Band Placement - Explore the Science & Experts | ideXlab

Scan Science and Technology

Contact Leading Edge Experts & Companies

Band Placement

The Experts below are selected from a list of 1842 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Nuno Lourenço Gomes – 1st expert on this subject based on the ideXlab platform

  • Anatomical and functional results of ILM peeling vs. non-peeling in macula-off rhegmatogenous retinal detachment.
    Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2020
    Co-Authors: Keissy Sousa, Gil Calvão-santos, Jorge Costa, Luís Ferreira, Luís Mendonça, Rita Gentil, Nuno Lourenço Gomes

    Abstract:

    To compare anatomical and functional results between internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling and non-ILM peeling in macula-off rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD).
    We completed a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) due to macula-off RRD. ILM peeling (P) versus non-ILM peeling (NP) groups were compared regarding best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), anatomical success, endotamponade, concomitant scleral Band Placement and BCVA gain for epiretinal membranes (ERM) resubjected to PPV. Statistical significance was considered when p < 0.05.
    PPV was conducted in 352 patients, among which 43.5% (n = 153) were in the P group and 55.6% (n = 196) were in the NP group. Both groups had significant BCVA improvement during the study period (p < 0.001), but with no significant difference between them. Anatomical success was similar between P (84.2%) and NP (87.2%) groups. No difference was found with regard to endotamponade (p = 0.07) or concomitant scleral Band Placement (p = 0.43). The NP group developed subsequent ERM more frequently (p = 0.004), but BCVA gains for eyes requiring repeat PPV for ERM were not found (p = 0.14).
    Although ERM formation and greater anatomical success are reasons to support the use of ILM peeling in RRD, we did not observe any anatomical or functional difference regarding ILM peeling or functional gain with secondary ERM peeling.

  • Anatomical and functional results of ILM peeling vs. non-peeling in macula-off rhegmatogenous retinal detachment
    Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, 2020
    Co-Authors: Keissy Sousa, Gil Calvão-santos, Jorge Costa, Luís Ferreira, Luís Mendonça, Rita Gentil, Nuno Lourenço Gomes

    Abstract:

    Purpose To compare anatomical and functional results between internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling and non-ILM peeling in macula-off rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD). Methods We completed a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) due to macula-off RRD. ILM peeling (P) versus non-ILM peeling (NP) groups were compared regarding best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), anatomical success, endotamponade, concomitant scleral Band Placement and BCVA gain for epiretinal membranes (ERM) resubjected to PPV. Statistical significance was considered when p  

Keissy Sousa – 2nd expert on this subject based on the ideXlab platform

  • Anatomical and functional results of ILM peeling vs. non-peeling in macula-off rhegmatogenous retinal detachment.
    Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2020
    Co-Authors: Keissy Sousa, Gil Calvão-santos, Jorge Costa, Luís Ferreira, Luís Mendonça, Rita Gentil, Nuno Lourenço Gomes

    Abstract:

    To compare anatomical and functional results between internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling and non-ILM peeling in macula-off rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD).
    We completed a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) due to macula-off RRD. ILM peeling (P) versus non-ILM peeling (NP) groups were compared regarding best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), anatomical success, endotamponade, concomitant scleral Band Placement and BCVA gain for epiretinal membranes (ERM) resubjected to PPV. Statistical significance was considered when p < 0.05.
    PPV was conducted in 352 patients, among which 43.5% (n = 153) were in the P group and 55.6% (n = 196) were in the NP group. Both groups had significant BCVA improvement during the study period (p < 0.001), but with no significant difference between them. Anatomical success was similar between P (84.2%) and NP (87.2%) groups. No difference was found with regard to endotamponade (p = 0.07) or concomitant scleral Band Placement (p = 0.43). The NP group developed subsequent ERM more frequently (p = 0.004), but BCVA gains for eyes requiring repeat PPV for ERM were not found (p = 0.14).
    Although ERM formation and greater anatomical success are reasons to support the use of ILM peeling in RRD, we did not observe any anatomical or functional difference regarding ILM peeling or functional gain with secondary ERM peeling.

  • Anatomical and functional results of ILM peeling vs. non-peeling in macula-off rhegmatogenous retinal detachment
    Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, 2020
    Co-Authors: Keissy Sousa, Gil Calvão-santos, Jorge Costa, Luís Ferreira, Luís Mendonça, Rita Gentil, Nuno Lourenço Gomes

    Abstract:

    Purpose To compare anatomical and functional results between internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling and non-ILM peeling in macula-off rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD). Methods We completed a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) due to macula-off RRD. ILM peeling (P) versus non-ILM peeling (NP) groups were compared regarding best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), anatomical success, endotamponade, concomitant scleral Band Placement and BCVA gain for epiretinal membranes (ERM) resubjected to PPV. Statistical significance was considered when p  

H F Schnier – 3rd expert on this subject based on the ideXlab platform

  • yield response of wetland rice to Band Placement of urea solution in various soils in the tropics
    Fertilizer Research, 1993
    Co-Authors: H F Schnier, S K De Datta, A M Fagi, M Eaqub, Faruque Ahmed, R Tejasarwana, A Mazid

    Abstract:

    Alternative N-fertilizer management practices are needed to increase productivity and the N-use efficiency of flooded rice (Oryza sativa L.). Seven field experiments were conducted at various sites in Bangladesh and Indonesia to evaluate the effect of time and method of fertilizer-N application on grain yield in transplanted rice. Conventional fertilizer application was compared with Band Placement of liquid urea using a mechanical push-type injector and point Placement of urea supergranules. With Band Placement, grain yields were up to 38 and 55% higher than with researchers’ and farmers’ practices, respectively, and similar to those with point Placement of urea supergranules.

  • Nitrogen-15 balance in transplanted and direct-seeded flooded rice as affected by different methods of urea application
    Biology and Fertility of Soils, 1990
    Co-Authors: H F Schnier, S K De Datta, M. Dingkuhn, E P Marqueses, J E Faronilo

    Abstract:

    Alternative N-fertilizer management practices are needed to increase productivity and the N-use efficiency of flooded rice ( Oryza sativa L.). In the 1987 dry season, a field study using ^15N-labeled urea evaluated the effect of the time and method of fertilizer-N application on grain yield and N-use efficiency in transplanted and direct-seeded flooded rice. Conventional fertilizer application (broadcasting and incorporation) was compared with Band Placement of liquid urea and point Placement of urea supergranules. With Band or point Placement, the grain yields were significantly greater, and the partial pressure of NH_3 (pNH_3) in the floodwater was significantly reduced. In the transplanted rice, conventional fertilizer-N application gave a 64% total ^15N recovery and 38% crop (grain and straw) recovery. Band Placement of liquid urea N resulted in 92% total and 73% crop recovery. In the direct-seeded flooded rice, a conventional N application gave 72% total and 42% crop recovery; Band Placement, 98% total and 73% crop recovery; and urea supergranule point Placement, 97% total and 75% crop recovery.