↓ Skip to main content

Bilateral anomalous drainage of the posterior divisions of renal veins into the azygos venous system in a 20-year-old woman: a case report

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Case Reports, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
Title
Bilateral anomalous drainage of the posterior divisions of renal veins into the azygos venous system in a 20-year-old woman: a case report
Published in
Journal of Medical Case Reports, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13256-016-1134-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pedro Pallangyo, Frederick Lyimo, Paulina Nicholaus, Stephano Masatu, Mohamed Janabi

Abstract

Renal vein anomalies are relatively infrequent and generally asymptomatic. Preoperative knowledge of such variants is, however, of paramount importance in several angiographic and surgical procedures including renal venography, renal vein sampling, spermatic embolization, and renal transplantation. Inadequate knowledge and failure to recognize such anatomic variations may lead to several operative hazards including hemorrhage, nephrectomy, and even death. We report a case of bilateral anomalous drainage of the posterior divisions of renal veins into the azygos venous system in a 20-year-old woman of African descent from Tanzania who presented to us with a 12-year history of recurrent anemia. She had anemia, a positive sickling test, and hemoglobin electrophoresis revealed a sickle cell trait (AS). She underwent computed tomography angiography of her chest and abdomen to rule out the presence of arteriovenous malformations. Aortography findings were normal but venography results revealed features of tortuously dilated azygos and hemiazygos veins each receiving blood from its respective posterior division of renal vein. Although venous anomalies are relatively infrequent and generally lack a clinical significance, a thorough understanding of embryologic development and its associated errors is of immense importance in equipping angiographers and surgeons to select appropriate interventional/operative techniques, anticipate risks, and prevent intervention-related complications.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 21%
Student > Bachelor 4 17%
Researcher 2 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 8%
Professor 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 8 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 46%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 8 33%
Attention Score in Context

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 13 December 2016.
All research outputs
#18,487,595
of 22,908,162 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Case Reports
#2,267
of 3,934 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#304,602
of 416,052 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Case Reports
#49
of 105 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,908,162 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,934 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 416,052 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 105 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.