↓ Skip to main content

The “Lund Concept” for the treatment of severe head trauma – physiological principles and clinical application

Overview of attention for article published in Intensive Care Medicine, August 2006
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
137 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
221 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
The “Lund Concept” for the treatment of severe head trauma – physiological principles and clinical application
Published in
Intensive Care Medicine, August 2006
DOI 10.1007/s00134-006-0294-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Per-Olof Grände

Abstract

The Lund Concept is an approach to the treatment of severe brain trauma that is mainly based on hypotheses originating from basic physiological principles regarding brain volume and cerebral perfusion regulation. Its main attributes have found support in experimental and clinical studies. This review explains the principles of the Lund Concept and is intended to serve as the current guide for its clinical application. The therapy has two main goals: (1) to reduce or prevent an increase in ICP (ICP-targeted goal) and (2) to improve perfusion and oxygenation around contusions (perfusion-targeted goal). The Lund therapy considers the consequences of a disrupted blood-brain barrier for development of brain oedema and the specific consequences of a rigid dura/cranium for general cerebral haemodynamics. It calls attention to the importance of improving perfusion and oxygenation of the injured areas of the brain. This is achieved by normal blood oxygenation, by maintaining normovolaemia with normal haematocrit and plasma protein concentrations, and by antagonizing vasoconstriction through reduction of catecholamine concentration in plasma and sympathetic discharge (minimizing stress and by refraining from vasoconstrictors and active cooling). The therapeutic measures mean normalization of all essential haemodynamic parameters (blood pressure, plasma oncotic pressure, plasma and erythrocyte volumes, PaO(2), PaCO(2)) the use of enteral nutrition, and avoidance of overnutrition. To date, clinical outcome studies using the Lund Concept have shown favourable results.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 221 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 6 3%
Brazil 5 2%
Spain 3 1%
Sweden 2 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 200 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 47 21%
Researcher 33 15%
Student > Postgraduate 29 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 11%
Student > Master 13 6%
Other 46 21%
Unknown 29 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 156 71%
Neuroscience 11 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 1%
Engineering 3 1%
Other 10 5%
Unknown 34 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 September 2021.
All research outputs
#14,718,998
of 23,567,572 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine
#3,932
of 5,105 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,930
of 66,335 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine
#22
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,567,572 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,105 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.3. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 66,335 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.