↓ Skip to main content

Pathogenesis of optic disc edema in raised intracranial pressure

Overview of attention for article published in Progress in Retinal & Eye Research, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
5 X users
facebook
8 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
233 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.
Article details
Title
Pathogenesis of optic disc edema in raised intracranial pressure
Published in
Progress in Retinal & Eye Research, January 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.preteyeres.2015.10.001
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Optic disc edema in raised intracranial pressure was first described in 1853. Ever since, there has been a plethora of controversial hypotheses to explain its pathogenesis. I have explored the subject comprehensively by doing basic, experimental and clinical studies. My objective was to investigate the fundamentals of the subject, to test the validity of the previous theories, and finally, based on all these studies, to find a logical explanation for the pathogenesis. My studies included the following issues pertinent to the pathogenesis of optic disc edema in raised intracranial pressure: the anatomy and blood supply of the optic nerve, the roles of the sheath of the optic nerve, of the centripetal flow of fluids along the optic nerve, of compression of the central retinal vein, and of acute intracranial hypertension and its associated effects. I found that, contrary to some previous claims, an acute rise of intracranial pressure was not quickly followed by production of optic disc edema. Then, in rhesus monkeys, I produced experimentally chronic intracranial hypertension by slowly increasing in size space-occupying lesions, in different parts of the brain. Those produced raised cerebrospinal fluid pressure (CSFP) and optic disc edema, identical to those seen in patients with elevated CSFP. Having achieved that, I investigated various aspects of optic disc edema by ophthalmoscopy, stereoscopic color fundus photography and fluorescein fundus angiography, and light microscopic, electron microscopic, horseradish peroxidase and axoplasmic transport studies, and evaluated the effect of opening the sheath of the optic nerve on the optic disc edema. This latter study showed that opening the sheath resulted in resolution of optic disc edema on the side of the sheath fenestration, in spite of high intracranial CSFP, proving that a rise of CSFP in the sheath was the essential pre-requisite for the development of optic disc edema. I also investigated optic disc edema with raised CSFP in patients, by evaluating optic disc and fundus changes by stereoscopic fundus photography and fluorescein fundus angiography. Based on the combined information from all the studies discussed above, it is clear that the pathogenesis of optic disc edema in raised intracranial pressure is a mechanical phenomenon. It is primarily due to a rise of CSFP in the optic nerve sheath, which produces axoplasmic flow stasis in the optic nerve fibers in the surface nerve fiber layer and prelaminar region of the optic nerve head. Axoplasmic flow stasis then results in swelling of the nerve fibers, and consequently of the optic disc. Swelling of the nerve fibers and of the optic disc secondarily compresses the fine, low-pressure venules in that region, resulting in venous stasis and fluid leakage; that leads to the accumulation of extracellular fluid. Contrary to the previous theories, the various vascular changes seen in optic disc edema are secondary and not primary. Thus, optic disc edema in raised CSFP is due to a combination of swollen nerve fibers and the accumulation of extracellular fluid. My studies also provided information about the pathogeneses of visual disturbances in raised intracranial pressure.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users 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 233 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Israel 1 <1%
Unknown 232 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 23 10%
Other 18 8%
Researcher 18 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 6%
Student > Master 14 6%
Other 45 19%
Unknown 101 43%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 69 30%
Neuroscience 14 6%
Engineering 6 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 2%
Other 22 9%
Unknown 112 48%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 March 2023.
All research outputs
#3,996,552
of 33,931,414 outputs
Outputs from Progress in Retinal & Eye Research
#201
of 889 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,701
of 446,059 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Progress in Retinal & Eye Research
#1
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 33,931,414 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 889 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
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 446,059 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them