| Title |
Epidural Balloon Placement for Protection of the Spinal Canal During Cryoablation of Paraspinal Lesions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00270-017-1815-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jeffrey Forris Beecham Chick, Ravi N. Srinivasa, Evan Johnson, Matthew L. Osher, Anthony Hage, Joseph J. Gemmete |
| Abstract |
Ablation of paraspinal lesions close to the spinal canal and neuroforamina requires protective measures in order to protect the spinal cord and nerve roots. Various methods of protection have been previously described including infusion of saline and CO2. Regardless, neuromonitoring should be adjunctively performed when ablating spinal lesions close to neuronal structures. Balloon protection has been previously described during ablation of renal masses. The benefit of balloon protection in paraspinal mass ablation is it physically displaces the nerve roots as opposed to CO2 or saline which has the potential to insulate but because of its aerosolized or fluid nature may or may not provide definitive continuous protection throughout an ablation. This report details three paraspinal lesions, two of which were successfully ablated with the use of a balloon placed in the epidural space to provide protection to the spinal cord and nerve roots. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 17 | 74% |
| Canada | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 5 | 22% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 43% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 7 | 30% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 13% |
| Scientists | 2 | 9% |
| Unknown | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 16 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 4 | 25% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 6% |
| Researcher | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 13% |
| Unknown | 4 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 3 | 19% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 19% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 13% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 7 | 44% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 18 January 2019.
All research outputs
#2,388,900
of 25,494,370 outputs
Outputs from CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology
#76
of 2,734 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,375
of 338,472 outputs
Outputs of similar age from CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology
#4
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,494,370 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,734 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 338,472 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 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 94% of its contemporaries.