023), 9, Seite 3198-3202</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)485243563</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2185999-1</subfield><subfield code="x">19983689</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:71</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2023</subfield><subfield code="g">number:9</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:3198-3202</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.4103/IJO.IJO_156_23</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/27885b2eb28c4977bad6d5daa846ef25</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://www.ijo.in/article.asp?issn=0301-4738;year=2023;volume=71;issue=9;spage=3198;epage=3202;aulast=Shetty</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/0301-4738</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1998-3689</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2001</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2008</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2010</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2025</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2031</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2038</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2044</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2048</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2050</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2056</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2057</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2061</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2113</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2153</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2190</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">71</subfield><subfield code="j">2023</subfield><subfield code="e">9</subfield><subfield code="h">3198-3202</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
callnumber-first	R - Medicine
author	Prerana A Shetty
spellingShingle	Prerana A Shetty misc RE1-994 misc limbal tear misc open globe injury misc postoperative visual acuity misc prognostic factors misc Ophthalmology Prognostic factors for visual outcome after surgical repair of limbal corneal laceration at a tertiary eye care center in South India
authorStr	Prerana A Shetty
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)485243563
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut aut aut
collection	DOAJ
remote_str	true
callnumber-label	RE1-994
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	19983689
topic_title	RE1-994 Prognostic factors for visual outcome after surgical repair of limbal corneal laceration at a tertiary eye care center in South India limbal tear open globe injury postoperative visual acuity prognostic factors
topic	misc RE1-994 misc limbal tear misc open globe injury misc postoperative visual acuity misc prognostic factors misc Ophthalmology
topic_unstemmed	misc RE1-994 misc limbal tear misc open globe injury misc postoperative visual acuity misc prognostic factors misc Ophthalmology
topic_browse	misc RE1-994 misc limbal tear misc open globe injury misc postoperative visual acuity misc prognostic factors misc Ophthalmology
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	Indian Journal of Ophthalmology
hierarchy_parent_id	485243563
hierarchy_top_title	Indian Journal of Ophthalmology
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)485243563 (DE-600)2185999-1
title	Prognostic factors for visual outcome after surgical repair of limbal corneal laceration at a tertiary eye care center in South India
ctrlnum	(DE-627)DOAJ099573873 (DE-599)DOAJ27885b2eb28c4977bad6d5daa846ef25
title_full	Prognostic factors for visual outcome after surgical repair of limbal corneal laceration at a tertiary eye care center in South India
author_sort	Prerana A Shetty
journal	Indian Journal of Ophthalmology
journalStr	Indian Journal of Ophthalmology
callnumber-first-code	R
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2023
contenttype_str_mv	txt
container_start_page	3198
author_browse	Prerana A Shetty Ramya Natarajan Sushank A Bhalerao Sowjanya Vuyyuru Uma Yogesh Thigale Divya Tara
container_volume	71
class	RE1-994
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Prerana A Shetty
doi_str_mv	10.4103/IJO.IJO_156_23
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	prognostic factors for visual outcome after surgical repair of limbal corneal laceration at a tertiary eye care center in south india
callnumber	RE1-994
title_auth	Prognostic factors for visual outcome after surgical repair of limbal corneal laceration at a tertiary eye care center in South India
abstract	Purpose: To determine the factors affecting the visual outcome after surgical repair of limbal corneal lacerations at a tertiary eye care center in South India. Methods: A retrospective analysis of patients diagnosed with limbal tears between 2011 and 2021 was conducted. Demographic information such as age, gender, cause of injury, and size of the laceration was recorded. Comprehensive ocular examination was performed, including gentle B scan evaluation whenever not contraindicated for detailed posterior segment evaluation. Only those cases with a minimum follow-up of one year were included. Postoperative best-corrected visual acuity, intraocular pressure (IOP), cornea clarity, and integrity of the wound at last follow-up were noted. Results: Out of the 20 patients, 15 (75%) were males and 5 (25%) were females. The mean age was 42.6 ± 22.4 years. All 20 patients had a penetrating injury, with four (20%) injured by a stick, two (10%) by an iron rod, three (15%) due to road traffic accident (RTA), three (15%) by glass, and eight (40%) with other nonspecific objects [two (10%) with needle, two (10%) with elastic rope, two (10%) with bangle, and two (10%) with metal]. The average time between the injury and the surgery was 48 hours (2 days). Four (20%) patients underwent a second surgery within a week of repair. After limbal tear repair, at final follow-up at 3 years, 7 (35%) had VA worse than 20/800, 3 (15%) had VA between 20/100 and 20/800, and 10 (50%) achieved VA better than 20/80. Conclusion: Preoperative visual acuity (VA), mode of injury, and size of wound affect the final visual outcome after surgical repair of limbal corneal laceration. Preoperative VA and mode of injury were statistically significant even in the multivariate analysis.
