| Title |
RF Ablation of Giant Hemangiomas Inducing Acute Renal Failure: A Report of Two Cases
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00270-016-1415-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Aukje A. J. M. van Tilborg, Helena F. Dresselaars, Hester J. Scheffer, Karin Nielsen, Colin Sietses, Petrousjka M. van den Tol, Martijn R. Meijerink |
| Abstract |
In patients that require treatment for hepatic giant cavernous hemangiomas (GCH), radiofrequency ablation (RFA) has been suggested to represent a safe and effective alternative to invasive surgery. In a recent report of bipolar RFA, using two expandable needle electrodes, was uneventfully performed in patients with large GCH (>10 cm). The objective of this report is to present two cases in which bipolar RFA of symptomatic GCH was complicated by acute kidney injury. In 2015 we treated two patients for very large symptomatic GCH (15.7 and 25.0 cm) with bipolar RFA during open laparotomy. In both patients the urine showed a red-brown discoloration directly after the ablation. They became anuric and presented with progressive dyspnea, tachypnea, and tachycardia, requiring hemodialysis for a period of 1 month in one case. Lab results revealed hemepigment-induced acute kidney. Both patients fully recovered and both showed a complete relief of symptoms at 3 months following the procedure. RFA for large GCHs can cause hemepigment-induced acute kidney injury due to massive intravascular hemolysis. The presented cases suggest that caution is warranted and advocate an upper limit regarding the volume of GCHs that can be safely ablated. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Argentina | 1 | 11% |
| Spain | 1 | 11% |
| Greece | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 6 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 11% |
| Scientists | 1 | 11% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 14 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Professor | 3 | 21% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 14% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 14% |
| Other | 3 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 43% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 21% |
| Engineering | 2 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 7% |
| Psychology | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 1 | 7% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 20 October 2018.
All research outputs
#5,154,353
of 24,525,936 outputs
Outputs from CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology
#314
of 2,607 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,259
of 362,720 outputs
Outputs of similar age from CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology
#4
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,525,936 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,607 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 362,720 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.