↓ Skip to main content

Intramedullary placement of ventricular shunts: a review of using bone as a distal cerebrospinal absorption site in treating hydrocephalus

Overview of attention for article published in Child's Nervous System, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
11 Mendeley
Title
Intramedullary placement of ventricular shunts: a review of using bone as a distal cerebrospinal absorption site in treating hydrocephalus
Published in
Child's Nervous System, August 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00381-017-3575-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mohammad W. Kassem, Joshua Chern, Marios Loukas, R. Shane Tubbs

Abstract

Intraosseous (IO) vascular access has been used since the Second World War and is warranted when there is an emergency and/or urgent need to replenish the vascular pool. Despite long-term and satisfactory results from delivering large quantities of intravenous fluid via the medullary space of bone, use of this space for a distant receptacle for cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) diversion has seldom been considered. The current paper reviews the literature regarding the bony medullary space as a receptacle for intravenous fluid and CSF. Previous authors have demonstrated the potential of the diploic space of the calvaria for CSF shunting. Pugh and colleagues tested the ability of the cranium to receive and absorb a small amount of tracer fluid. The literature suggests that intraosseous placement of ventricular diversionary shunts is an alternative to more traditional sites such as the pleural cavity and peritoneum. When these latter locations are not available or are contraindicated, placement in the medullary space of bone is another option available to the surgeon.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 27%
Other 2 18%
Student > Postgraduate 1 9%
Student > Bachelor 1 9%
Unknown 4 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 27%
Psychology 1 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 9%
Social Sciences 1 9%
Neuroscience 1 9%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 36%
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 26 September 2017.
All research outputs
#15,477,045
of 22,999,744 outputs
Outputs from Child's Nervous System
#1,044
of 2,794 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#199,102
of 317,355 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Child's Nervous System
#40
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,999,744 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,794 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 317,355 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.