abstractGer	Purpose: To determine the factors affecting the visual outcome after surgical repair of limbal corneal lacerations at a tertiary eye care center in South India. Methods: A retrospective analysis of patients diagnosed with limbal tears between 2011 and 2021 was conducted. Demographic information such as age, gender, cause of injury, and size of the laceration was recorded. Comprehensive ocular examination was performed, including gentle B scan evaluation whenever not contraindicated for detailed posterior segment evaluation. Only those cases with a minimum follow-up of one year were included. Postoperative best-corrected visual acuity, intraocular pressure (IOP), cornea clarity, and integrity of the wound at last follow-up were noted. Results: Out of the 20 patients, 15 (75%) were males and 5 (25%) were females. The mean age was 42.6 ± 22.4 years. All 20 patients had a penetrating injury, with four (20%) injured by a stick, two (10%) by an iron rod, three (15%) due to road traffic accident (RTA), three (15%) by glass, and eight (40%) with other nonspecific objects [two (10%) with needle, two (10%) with elastic rope, two (10%) with bangle, and two (10%) with metal]. The average time between the injury and the surgery was 48 hours (2 days). Four (20%) patients underwent a second surgery within a week of repair. After limbal tear repair, at final follow-up at 3 years, 7 (35%) had VA worse than 20/800, 3 (15%) had VA between 20/100 and 20/800, and 10 (50%) achieved VA better than 20/80. Conclusion: Preoperative visual acuity (VA), mode of injury, and size of wound affect the final visual outcome after surgical repair of limbal corneal laceration. Preoperative VA and mode of injury were statistically significant even in the multivariate analysis.
abstract_unstemmed	Purpose: To determine the factors affecting the visual outcome after surgical repair of limbal corneal lacerations at a tertiary eye care center in South India. Methods: A retrospective analysis of patients diagnosed with limbal tears between 2011 and 2021 was conducted. Demographic information such as age, gender, cause of injury, and size of the laceration was recorded. Comprehensive ocular examination was performed, including gentle B scan evaluation whenever not contraindicated for detailed posterior segment evaluation. Only those cases with a minimum follow-up of one year were included. Postoperative best-corrected visual acuity, intraocular pressure (IOP), cornea clarity, and integrity of the wound at last follow-up were noted. Results: Out of the 20 patients, 15 (75%) were males and 5 (25%) were females. The mean age was 42.6 ± 22.4 years. All 20 patients had a penetrating injury, with four (20%) injured by a stick, two (10%) by an iron rod, three (15%) due to road traffic accident (RTA), three (15%) by glass, and eight (40%) with other nonspecific objects [two (10%) with needle, two (10%) with elastic rope, two (10%) with bangle, and two (10%) with metal]. The average time between the injury and the surgery was 48 hours (2 days). Four (20%) patients underwent a second surgery within a week of repair. After limbal tear repair, at final follow-up at 3 years, 7 (35%) had VA worse than 20/800, 3 (15%) had VA between 20/100 and 20/800, and 10 (50%) achieved VA better than 20/80. Conclusion: Preoperative visual acuity (VA), mode of injury, and size of wound affect the final visual outcome after surgical repair of limbal corneal laceration. Preoperative VA and mode of injury were statistically significant even in the multivariate analysis.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	9
title_short	Prognostic factors for visual outcome after surgical repair of limbal corneal laceration at a tertiary eye care center in South India
url	https://doi.org/10.4103/IJO.IJO_156_23 https://doaj.org/article/27885b2eb28c4977bad6d5daa846ef25 http://www.ijo.in/article.asp?issn=0301-4738;year=2023;volume=71;issue=9;spage=3198;epage=3202;aulast=Shetty https://doaj.org/toc/0301-4738 https://doaj.org/toc/1998-3689
remote_bool	true
author2	Ramya Natarajan Sushank A Bhalerao Sowjanya Vuyyuru Uma Yogesh Thigale Divya Tara
author2Str	Ramya Natarajan Sushank A Bhalerao Sowjanya Vuyyuru Uma Yogesh Thigale Divya Tara
ppnlink	485243563
callnumber-subject	RE - Ophthalmology
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.4103/IJO.IJO_156_23
callnumber-a	RE1-994
up_date	2024-07-03T23:25:14.338Z
_version_	1803602220117131264
