| Title |
Control of inferior vena cava injury during laparoscopic surgery using a double balloon-equipped central venous catheter: proof of concept in a live porcine model
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Surgical Endoscopy, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00464-017-5938-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yukio Iwashita, Hiroki Uchida, Hiroomi Takayama, Michihiro Ichimanda, Katsuya Taniguchi, Hideki Kiguchi, Tetsumi Sakaguchi, Hajime Fujishima, Kunihiro Saga, Kazuhiro Tada, Takao Hara, Kiminori Watanabe, Teijiro Hirashita, Yuichi Endo, Masayuki Ohta, Masafumi Inomata |
| Abstract |
Iatrogenic inferior vena cava (IVC) injury is a rare but potentially life-threatening complication during laparoscopic surgery. This experimental study aimed to assess the hemostatic ability of a new device, double balloon-equipped central venous (DB-CV) catheter, for IVC injury. The DB-CV catheter comprises a triple-lumen sphincterotome combined with two dilating balloons having a diameter of 25 mm. The experimental procedures were performed in five pigs. The DB-CV catheter was inserted via the right femoral vein. For the IVC occlusion test, correct placement of the balloons was confirmed by indocyanine green fluorescence imaging, and hemodynamic data were recorded. For the IVC injury test, a 3- to 4-mm circumferential incision was created in IVC, and hemostasis was initiated using balloon inflation 5 s after the injury. Hemodynamic changes were minimal, with a 20 mmHg reduction in the mean arterial pressure because of IVC occlusion. All bleeding from IVC injuries was successfully temporarily stopped by direct balloon compression, with a mean time to hemostasis of 69 s and mean blood loss of 32 ml. Subsequently, the positioning of IVC injuries between two balloons made it possible to suture the injured IVC. Balloon occlusion using the DB-CV catheter provides a rapid temporal hemostatic effect and can overcome the serious condition of massive hemorrhage from IVC injuries. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 17% |
| Luxembourg | 1 | 17% |
| United States | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 83% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 9 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 44% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 3 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 33% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 5 | 56% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 April 2018.
All research outputs
#13,057,881
of 23,007,053 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#2,643
of 6,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,688
of 329,019 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#71
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,053 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,101 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 329,019 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.