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000naa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ099573873</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20240414041902.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">240414s2023 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.4103/IJO.IJO_156_23</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ099573873</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ27885b2eb28c4977bad6d5daa846ef25</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">RE1-994</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Prerana A Shetty</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Prognostic factors for visual outcome after surgical repair of limbal corneal laceration at a tertiary eye care center in South India</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2023</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Purpose: To determine the factors affecting the visual outcome after surgical repair of limbal corneal lacerations at a tertiary eye care center in South India. Methods: A retrospective analysis of patients diagnosed with limbal tears between 2011 and 2021 was conducted. Demographic information such as age, gender, cause of injury, and size of the laceration was recorded. Comprehensive ocular examination was performed, including gentle B scan evaluation whenever not contraindicated for detailed posterior segment evaluation. Only those cases with a minimum follow-up of one year were included. Postoperative best-corrected visual acuity, intraocular pressure (IOP), cornea clarity, and integrity of the wound at last follow-up were noted. Results: Out of the 20 patients, 15 (75%) were males and 5 (25%) were females. The mean age was 42.6 ± 22.4 years. All 20 patients had a penetrating injury, with four (20%) injured by a stick, two (10%) by an iron rod, three (15%) due to road traffic accident (RTA), three (15%) by glass, and eight (40%) with other nonspecific objects [two (10%) with needle, two (10%) with elastic rope, two (10%) with bangle, and two (10%) with metal]. The average time between the injury and the surgery was 48 hours (2 days). Four (20%) patients underwent a second surgery within a week of repair. After limbal tear repair, at final follow-up at 3 years, 7 (35%) had VA worse than 20/800, 3 (15%) had VA between 20/100 and 20/800, and 10 (50%) achieved VA better than 20/80. Conclusion: Preoperative visual acuity (VA), mode of injury, and size of wound affect the final visual outcome after surgical repair of limbal corneal laceration. Preoperative VA and mode of injury were statistically significant even in the multivariate analysis.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">limbal tear</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">open globe injury</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">postoperative visual acuity</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">prognostic factors</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Ophthalmology</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ramya Natarajan</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Sushank A Bhalerao</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Sowjanya Vuyyuru</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Uma Yogesh Thigale</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Divya Tara</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Indian Journal of Ophthalmology</subfield><subfield code="d">Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2005</subfield><subfield code="g">71(2023), 9, Seite 3198-3202</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)485243563</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2185999-1</subfield><subfield code="x">19983689</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:71</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2023</subfield><subfield code="g">number:9</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:3198-3202</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.4103/IJO.IJO_156_23</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/27885b2eb28c4977bad6d5daa846ef25</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://www.ijo.in/article.asp?issn=0301-4738;year=2023;volume=71;issue=9;spage=3198;epage=3202;aulast=Shetty</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/0301-4738</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1998-3689</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2001</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2008</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2010</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2025</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2031</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2038</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2044</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2048</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2050</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2056</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2057</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2061</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2113</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2153</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2190</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">71</subfield><subfield code="j">2023</subfield><subfield code="e">9</subfield><subfield code="h">3198-3202</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.398568

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Prognostic factors for visual outcome after surgical repair of limbal corneal laceration at a tertiary eye care center in South India

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?